Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring to the floor legislation that I introduced almost a year ago to respond to the diabolical terrorist attacks of September 11 and the anthrax attacks that followed. The legislation, H.R. 3253, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act of 2002, provides the Federal Government with another tool to prevent or, if necessary, respond to future acts of terrorism against the United States. This legislation is designed to mobilize the underappreciated strength of the VA health care infrastructure in defending our Nation against future acts of 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 research programs. The VA health care system must, Madam Speaker, be an integral component of any homeland security strategy. In fact, the VA already does have defined roles in both the National Disaster Medical System and the Federal Response Plan in the event of national emergencies. Among the VA's current specialized duties are, one, conducting and evaluating disaster and terrorist attack simulation exercises; second, managing the Nation's stockpile of drugs to counter the effects of chemical and biological poisons; third, maintaining a rapid response team for radioactive releases; and, fourth, 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 in the VA's health care research programs as a defensive tool in the war on terrorism. Madam Speaker, I know from my own experience with the anthrax attacks last October, which hit my own district and hit it hard in central New Jersey in Hamilton Township, putting thousands of dedicated postal workers and the public as well at risk, that we need to move very quickly, develop new tests and new treatments for anthrax and scores of other biological and dangerous chemical agents and radiological weapons that might be employed 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 treat victims. The confusion that emanated, the fog, if my colleagues will, that followed the discovery of anthrax made a bad situation even worse. I saw it over and over again, well-intentioned experts from the departments of health, State and Federal, CDC and the like were flying by the seat of their collective pants. Far too many pertinent questions were not answered and were not answered with scientific or any kind of precision. It was during that crisis, frankly, that I thought that we needed to develop a new policy that would establish protocols which would try to deal with the details before the unthinkable, which now had become thinkable, actually happened; and that was the genesis of this legislation. H.R. 3253, we believe, will marshal some of our Nation's best and brightest scientists in a focused effort to develop new protocols for testing, vaccinating, and treating our citizens who may be victims of biological, chemical, or radiological terrorism. Madam Speaker, the House previously approved H.R. 3253, as amended, on May 20. I am very grateful that the Senate passed an amended bill on August 1. The bill before us today represents the compromise language agreed to after discussions and negotiations between the House and the Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs. As amended, H.R. 3253 will authorize the 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, and radiological or 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, EMTs; and firefighters and police officers, who must be the 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 officials 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 others receiving VA care in declared domestic emergencies. Reimbursements collected for the cost of care, whether coming from FEMA, the Department of Defense, or an insurance company, would be credited to the VA's Medical Care Collections Fund, the same as in other VA collection efforts. In addition, a new Assistant Secretary for preparedness security and law enforcement would be established at the VA. Finally, Madam Speaker, the compromise bill would codify in title 38 of the U.S. 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. Madam Speaker, as we pass the 1-year anniversary of 9-11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, we are all thankful that no additional acts of terror have been carried out against the United States. However, there can be no doubt that serious dangers and threats remain. Our government must remain vigilant in defending and protecting our citizens from every threat, of any kind, and H.R. 3253 is another step towards homeland security. I urge all Members to support this legislation. The House amendment to the Senate amendments to H.R. 3253 reflects a Compromise Agreement that the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have reached on H.R. 3253 and S. 2132. H.R. 3253 (hereinafter known as the ``House bill'') passed the House on May 20, 2002. The Senate considered S. 2132 (hereinafter known as the ``Senate bill'') on August 1, 2002. This measure was incorporated in H.R. 3253 as an amendment and passed the Senate by unanimous consent on August 1, 2002. The House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have prepared the following explanations of H.R. 3253, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the ``Compromise Agreement''). Differences between the preparedness provisions contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related provisions of H.R. 3253 and S. 2132 are noted in this document, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes made necessary by the Compromise Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and clarifying changes. short title Current Law--Public Law 105-368, the ``Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998,'' charged Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to investigate potential long-term health effects of biological and chemical warfare agents. Under current law, the VA does not possess specific authority to establish centers dedicated to research, education, and training activities related to managing the health consequences of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. House Bill--Section 1 of H.R. 3253 provides that the short title of the bill is the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Research, Education, and Bio-Terrorism Prevention Act of 2002''. Senate Bill--Section 1 of S. 2132 provides that the short title of the bill is the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act of 2002''. Compromise Agreement--Section 1 of the Compromise Agreement would adopt the Senate language. establishment of medical emergency preparedness research centers at department of veterans affairs medical centers Current Law--No provision. House Bill--Section 2(a) of H.R. 3253 would amend Chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, by establishing a new section 7325. Subsection (a) of section 7325 of title 38, United States Code, would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish at least four national medical emergency preparedness centers at existing VA medical centers, to be staffed with department employees. The Under Secretary for Health, in consultation with the assistant secretary for operations, preparedness, and security, would be responsible for supervising and evaluating the operation of these centers. Proposed section 7325(b) of title 38, United States Code, would define the centers' three-fold mission as follows: (1) to a conduct research and development into ``detection, diagnosis, vaccination, protection, and treatment for chemical, biological and radiological threats;'' (2) to provide education, training, and expert advice to department and community health-care practitioners; and (3) to provide ``contingent rapid response laboratory assistance'' to local health-care authorities during national emergencies. The House bill would specify that at least one center concentrate solely on biological threats, one on chemical threats, and one on radiological threats to public health and safety. Proposed section 7325(c) of title 38, United States Code, would define qualifications for center directors, and section 7325(d) would direct the Secretary to designate sites through a competitive selection process. Proposed section 7325(g) would establish a consulting peer-review panel, including experts in relevant fields, to assist the Under Secretary for Health in evaluating the scientific and clinical merits to proposals and offering recommendations concerning site designations for the four centers. Paragraph 2 of proposed section 7325(d) of title 38, United States Code, would require that a candidate site demonstrate the ability to attract qualified scientists; develop arrangements with at least one accredited, affiliated school of medicine and school of public health; be affiliated with a graduate program in epidemiology; and offer training and education programs for nursing, social work, counseling, and/ or other allied health personnel. Subsection (e) of the proposed section 7325 of title 38, United States Code, would authorize to be appropriated $20 million for each of fiscal years 2003-2007, and would authorize the Under Secretary for Health to expend Medical Care funds as appropriate for the support of such centers, in coordination with the assistant secretary with responsibility for operations, preparedness, and security. Subsection (f) of the proposed section 7325 would authorize each center to seek other public or private research funds to fulfill its research mission. Proposed section 7325(h) of title 38, United States Code, would require that VA make the centers' findings available to health-care providers in the United States through publications and medical education programs, and that research programs be coordinated and shared with other Federal departments and agencies. The House bill would authorize the Department to assist Federal, State, and local civil and criminal authorities upon request to deal with biological, chemical, or radiological threats. Proposed subsection (j) of section 7325 would authorize details on a non-reimbursable basis of other Federal employees to assist the centers in accomplishing center missions. Senate Bill--Section 101 in the Senate bill would add section 7320A to title 38, United States Code. Proposed section 7320A in the Senate bill would establish four centers to carry out research on ``the detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of injuries, diseases, and illnesses arising from the use of chemical, biological, radiological, or incendiary or other explosive weapons or devices.'' This section would require that centers provide education and training to VA health-care professionals, and to non-VA professionals at the direction of the Secretary through the National Disaster Medical System (hereinafter ``NDMS'') or other interagency agreements. This section would also authorize the Secretary to provide appropriate ``laboratory, epidemiological, medical, or other assistance'' to Federal, State, and local health-care agencies and personnel involved in or responding to a national emergency. The Senate bill would not assign specific areas of research to single centers. The Senate bill would require that the Secretary designate centers after peer review of competitive proposals submitted by existing qualified VA medical centers. The Senate bill would require the same qualifications as the House bill, but would require geographic dispersal ``to the maximum extent practicable.'' The Senate bill would require the offices responsible for directing research and medical emergency preparedness to administer the centers. This section would require those offices to work in close coordination with the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, the Office of Homeland Security, and other agencies, interagency working groups, or committees charged with coordinating Federal research into the response to casualties caused by terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. Subsection (e) of proposed section 7320A would require that centers be staffed by VA employees or employees detailed from other Federal agencies, on a non-reimbursable basis. Proposed section (f) section 7320A would authorize the Secretary to provide assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies engaged in investigations or inquiries to protect against threats posed by terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. Proposed section 7320A(g) would authorize the centers to seek grants from outside sources, and would authorize to be appropriated $20 million for each of fiscal years 2003-2007. Compromise Agreement--The Compromise Agreement would incorporate the Senate provisions in proposed section 7325 of title 38, United States Code, authorizing a total of four medical emergency preparedness centers, dispersed geographically to the maximum extent practicable. The Committees intend for VA to select sites based upon the strength of existing resources and scientific merit of the proposals; although regional distribution of these centers would be encouraged, predicted research productivity should be paramount in designating sites. The proposed section 7325(a) of title 38, United States Code, would follow the House bill assigning responsibility for operation and supervision of the centers to the Under Secretary for Health, in consultation with the assistant secretary with responsibility for operations, preparedness, security, and law enforcement. The Compromise Agreement would not include House language defining qualifications for center directors. The centers would be situated organizationally within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and would report to the Under Secretary for Health. Nevertheless, the research products and educational tools arising from the work of the centers would link directly to the mission and function that the compromise Agreement would assign to the assistant secretary responsible for operations, preparedness, security and law enforcement. Thus, there would be a clearly defined line of accountability and coordination among the centers and the responsible departmental officials. This need is clearly acknowledged in the Compromise Agreement by the requirement to link the Under Secretary's decisions with regard to the operations of the centers to the work of the assistant secretary. Proposed section 7325(b)(1) of title 38, United States Code, in the Compromise Agreement would follow the Senate language by substituting ``prevention'' for ``vaccination and protection,'' and adding to the list of potential threats incendiary and other explosive sources. The Committees agree that contingency planning would include an all-hazards approach and acknowledge that strategies for mass casualty management overlap, irrespective of the particular nature of a terrorist attack or source of other mass-casualty disaster. The Compromise Agreement would not require individual centers to be dedicated to specific fields of study. Nevertheless, the Compromise Agreement would allow the Department to pursue multiple approaches to the medical management of mass casualties. In exercising the authority, the Department could designate any, some, or none of the centers as lead agent for developing subject matter expertise in a particular focused research area dealing with bioterrorism. Proposed section 7325(b)(2) of title 38, United States Code, would require centers to provide education, training, and advice to health-care professionals within VHA as proposed in both bills, but would follow the Senate language to specify that such training be provided to outside professionals and practitioners through the NDMS as authorized by Public Law 107-188, the ``Public Health Security and bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,'' or through specific interagency agreements executed for the purpose. The committees intend that VA take steps to ensure that potentially valuable research findings and educational developments in medical emergency preparedness be translated from the centers into clinical practice as quickly as practicable, but that VA accomplish this task through channels established as part of VA's role in existing federal response partnerships and the evolving U.S. national homeland security policy. Proposed section 7325(b)(3) of title 38, United States Code, would adapt language from both bills authorizing centers to provide such laboratory, epidemiological, medical, or other assistance as the Secretary considers appropriate to Federal, State, and local health-care agencies and personnel in the event of a disaster or emergency. Proposed section 7325(c) of title 38, United States Code, would direct the Secretary to select sites for centers as delineated in language shared by both bills, following the House language that would require proposals for the designation of centers be coordinated between the United Secretary for Health and the assistant secretary for operations, preparedness, and security, and be subject to a scientific peer-review process. The Compromise Agreement would follow House language describing the composition of the peer-review panel, but would replace the term ``bio-hazards management education and training'' with the term ``infectious diseases,'' in describing the types of expertise called for in such peer-review panel participation. The Compromise Agreement would also follow House language requiring that to be qualified, centers would need to develop an arrangement under which nursing, social work, counseling, or allied health personnel would receive training and education from the centers, in addition to other provisions shared by both bills. Sections 7325(d) and (e) of title 38, United States Code, would adopt the House language on research activities and dissemination of research products. Section 7325(f) would follow the Senate language requiring that research be coordinated with departments, agencies, and working groups charged with coordinating Federal research into responses to weapons of mass destruction. Proposed section 7325(i) of title 38, United States Code, in the Compromise Agreement, would follow House language on the authorization of appropriations to support the efforts of these centers. education and training programs on medical responses to consequences of terrorist activities House bill--Section 3(a) of the House bill would amend chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, by adding a new section 7326. Section 7326(a), of title 38, United States Code, would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop and disseminate programs to educate and train health-care professionals to respond to the consequences of terrorist activities. Proposed section 7326(b), of title 38, United States Code, would designate the Under Secretary for Health, in consultation with the assistance secretary responsible for operations, preparedness and security, as the implementing officials or entity. Under section 7326(c), of title 38, United States Code, the education and training programs currently established at the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences would provide baseline national curriculum and clinical protocols for training health-care professionals. Section 7326(d), of title 38, United States Code, would require the education and training programs to cover the needs of health-care professionals at every level of learning and in a variety of fields. Under section 7326(e), of title 38, United States Code, the Secretary would be required to consult with the accrediting, certifying and coordinating bodies representing the various fields of health professions' education. Section 3(b), of the House bill would require the Secretaries to implement this section within 90 days of enactment. Senate bill--The Senate bill contains no comparable provisions. Compromise Agreement--Section 3 of the Compromise Agreement would follow the House language with one amendment requiring that programs be designed for health-care professionals ``in Department medical centers.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Roger R. Rapp, who on October 3, 2002, will be retiring after serving 30 years at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Roger personifies the steadfast career civil servant. He began his federal career at the Veterans Health Administration in 1972, advancing through various positions which included field assignments at VA medical centers in Dayton, Ohio, and Washington, DC. Ultimately, Roger moved to the National Cemetery Administration (NCA), where he served as the director of the National Cemetery Area Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 1987, Roger was named Director of Field Operations for the NCA. In March of 2000, his title was changed to that which it is today, Deputy Under Secretary for Operations. As the one responsible for operations and construction at NCA, Roger has personally visited each of the 120 VA National Cemeteries. Roger's dedication to veterans and their families is apparent to all who know him, and he truly is a man with a vision. He has been a leading voice in ensuring the expansion of existing cemeteries, development of new national cemeteries, and expanding the State Cemetery Grants Program. Through his leadership, the number of national cemeteries increased from 103 in 1973 when NCA was formed, to the current 120; five new national cemeteries are currently in the planning stages. It is said that Roger knows the majority of NCA employees nationwide on a first name basis, and he has devoted his career to helping all VA employees take pride in their jobs and focus on the needs of veterans. Owing to his leadership, NCA scored 93 percent on the American Customer Satisfaction Index, the highest score of any federal government entity. Roger was also instrumental in establishing the Director Training Programs to provide upward mobility and career advancement for VA employees throughout the system. Additionally, he's contributed significantly over the years to Leadership VA, the agency's executive development program. Mr. Speaker, Roger Rapp is an advocate for veterans and has dedicated 30 years to this advocacy--20 years with the National Cemetery Administration alone. And when the situation called for it, he has done so with humor and selflessness. Indeed, Roger was a lucid and forthright witness when testifying before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thank you, Roger, for your dedication to America's veterans. You are leaving, a lasting legacy of dedicated federal service.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 513) recognizing the historical significance and timeliness of the United States-Ireland Business Summit, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today we bring before the House H. Res. 513, recognizing the historical significance and timeliness of the United States-Ireland Business Summit which took place last week. This groundbreaking economic forum, strongly supported by the Bush administration, brought together more than 400 key government officials and successful CEOs from the United States, Ireland and Northern Ireland to build upon the strong business relations existing between our nations, and to foster an even greater economic climate that will enable a just and lasting peace to take hold in Northern Ireland. We know that for so much of its history Ireland's economic progress was tragically inhibited by British economic rule. In fact, it was pure economic conditions in Ireland that prompted millions of Irish to emigrate to the United States. The Irish who came to America helped build the infrastructure of our great Nation; they helped boost our young, industrial economy; and they played historic roles in the growth of our democracy. Today there are at least 44 million Americans who trace their ancestry to Ireland. Irish Americans have leading roles in government, business and academia. A year ago this week, we again witnessed the strengths and unselfishness of many Irish American heroes who gave their lives as New York's firemen and policemen at the World Trade Center on September 11. The U.S.-Irish Business Summit, convened last week here in Washington, marked a new chapter in our Nation's great friendship with the people of Ireland, both north and south. The 3-day forum promoted new venues for shared prosperity and new business partnerships especially in the areas of financial services, communications fields and biotech. Next to human rights, economic progress in Ireland, especially in the north, is crucial to a just and sustainable peace. We know when prosperity abounds, strife and turmoil are often quelled. Increased economic investment in Northern Ireland is especially important now that we have worked to cement the peace and usher in the new human rights protections envisioned by the Good Friday Agreement. Despite strong support from the governments in the region, the U.S. Government, and most of the people in Northern Ireland itself, much more needs to be done to achieve a full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The United States has known for some time that economic prosperity, so long as it is complemented by real protections in human rights, can be a key to peace. And we have put our money where our mouth is over these many years. Since 1986, the United States has contributed more than $320 million to the International Fund for Ireland, a joint British-Irish government program designed to help create jobs. The Fund has had a tremendous impact, especially in the north and the border communities where economic development and cross-community cooperation have been needed the most. The private sector can join and build upon our government's investment in peace in Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that the U.S.- Ireland Business Summit will provide added momentum to the success of the International Fund for Ireland. Added private investment will mean that more people have jobs. It will ensure that more people, regardless of their political or religious affiliation, can have access to job creation and a greater quality of life. Madam Speaker, I note that the manager's amendment to this resolution contains some minor technical and grammatical changes to reflect that the U.S.-Irish Business Summit occurred last week. I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a prime sponsor of this, for his tremendous leadership in the area not just of the summit, but in Irish affairs in general. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman emeritus of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of America's 25 million veterans, I am introducing H.R. 5250, the Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act of 2002, along with my friend and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Evans, that would change funding of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system from discretionary to mandatory spending. We are introducing this bill in recognition of the continually frustrating annual struggles to obtain sufficient funding to provide access to quality care for the nation's veterans in VA health care facilities. The current discretionary appropriations process subjects these veterans' health care needs--needs of the heroes who won the Battle of the Bulge, endured as prisoners of war in Bataan and Corregidor and survived human-wave assaults in the frozen Chosin Reservoir--to annual health funding competition with federal highway funding and sewage treatment projects. This reality alone vividly illustrates the inherent weakness in the discretionary appropriations process for VA health care and the need to reform it. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, we passed TRICARE for Life, a new program to guarantee lifelong health care for military retirees and their families. I was proud to support that program for hundreds of thousands of military families, who are now assured of free health care services sponsored entirely by the government. The bill we are introducing today would extend the same kind of guarantee to the remainder of America's veterans, to assure their continued access to the VA health care system. H.R. 5250 would establish a formula to fund the VA health care account directly from the U.S. Treasury with a method similar to that used by Congress to provide funding for TRICARE for Life. Veterans' disability compensation payments are already funded through mandatory formulas, and our legislation would apply the same priority to meeting the health care needs of our veterans. The bill we are introducing today would establish a base funding year, calculate the average cost for a veteran using VA health care, and then index the cost for inflation. Multiplying this average cost by the number of veterans who are enrolled each year on July 1st, would determine the funding allotment for the Veterans Health Administration for the next fiscal year. It should be noted that H.R. 5250 would neither take away the Secretary's power to manage the VA health care system nor to curtail the Secretary's control of enrollments in VA. And unlike TRICARE for Life, it would not extend benefits to family members of veterans. Mr. Speaker, for at least the past five years, veterans' usage of VA health care services surpassed Administration estimates. Just this past week, we received a revised workload estimate for FY 2003 from VA showing an increase of 500,000 veteran patients; and that's on top of the 700,000 increase in patients estimated in the budget submission made only five months ago. VA now estimates that there will be 4.9 million unique veteran patients in FY 2003, versus the 3.7 million veterans that had been projected one year ago for FY 2002--a 31.5- percent increase overall. Mr. Speaker, the continuing rise in demand for VA health care services is driven by many factors, including the growth of new and convenient VA community-based outpatient clinics, improved safety and quality of care, as well as available prescription drug benefits. VA has increasingly become a supplier of prescription drugs to veterans, particularly for senior veterans. Further evidence of the urgent funding needs of VA health care comes from a new report issued this month by VA measuring the amount of time veterans are waiting for medical services. According to VA's report, there are at least 300,000 veterans waiting for medical appointments, half of whom are waiting 6 months or more; and the other half having no appointment at all. This is the first attempt to measure a situation about which we have all heard from our constituents, and we suspect that the scale of the problem is actually greater, since this estimate only counts those veterans already enrolled in the VA health care system. Mr. Speaker, we have a sacred obligation to ensure that our nation's veterans receive the honors and benefits that they have earned through their service to this nation. In the past decade, more and more veterans have turned to the Department of Veterans Affairs for medical services, particularly World War II and Korean War veterans. We have attempted to meet our obligation to them by passing record VA budgets for two years in a row. As our colleagues may recall, the House- approved budget resolution for fiscal year 2003 contained a substantial $2.6 billion increase in the funding of medical care for our nation's veterans. However, the demand for services continues to outpace the supply of federal funding of VA health care. In the supplemental appropriations bill we passed, Congress included $417 million for additional health care funding to try to meet the current year's shortfall, and that was based upon the older workload estimates. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that Congress needs to look at new methods and sources for veterans' health care funding, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has been seeking additional ways to match resources to the growing demand. Working with the Committee on Armed Services, we attached an amendment to the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bill that would seek to increase health care resources sharing between the DOD and VA health care systems, and we hope it will see final passage this year. Also we have sought to increase third-party collections through the VA Medical Care Collections Fund with more aggressive oversight and legislative improvements. In addition, earlier this month the Committee examined ways to improve coordination and allocation of resources between Medicare and VA, since about half of the veterans receiving VA health services are also Medicare-eligible. Yet, despite all of these efforts, VA continues to struggle each year to provide all the funds needed for the tasks it faces in caring for millions of frail, elderly veterans. Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of H.R. 5250 we hope to begin an important debate on the future of veterans' health care and its funding needs. We will shortly request Administration views on the bill, and cost information from the Congressional Budget Office. We intend to meet with colleagues on both the Committees on the Budget and on Appropriations to obtain their views; and it goes without saying that we will be consulting with veterans organizations in the months ahead in order to learn whether this approach or a combination of other changes will solve this vexing problem confronting America's veterans and the health care system serving them. We urge all our colleagues to examine H.R. 5250 and work with us to find a means to provide dependable, stable and sustained funding for the health care needs of veterans of our armed forces. They deserve no less from a grateful nation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Abe Rosenthal, the New York Times journalist who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom earlier this month for his consistently insightful comments on human rights, and his outspoken defense of persecuted Christians and Jews throughout the world. Many observers of foreign affairs have difficulty believing that Christians in the modern era have been, and continue to be, persecuted on a wide-scale basis throughout the world. Rosenthal's articulate and passionate writings helped bring much-needed awareness to their plight. In 1997 alone, he wrote over 20 stories about persecuted Christians, detailing the plight of Christians in a wide variety of regions, including China, the Sudan, and Pakistan. The awareness he raised about people of many different faiths who suffer religious persecution helped win passage of the historic ``International Religious Freedom Act of 1998'' which established the United States Commission on International Religious freedom, and laid out a framework for denying foreign assistance to egregious violators of religious freedom. I was very proud to have had a direct hand in writing portions of that legislation. I personally chaired several hearings on religious persecution around the world, and my committee covered the persecution of every faith. We took testimony from Muslim Uighurs, who are persecuted by Communist China; the world-wide problem of Anti-Semitism; as well as persecution against Christians. The creation of the Commission and the office of the Special Ambassador, as well as the institution of the annual Religious Freedom Reports, were among a number of measures provided by Congressman Frank Wolf s landmark legislation on international religious freedom, which my committee--the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights--marked up in 1997, and enacted by Congress in 1998. All these measures represented important steps toward helping millions of people around the world who are persecuted simply because they are people of faith. But the Reports themselves clearly demonstrate that we need to do more. Some find it odd that a man who has become such a great champion for persecuted Christians is himself Jewish. But this is not really so unusual when you look beneath the surface. When Rosenthal learned that Christians suffered for their faith, while most in the world have turned a blind eye, he felt compelled to act. The Jewish community has a special sensitivity to religious persecution, because when it happens, it almost always hits their community first. ``Never again'' has a special meaning to a community that was almost exterminated while the rest of the world looked on and watched. Rosenthal's passionate and steadfast desire to speak out for basic human dignity was formulated in a profound way because of a brutal murder that occurred in 1964 in Queens early in his career with the New York Times. In that year, a woman named Catherine Genovese was brutally murdered in her own neighborhood. Although approximately 38 of her neighbors heard her cries for help, not one person responded as she was stabbed over 30 times. The incident caused Rosenthal to question our responsibility to speak out against injustice, not just for a neighbor suffering in our midst, but for all those who suffer injustice and persecution throughout the world. ``I am not going to be one of the 38,'' he said--one of those who failed to speak out or act. I am proud to say that Mr. Rosenthal has remained true to his promise. He has consistently spoken out on behalf of those suffering for their faith. He has acted boldly not only through moving readers and inspiring persecuted Christians all over the globe, but also by challenging leaders of government who would rather not be bothered by the sufferings of the oppressed, and business leaders bent on a drive for profits above all else. He has moved many to show a concern for basic human rights and re-evaluate their priorities. Mr. Rosenthal, you have acted, speaking out on behalf of so many, and you have called so many others, including us here in this Congress to do the same. For this, you deserve our thanks and praise.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, just let me conclude, I hope that this language in this amendment grows, is expanded upon, and is more inclusive as it relates to other agencies of government. For purposes of germaneness, it had to be narrow, but this is a good place holder and a good first step.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a friendly amendment that I offer to the Roemer amendment. It modifies the makeup of the blue ribbon commission to ensure that at least two members of the commission are family members of those who lost their lives because of the murderous attacks on September 11. This idea came out of meetings that I had and my staff had with specific widows, Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband Ronald, Patty Casazza, who lost her husband John, Mindi Kleinberg, who lost her husband Alan, and Lorie Van Auken, who lost her husband Kenneth. They have asked, as have other family members, to be included, to be a part of this investigation. Why wait until conference, or some later time that may or may not materialize. The families should be included right at the passage of this legislation. They are part of this and should not be left on the outside. They feel, frankly, after numerous meetings, that they have been neglected, that their concerns have not been adequately addressed. That is why I am offering this amendment. I support the Roemer amendment. As a matter of fact, I just testified before the Committee on Rules asking that the more expansive version that he has proposed to be made part of the Homeland Security Act. I would say to my colleagues, I chaired the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for 6 years. We did the Embassy Security Act. I was a prime sponsor of the bill, a $6 billion authorization to try to beef up our embassies. That came out of the specific recommendations that Admiral Crowe made as part of the Accountability Review Board that met after the two terrible bombings of our embassies in Africa. What we found was there were all kinds of mistakes that were made, ones that should have been anticipated, some that had been anticipated by Admiral Inman, many, many years before that, but had not been acted upon. A blue ribbon commission, I would respectfully suggest, will give us the opportunity to bring it all together. I was just in Berlin heading up the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly there with many Members on both sides of the aisle. I met with one of our consulars who worked in Bangladesh. He told me that 31 people had come to our consulars in Bangladesh and had requested visas for flight training. They wanted to come to the United States to learn how to fly. That was in 1999. We do not know who they are. Those records were done away with 2 years later, because of the statute of limitations on retaining those records. They may have been the very same people who found their way into this country and ended up doing the terrible deeds they did on 9/11. This is a good amendment. Still I do not think it goes far enough. I would disagree with the gentlewoman from California about narrowing the scope. We need to expand it. We need to investigate other law enforcement agencies, the FAA, INS and all of the others. Then we could come up with a very, very comprehensive set of recommendations so there is a lesson learned. Let me also tell my colleagues the anthrax problem hit my district, in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. Hamilton was shut down and is still shut down. I am amazed how much we still have not done in follow-up to what happened as a result of the anthrax. I sat in on those meetings. The left hand did not know what the right hand was doing time and again. Very, very competent people, but, again, the left hand very often was unaware of what the right hand was doing, whether it be CDC, NIH, or other agencies of government. This is a good amendment. I hope you will back it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, a society can be measured by how well--or poorly--it treats the most vulnerable in its midst, and partial-birth abortion, like all abortions, is a horrific violence against women and violence against vulnerable little boys and girls. Mr. Speaker, 30 years after Roe v. Wade, I believe it is time for a serious reality check and a compassion check. Mr. Speaker, abortion on demand has claimed the lives of more than 42 million children and although grossly underreported, has resulted in death, injury and emotional trauma to women. Forty-two million babies have disappeared off the face of the earth--slaughtered by abortion. Look at it this way. Yankee Stadium holds about 57,500 people. If we filled Yankee Stadium to capacity with children slated for execution, we would fill that stadium every day for 730 days. Perhaps this to give us some idea of the magnitude of the loss of life--42 million dead. It is of genocidal proportions. Abortion methods, Mr. Speaker, are violence against children. Abortion methods dismember and chemically poison children. There is absolutely nothing compassionate or benign about dousing a baby with superconcentrated salt solutions or lethal injections or hacking them to pieces with surgical knives, and there is absolutely nothing compassionate or caring about sucking a baby's brains out with partial- birth abortion. It is child abuse. Today, Mr. Speaker, because of the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and because of the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Chabot) human rights legislation and their courage in proposing it, we can stop some of this violence. Today, Mr. Speaker, we inform America that a partial-birth abortion is gruesome and includes pulling a living baby feet first out of the womb and into the birth canal, except for the head, and it is there the abortionist jams the baby's head with the scissors for the purposes of creating a hole in the back of the head. Then that baby has his or her brains sucked out with a high powered vacuum. Why is that deed--that act, compassionate? I say to my colleagues, and you can snicker and laugh all you want. It is violence against children. It is violence and you my colleagues are sanctioning it, and only because of this legislation do we have an opportunity to save at least some of these children from this terrible, horrific ``procedure.'' Mr. Speaker, in 1998 a 6-pound baby girl known as Baby Phoenix was born with a skull fracture and lacerations on her face after the abortionist, Dr. John Biskind, unsuccessfully attempted to perform a partial birth abortion on her 17-year-old mother. Baby Phoenix survived that murder attempt. There was a lot of controversy abut that abortion and do my colleagues know what the controversy was about? That the abortionist miscalculated the baby's age rather than the horrific, horrible violence that was visited upon that baby. That baby survives but carries those scars. Let us be reminded of Baby Phoenix--the lucky one who survived--and all those others who did not. This is human rights legislation. I have been in Congress 22 years. I do a lot to combat torture. I chair the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe. I have written two torture victims relief bills and many other human rights pieces of legislation including a historic antitrafficking law. Partial birth abortion is torture--torture of little baby boys and little baby girls, and I am ashamed of my colleagues who stand up here and call efforts to stop it, an insult to women. This procedure is an insult and infinitely more to boys and girls who are killed in the womb or partially born. It is an insult and more to the mothers who are the co-victims. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and against the motion to recommit.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to reiterate to my colleagues that in a letter dated July 11, 2002, Secretary of State, Colin Powell; and Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury, have made it very clear that, and I quote them. ``We are writing to reiterate the administration's strong opposition to any legislative efforts that weaken the United States' current Cuba policy by permitting U.S. citizens to finance the Cuban purchase of American agriculture commodities or by changing the restrictions on travel.'' They would recommend a veto if the legislation reaches his desk with those changes. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Moran amendment. I certainly respect my good friend and colleague, but I urge a ``no'' vote, nevertheless.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we debate this amendment, it is imperative we focus and base our arguments on the facts and the reality of trading with the terrorist regime just 90 miles off the U.S. shores. Not only is the Castro regime a tyrannical one and one of the worst violators of the world, not only does the dictatorship use slave labor, not only does it force children to work in the farming sector as stated in the State Department human rights report, it has also proven to be an unworthy economic partner. Here are the facts which clearly show that Cuba is not, nor will it ever be, a panacea for American farmers and investors so long as the current regime is in place. In fact, number one, the Euromoney Country Risk Rating lists Cuba as one of the top five riskiest countries to invest in out of the 185 that they surveyed. Fact: Cuba is rated by Dunn and Bradstreet as one of the riskiest economies in the world. Fact: The Wall Street Journal's Index of Economic Freedom ranks Cuba as the most risky investment and as having the least free economy of the 156 countries surveyed. Fact: Cuba is already in default on $8.2 billion of its $11 billion debt. In April of this year, Mr. Chairman, three Chilean fish exporters stopped shipments to Cuba after Cuba failed to make an installment payment of $3.7 million on the $20 million deal. Also in April of this year, a South African company stopped shipments of its diesel engines to Cuba after the dictatorship failed to make the required payments on a 1997 contract. Even Venezuela has stopped oil shipments to Cuba because Cuba has accrued with them a $63 million debt, missing payment after payment on below-market sales of petroleum. It is imperative, Mr. Chairman, to maintain the precautions and the safeguards currently in place as part of U.S.-Cuba policy. The protection, Mr. Chairman, afforded by existing U.S. restrictions on trade with the Castro regime is a reality reaffirmed by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The ITC stated in its report that, existing U.S. laws, because they prohibit U.S. financial institutions' dealings with Cuba, ensured that there was no U.S. exposure to Cuba's foreign debt moratorium. The ITC report added that extending credits and financing to a bankrupt Castro regime would expose taxpayers to footing the bill once Cuba defaulted on its payments. We certainly do not want that. We as Members of Congress, Mr. Chairman, elected to represent and defend the interests of our constituents, cannot and must not support an amendment which would essentially force the American taxpayer to absorb such losses. And there is already cause for U.S. concern. Under the compromise language in the Trade Sanctions Reform Act, ag sales to Cuba have occurred. Yet despite repeated congressional inquiries, there has not been an independent or Government confirmation that payments have been received from Cuba. Before we support the unrestricted and unsupervised sales called for in the Moran amendment, would my colleagues not agree that it would be prudent to examine whether current regulations are being fully complied with? We should also pause, look to the experiences of others and learn from them in order to protect the American people. For example, the European Union recently wrote a 15-page letter of complaint to Cuba's so-called finance minister, Carlos Lage, citing the discriminatory and uncertain trading environment of the Castro regime. Do we want to subject American investors to loss of contracts, confiscation of machinery, equipment and financial investments or even jail time? This is not an exaggeration. These are well-documented tactics employed by the Castro regime to retaliate against investors who voice dissatisfaction with the dictatorship's policies. Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' Thus to prevent the victimization of our farmers and investors at the hands of Castro's erratic and failed economic policies, we must uphold existing U.S. law. I ask my colleagues to champion the cause of hard-working Americans throughout this great Nation and prevent their from being used as experimental subjects to test Cuba's debt-filled waters. I ask for a no on the Moran amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time. How much time remains?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first, so the record is clear, Paul O'Neill, the Secretary of the Treasury, has cosigned a letter with Secretary Colin Powell to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) saying that we would recommend that the President veto such legislation if it reaches his desk with the Flake amendment or any language that weakens current policy. So let us be very clear about that. Let me also point out to my colleagues that travel to Cuba by Americans is permitted, providing it is with a purpose. There are 13 broad categories for which travel may be authorized. Something on the order of 200,000 people visited Cuba last year, so travel does take place, but it has to have a purpose. There is a dark side to Cuba travel as well. Some of my colleagues think the travel is a panacea if we just have unfettered travel, somehow human rights abuses will be ameliorated and we will see some changes. That has not happened with the Canadians, with Europeans and others who routinely go to Cuba. There has been no mitigation of the human rights abuse. It has gotten worse in Cuba over this last several years. It is Pollyannaish, I would say to my colleagues who think otherwise. There is also another dark side. The Protection Project just recently came out with a report again about human trafficking and sexual exploitation. I am the prime sponsor of landmark human trafficking law, and we have seen an increase in sexual tourism in Cuba. Here is what the Protection Project says. Canadian sex tourism is largely responsible for the revival of child prostitution. So there is a dark side to this seeming panacea of travel. Let me also point out to my colleagues that Cuba continues to share the dubious distinction of being named a terrorist state by the Department of State. They join the infamous and the cruel, six other rogue nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. I think in this stage of the debate, it is worth reiterating that the Goss amendment would merely require that before we provide the means for Castro to obtain millions of dollars in revenues for his dictatorship, that three mutually reinforcing homeland security criteria are met: That the Cuban government does not process and is not developing biological weapons that threaten the U.S.; that Cuba is not providing terrorist states or terrorist organizations technology that could be used to produce, develop, or deliver biological weapons; and that Cuba is not providing support or sanctuary for international terrorists. These are exceedingly important criteria. I would say to my colleagues, if you do not think they are relevant, vote for the Flake amendment. If you think they are relevant, I would ask you to vote for the Goss amendment and against the Flake amendment. If you think that the Cuban dictatorship is clean, you should also vote for the Goss amendment. What is there to hide? Let the scrutiny begin. Let a full-scale, presidential review and determination be made to ensure whether or not biological weapons in Cuba are real. If you think, as I do, that the dictatorship poses very serious threats to the safety and well-being of Americans, then I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Goss amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us not forget, Fidel Castro is a dictator, a mass torturer, and he is a terrorist. Just look at the country's human rights practices. It is unconscionable. The recent State Department Report makes it very clear people are routinely beaten for their beliefs. Vote ``yes'' on Goss.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has provided hope to oppressed women everywhere, especially in China, promising them that the United States will no longer subsidize those who engage in forced abortion and other coercive population control programs. For over 20 years, Mr. Speaker, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) has enabled facilitated, and shamelessly whitewashed terrible crimes against humanity, especially crimes against women, and the United States will now no longer have any part in subsidizing them. In refusing to fund the UNFPA, our President and our country have taken the side of the oppressed and have refused to cooperate with the oppressor. The United States will now no longer directly or indirectly fund the brutal, oppressive Chinese Government's violence against women. Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday, UNFPA funds have provided crucial technical support that has made China's barbaric program more effective. That means that as a result of UNFPA's complicity with China's antilife program more women are targeted for forced abortions. Mr. Speaker, tens of millions of children have been slaughtered and their mothers have been robbed by the state of their children. The UNFPA for over 20 years has aggressively defended the indefensible, this barbaric policy that makes brothers and sisters illegal and makes women the victims of population control cadres. This whitewashing of crimes against humanity must end. My hope is that other parliaments around the world, will take a good long second look at the one child per couple policy in China and cease their enabling of this violence against women. Thank you President Bush.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's resolution. It seems inconceivable to me that we could be waiving Jackson-Vanik at a time when the Vietnamese Government is paying $100 a head for the return of the Montagnards who have been escaping. Dissidents, men and women who have been repressed by this government, are being returned from Cambodia back to this repressive regime. To waive this in the Pollyanna-ish view that somehow human rights are improving is inconceivable to me. I would also point out to my colleagues that this body passed the Vietnam Human Rights Act, which I introduced, overwhelmingly last year, 410 to one. The Vietnamese Government has moved Heaven and Earth in the other body to put a hold on that legislation which simply looks for human rights improvements. They have not happened, I say to my colleagues. We need to step up to the plate and say, despite the expectations that might have been there, they have not been realized. Human rights continue to be trashed. I again rise in strong support of the gentleman's resolution. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for inclusion in the Congressional Record: Commission Asks Secretary Powell to Raise Religious Freedom Issues With Vietnam at ASEAN Meeting Washington, July 23--The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a federal agency advising the Administration and Congress, last week wrote Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, asking that he raise religious freedom issues with Vietnamese officials during the ASEAN Regional Forum at the end of this month. The text of the letter follows: July 17, 2002. Dear Secretary Powell: I am writing on behalf of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which urges you to raise prominently the protection of religious freedom in Vietnam during your upcoming participation at the ASEAN Regional Forum in July 2002. We also urge you to impress your Vietnamese officials that improvements in the protection of religious freedom in Vietnam are critical to continuing progress in U.S.-Vietnam relations. Since the Congress ratified the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) in September 2001, the protection of religious freedom in Vietnam continues to be minimal at best. In February 2002, the Commission sent a delegation to visit that country. Despite the increase in religious practice continues its repressive policy toward all religious and their followers in Vietnam. Key Vietnamese religious dissidents remain under house arrest or imprisoned, including two senior leaders of the outlawed Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) ? Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang and Venerable Thich Quang Do ? and a Hoa Buddhist leader, Mr. Le Quang Liem. Mr. Quang has been denied access to much needed medical treatment. in addition, Father Thaddeaus Nguyen Van Ly, who last year submitted written testimony to the Commission, was sentenced to 15 years in prison after having been convicted on charges of ``undermining state unity'' and ``slandering the government.'' During the Commission's visit, Vietnamese officials refused the delegation's requests to meet with these and other religious leaders who were either in prison or under house arrest. Government officials continue to harass leaders of unregistered religious organizations and their followers, particularly unregistered Protestant fellowships, as well as clergy members of officially recognized religious groups who oppose government interference in their activities. At the same time, Vietnamese authorities have refused to register some religious groups. For example, the Vietnamese government has refused to register or permit any activity of Baha'i adherents, whose membership in Vietnam before 1976 counted close to 200,000. Meanwhile, provincial and local officials continue to force Hmong Christians in northwestern Vietnam to renounce their faith. Hmong Christian leaders have been arrested and beaten, and their followers are not allowed to meet in homes and conduct worship. Catholic bishops continue to have limits imposed on them by the government regarding the number of candidates who can be admitted to study for the priesthood as well as the number of qualified men who are allowed to be ordained to the priesthood. Although the government recognized the Evangelical Church of Vietnam in the South in April 2001, that recognition apparently has not been extended to the Montagnards who reside in the Central Highlands. Government repression of religious freedom for Monagnard Christians, coupled with an ongoing land dispute between the Montagnards and the government, led to unrest and government crackdown in February 2001 that ultimately resulted in the flight to Cambodia of over 1,000 Montagnards. Nonetheless, it appears that the Vietnamese government continues to violate the right to religious freedom of Montagnard Christians in the Central Highlands through arrests and the closing of churches. In light of these conditions, the Commission urges you to raise these issues in substantive discussions with Vietnamese officials during your attendance at the ASEAN Regional Forum. In particular, we hope you will inquire about the confinement of Mr. Quang, Mr. Do, and Mr. Liem, and the imprisonment of Fr. Ly. Furthermore, we wish to draw your attention to the following recommendations, first set out in our 2001 Annual Report. We urge you to press the Vietnamese government to take the following steps: (1) Release from imprisonment, detention, house arrest, or intimidating surveillance persons who are so restricted due to their religious identities or activities. (2) Permit full access to religious leaders by U.S. diplomatic personnel and government officials, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and international human rights organizations. The government should also invite a return visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion. (3) Establish the freedom to engage in religious activities (including the freedom for members of religious groups to select their own leaders, worship publicly, express and advocate religious beliefs, and distribute religious literature) outside state-controlled religious organizations and eliminate controls on the activities of officially registered organizations. Allow indigenous religious communities to conduct educational, charitable, and humanitarian activities, in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination. (4) Permit religious groups to gather for observance of religious holidays. (5) Return confiscated religious properties. (6) Permit domestic Vietnamese religious organizations and individuals to interact with foreign organizations and individuals. (7) Permit domestic Vietnamese religious and other non- governmental organizations to distribute their own and donated aid. (8) Support exchanges between Vietnamese religious communities and U.S. religious and other non-governmental organizations concerned with religious freedom in Vietnam. In its May 2001 report, the Commission also recommended that the U.S. government continue to support the ASEAN Human Rights Working Group, and that it should encourage the Vietnamese government to join the working group by establishing a national working group. The Commission urges you to take this opportunity to engage officials of the ASEAN working group in serious discussions about the promotion of human rights, including religious freedom, among ASEAN member states. Moreover, we urge you to impress upon Vietnamese officials that the establishment of a national working group by their government would be an important sign of Vietnam's commitment to protecting religious freedom and other human rights. Thank you for your consideration of the Commission's recommendations. We would be grateful if you would share with us the findings and achievements of your visit upon your return. Respectfully, Felice Gaer, Chair.