Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise in very strong support of this budget resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) for crafting a resolution that has the largest increase in veterans' affairs spending, especially discretionary spending, for our veterans. There is a $2.8 billion increase for health care in this budget. Let me just point out to my colleagues, it is needs-based. This is not something that was just ``let us add it for the sake of adding,'' but it is needs-based. Next year, there will be about 700,000 new, unique veteran patients. Veterans are flocking to our outpatient clinics and our community-based outpatient clinics and the like because they are getting good health care, 700,000. The budget would provide, like I said, about a $2.8 billion increase. Let me also point out to my colleagues that other important programs will be funded as a result of this. Last year, we passed historic legislation to help the homeless veterans. That is accommodated by this budget. We have passed an increase in the G.I. bill, a 46 percent increase in that college education benefit. That is accommodated by this budget. I believe the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) deserves our thanks. He sat down with my staff and I and we spent hours going line by line over why this budget needed to be added to, and he met those needs. I hope that every veterans' service organization, and I have spoken to virtually every one of them, they are happy with what we are doing. It is real, and I would hope my friends on the Democratic side would look at this provision and realize that we are doing justice to our veterans. It is a good bill and a good resolution. I urge strong support for this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, next year there will be 700,000 more unique veteran patients in the VA health care network than were projected just 1 year ago. And as our veteran population continues to age and medical costs continue to skyrocket, we can expect to see this trend continue for most of the decade. As chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I have been working with my colleagues to ensure that next year's budget meets the documented needs of our Nation's 25 million veterans. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that, under the leadership of the budget chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the budget resolution that comes to the floor will not only maintain our sacred commitments, but will actually expand vital health care for our veterans. The VA's budget will grow to a record $56.9 billion, including a whopping 12 percent increase in VA health care. That is $2.8 billion for veterans' health care. It is a good budget, and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for crafting this outstanding budget to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and at the outset, I would like to recognize some exemplary students from Hamilton High School West and Vicki Schoeb, their dedicated teacher, and thank them for being here to observe the workings of the Hill, especially the proceedings of the House. They are very much welcomed to this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, today the House moves to the timely consideration of H. Res. 339, which urges the Government of the Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process leading up to the March 31 parliamentary elections. I would like to thank our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Armey), for his commitment to schedule this timely and important resolution this week so that it happens before and so that, hopefully, it will have some impact on the proceedings. I was pleased to be one of the original sponsors of this resolution which acknowledges the strong relationship between the United States and Ukraine, urges the Ukrainian Government to enforce impartially its new election law, and urges the Ukrainian Government to meet its OSCE committments on democratic elections. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, has a long- standing record of support for human rights and democratic development in Ukraine. Commission staff will be observing the upcoming elections, as they have done for virtually every election in Ukraine since 1990. The stakes in the Ukrainian elections are high both in terms of the outcome and as an indication of the Ukrainian Government's commitment towards democratic development and integration into Europe. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to underscore the reason for this congressional interest in Ukraine. The clear and simple reason: An independent, democratic, and economically stable Ukraine is vital to the well being of all Ukrainians to the stability and security of Europe; and we want to encourage Ukraine in recognizing its own often- stated goal of integration into Europe. Despite the positive changes that have occurred in the Ukraine since independence in 1991, including the economic growth over the last 2 years, Ukraine is still undergoing a difficult path towards transition. The pace of that transition has been distressing, slowed by insufficient progress in respect for the rule of law, especially by the presence of widespread corruption, which continues to exact a considerable toll on the Ukrainian people. They deserve better, Mr. Speaker, than what they have gotten. Another source of frustration is the still-unresolved case of murdered investigative journalist, Heorhiy Gongadze. And let me say one thing about him, as well as his widow. Last year, at the OSCE parliamentary assembly which I led, to Paris, my colleagues will remember that we honored him posthumously for his great work and because he paid the ultimate price for his convictions--death. The flawed investigations of this case and the case of another murdered Ukrainian journalist, Ihor Aleksandrov, call into question Ukraine's commitment to the rule of law. And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that going on into the next weeks and months the Helsinki Commission will continue its vigilance. We plan on holding hearings to look into this even further, hopefully keeping pressure on the Ukrainian Government simply to do the right thing. There have also been a number of disturbing cases of violence and threats of violence. For example, 78-year-old Iryna Senyk, a former political prisoner and poetess, who was campaigning for the pro-reform party, our Ukraine bloc, was badly beaten by unknown assailants. Such unchecked violence has created an uncertain atmosphere. Most of independent Ukraine's elections have met international democratic standards for elections. The 1999 presidential elections were more problematic, and the OSCE Election Mission Report on these elections asserted that they ``failed to meet a significant number of the OSCE election-related commitments.'' Mr. Speaker, it remains an open question as to whether the March 31 elections will be a step forward for Ukraine. With less than 2 weeks until election day, there are some discouraging indications, credible reports of various violations of the election law, including, one, campaigning by officials or use of state resources to support certain blocs or candidates; second, the denial of public facilities and services to candidates, blocs or parties; three, governmental pressure on certain parties, candidates and media outlets; and, four, a pro- government bias in the public media, especially the government's main television network, UT-1. Mr. Speaker, these actions are inconsistent with Ukraine's freely undertaken OSCE commitments and undermine its reputation with respect to human rights and democracy. A democratic election process is a must in solidifying Ukraine's democratic credentials and the confidence of its citizens and in its stated desire to integrate with the West. During his visit to Ukraine last week, the President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Adrian Severin, expressed concern over the mistrust in the election process among certain candidates as well as a general skepticism as to whether or not the elections would be truly free and fair, and encouraged Ukrainian officials to take quick measures to ensure that it is a free and fair election and that the outcome is credible. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the summary of the most recent Long Term Observation Report on the Ukrainian elections prepared by the nonpartisan Committee of Voters of Ukraine, be submitted for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. 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 H. Res. 338, the resolution under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for his comments. The gentleman's statement was right on point. I think it is important to underscore the good work that the Committee of Voters of Ukraine are actually doing. Between February 23 and March 10, 225 long-term observers visited 622 cities and 712 political party branches. They attended 578 events conducted by political groups. They are making a Herculean effort to ensure that the upcoming elections are free and fair and impartial. They deserve our highest support and praise and congratulations for being so committed to fair and free elections in Ukraine. The Committee is comprised of true patriots of Ukraine. They are brave and resourceful and they deserve the full support of every Member of this body. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the summary of the Long Term Observation Report of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine. Summary In October 2001, the Committee of Voters of Ukraine (CVU) began its long-term observation of the 2002 parliamentary election process. CVU is a non-partisan citizens' election monitoring organization with 160 branches throughout the Ukraine. CVU will report regularly until the March 31, 2002 elections. Between February 23 and March 10, 225 long-term observers visited 622 cities and 712 political party branches, and attended 578 events conducted by political groups. CVU observed the same kinds of violations as in the previous three-week period. Some types of violations decreased in number, while others increased. Each time a problem was reported to an observer, the head of the regional CVU organization called the individual making the report to verify it and obtain details. In many cases, witnesses are reluctant to talk about violations, fearing retribution from their employers or others. CVU has noticed a few positive developments since its last report. In the past three weeks, voter education programs in the mass media have become more robust. Likewise, election commissioners are receiving practical training from non- governmental organizations. Some television stations have also been showing debates between various political leaders. Nonetheless, the pre-election period continues to be marked by substantial violations of Ukrainian law. The main types of offenses recorded by CVU during the last week of February and first two weeks of March were: Campaigning by state officials or use of state resources to support favored political candidates and groups. The block ``Za Edu'' (For a United Ukraine) was the principal, but not exclusive beneficiary of this support. Government pressure on certain political parties, candidates, and media outlets. Interference in election campaigns through violence, threats of violence or destruction of campaign materials. Illegal campaign practices by candidates offering free goods and services to voters and distributing unregistered campaign materials. Executive branch interference in the election process has decreased somewhat since the previous three week period, although it remains a key feature of the electoral environment. As before, the principal beneficiary of this assistance is the bloc ``Za Edu'' and its candidates in single mandate constituencies. Much of this interference takes place openly; in many cases, government officials involve themselves in the electoral process in an apparent attempt to win favor with their superiors. Although CVU has witnessed fewer instances of this kind of violation, this does not necessarily suggest that executive branch officials are behaving more impartially. In many cases, they have simply shifted their attention away from the parliamentary elections to oblast (state) and local races, which are not covered in this report. Conversely, legal provisions requiring free and transparent campaigning are being ignored with increasing frequency. Criminal interference in campaigns has gone up; in turn, parties and single-mandate candidates are breaking the election law more often. Some candidates, parties, and citizens whose rights have been infringed are beginning to lodge formal complaints with election commissions and the courts. Some commissions have responded by warning parties and candidates accused of campaign violations to respect the law. No state officials has been punished for abuse of office, however. While CVU has uncovered no evidence that state interference in the election has been ordered by senior government authorities, neither have these authorities punished any accused lawbreakers or acted preemptively to ensure neutrality on the part of their subordinates. election commissions The country's central and constituency election commissions appear to functioning relatively well. Most are following proper procedure and trying to respond to appeals in a timely manner. Where problems with district commissions do exist, they are more likely to be found in eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. The formation of polling-place election commissions (PECs) has not gone smoothly, however. Instead, this process has been marked by confusion and numerous violations of proper procedure. Detailed information on the make-up of the country's roughly 33,000 PECs was supposed to be released by February 27 Article 21.13 of the election law, but this requirement was not observed in most areas. Hence, an analysis of the make-up of the commissions is not possible at this time. CVU is concerned that the provisions of Ukraine's election law that provide for multi-partisan representation on election commissions have not been respected in spirit. In many areas, local executive bodies have taken advantage of the weaknesses of political parties to appoint election commissioners who nominally represent a party but who are, in practice, loyal to the local administration alone. CVU has witnessed numerous cases where election commissioners are unaware even of identity of the party they are supposed to represent. Clearly, a good deal of the blame for this problem also lies with the parties, which have been incapable of recruiting trusted members to serve as commissioners in many parts of the country.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 339) urging the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process leading up to the March 31, 2002, parliamentary elections, as amended.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act. The premise of the bill is simple: if you are convicted twice of any Federal sex crime, and the crimes take place on Federal property, then you go to prison for life. Study after study shows that criminals who prey upon children are more likely to reoffend than any other category of criminal. According to a 1999 study by the Center for Sex Offender Management, 16 years goes by before the average sex offender is caught and a recent 2000 study in the issue of sex abuse found that the average sex offender commits 511 crimes. As you know, they victimize, on average, hundreds of children and commit several hundred different offenses and unfortunately, they are prosecuted for only a tiny fraction of their horrific acts. Mr. Chairman, these statistics are all too real--in my district in New Jersey, a 7-year-old girl, Megan Kanka, was raped and then murdered by her neighbor, Jesse Timmendquas in 1994. He was a two-time convicted sex offender who was released early from prison after serving 6 years of a 10 year sentence. Mr. Timmendquas lived across the street from the Kanka family in a house he shared with two other sex offenders--and neighbors were not aware of their criminal past. In light of Megan Kanka's horrific tragedy, I worked alongside my colleagues to pass ``Megan's Law.'' At first, this legislation was established at the State level. Later, we were successful at winning support at the Federal level to require states to inform the public when dangerous sex offenders are released from prison and move to their neighborhoods. The combination of the Two Strikes You're Out Child Protection Act, and Megan's Law, will provide important tools to protect our communities from sex offenders. It is my hope that we will eventually expand the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act nationwide, and into all states and territories. The people who repeatedly sexually molest children do not deserve to roam free. When they are free, they molest children. Until modern medicine can cure the sick mind that compels sex offenders to commit their horrific crimes, they should not be allowed to leave prison. Period. Megan Kanka's death could have been prevented. All of us in Congress have a special burden to make sure that our laws adequately protect children from the likes of Mr. Timmendquas. H.R. 2146 is a good step in the right direction. Protecting our children from sexual predators requires a comprehensive, multilayered approach. I am proud to have been the prime sponsor of legislation, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (P.L. 106-386), which contained two key provisions to help fight child molesters. The first provision of P.L. 106-386 would expand the ``Megan's Law'' concept to college and university communities. Under the new law, law enforcement authorities are required to notify local communities when a registered sex offender is enrolled or employed at a local college or university. The second provision was called ``Aimee's Law,'' and is designed to punish states that release dangerous sexual felons back into our communities in the first place. Under ``Aimee's Law,'' if a State lets a sexual predator loose, and that predator moves to another State and victimizes another person, the second State can petition the Attorney General to have law enforcement grant funds transferred from the first State to the second State as a form of interstate compensation. The central idea behind the law is to discourage States from releasing sex offenders early. As the father of four children, I share the anger and frustration that parents across our country have regarding sexual predators and the grave danger they pose to our country's children. As my colleagues are aware, I have worked with many of you in the effort to pass and enforce tough laws to crack down on child pornography, precisely because I believe it leads to diabolicala crimes such as sexual molestation and rape of young children. The Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act will take these people who prey on our children off the streets and into jail--where they belong--for life. I urge my colleagues to unanimously support the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the thirteenth anniversary of the Department of Veterans Affairs becoming a Cabinet Department. As Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am privileged to work with thousands of dedicated employees of the Department to improve the delivery of benefits and services to our nation's 25 million veterans and their families. On October 25, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Department of Veterans Affairs Act (H.R. 3471 in the 100th Congress), legislation I cosponsored and strongly supported. This Act led to the Veterans Administration (VA) becoming the 14th federal Department of the Executive Branch. Subsequently, on March 15th, 1989, thirteen years ago this week, the Honorable Edwin Derwinski, was sworn in as the first Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Finally, the nation's veterans had a full and permanent seat at the President's Cabinet table. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the second largest federal agency in terms of employees, with over 220,000 dedicated men and women providing a range of vital benefits and services for veterans around the country. The VA operates the largest integrated health network in the world, comprised of 163 medical centers, over 800 Community Based Outpatient Clinics, 135 nursing homes, 43 domiciliaries and 73 comprehensive home-care programs. The VA continues to provide quality care to millions of veterans, their families and their survivors. In addition, the VA operates one of the most important medical research programs in the world, with more than 15,000 research projects at 115 VA medical centers. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is on the cutting edge of research on matters ranging from brain trauma to hepatitis C to Alzheimer's disease. The VHA also pays particular attention to the wounds and illnesses of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, and recently opened two new Centers for the Study of War- Related Illnesses, one in Washington, DC, and the other in my home state of New Jersey. The Department of Veterans Affairs maintains a national network of veterans' cemeteries for our nation's veterans, consisting of 119 national cemeteries in 39 states and Puerto Rico and also administers six life insurance programs with 2.2 million policies in force having a face value of $22 billion. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), created as part of the new Department of Veterans Affairs, oversees a myriad of benefits programs for veterans, including disability compensation, education and training, job placement, home loans, and life insurance. Over 2.7 million veterans receive disability compensation payments for wounds or illnesses resulting from their service to our nation, and an additional 570,000 widows, children and surviving parents of deceased veterans also receive monthly benefit payments. Mr. Speaker, the VA also operates the GI Bill program, which has provided college education and training to more than 20 million veterans since its creation in 1944. This historic program not only changed the way America looked at veterans benefits, it also changed the nature of higher education and helped to create the modern middle class. In addition, the VA operates the veterans home loan program, which has helped over 16 million former servicemen and women buy their own homes. Since the creation of the original Veterans Administration in 1930, our nation has recognized the unique contributions and sacrifices of the men and women who have defended our freedom at home and abroad. Today, the Department of Veterans Affairs, ably led by Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi, continues to provide the benefits and services that our nations veterans have earned. On the wall outside the VA's main office in Washington, DC, the words of President Abraham Lincoln are engraved on the building: ``To care for him who have borne the battle, and his widow and his orphan.'' This is the mission that draws so many committed men and women to the VA. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to work on behalf of our nation's veterans and I want to pay tribute to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and especially all of their gifted and dedicated employees, on the 13th anniversary of their becoming a full Cabinet Department of the federal government.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call attention to the 150th Anniversary of the creation of Bordentown Township by the New Jersey State Legislature. Throughout all of my 21-year tenure in Congress, I have had the privilege of representing the residents of Bordentown Township, here in the United States House of Representatives. I believe that it is fitting and proper for a community that has a long and rich tradition like Bordentown Township to periodically celebrate its history with its current residents, so that community awareness and cooperation are deepened. To understand where you are, you must first understand where you've been. Throughout its long history, Bordentown Township has been forced to grapple with the challenges of growth, due its desirable location along the Delaware River and its well-deserved reputation as a good place to live and raise a family. Consequently, there has been a sense of commitment among Township residents about the need to create and preserve parks, recreational areas, and open spaces, in order to uphold the character of the township. From the earliest beginnings of Bordentown, its residents have been civic-minded. Indeed, the creation of Bordentown Borough in 1825 was prompted by the growth of population in the village of Bordentown, and calls for a more representative government. When residents decided that they wanted to have a greater say on their own schools and a separate polling district, they successfully petitioned the State of New Jersey to amend its Borough Charter in 1849. However, the arrangement of 1849 generated much dissatisfaction because the interests of the rural Chesterfield section of the borough, and the more urban Bordentown section, were mutually incompatible. In 1852 the New Jersey Legislature divided Bordentown and Chesterfield (a more rural neighbor) into two separate communities. A similar division was conducted in 1902, when the City of Bordentown, and Bordentown Township, were separated. The first meetings of the Bordentown Township Committee were held in an unheated shed. Later, the meetings were held in a private home when it became too cold to hold them in the shed. In 1903 Township Hall was built on Cemetery Lane. While things are much different in Bordentown Township today, the same spirit of service and willingness to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of local residents still exists in Bordentown's elected leaders. I know, because I am friends with, and work with, many of them. For instance, the current mayor of Bordentown Township, Mark Roselli, once served as my Legislative Director, Campaign Manager, and Policy Advisor. In addition, the Director of my Burlington/Mercer Constituent Service Center, Joyce Golden, has been a proud resident of Bordentown Township for 22 years. She currently serves on the Township's County Committee, and has often told me that she and her husband, Marty, would not want to raise their family in any other community. Joyce and Marty are especially proud that their children have chosen to continue to live and work in Bordentown Township. Their daughter and her family have built a home in Bordentown Township, and their son serves the community as a career Firefighter/EMT for Fire District #2. Mr. Speaker, I once again congratulate the people of Bordentown Township for preserving a community with a high quality-of-life for 150 years.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Monsignor Leonard Toomey, who has been named the Grand Marshal of this year's City of Trenton's St. Patrick's Day Parade. Just a few days after he leads the annual parade through historic Trenton, Msg. Toomey will celebrate the 54th anniversary of his ordination as a priest, which occurred on March 13, 1948. Technically, Monsignor Toomey is ``retired.'' Yet he is more active in his community than people half his age. He serves as an assistant pastor at several Diocesan Parishes, and devotes many of his homilies to the children he loves so much. Perhaps best known for his 26 years as pastor of Sacred Heart Church on South Broad Street, Trenton--the oldest Catholic Parish in the state of New Jersey--Monsignor Toomey was a pillar of the community during one of the city's most turbulent time periods of the late 1960s. While at Sacred Heart, he worked to make sure the Church's external image was restored and preserved to match its lofty lineage and legacy of service. In the mid-1970s, he launched a successful campaign to restore all of the parish's buildings and grounds. His service to the Church, to the city of Trenton, and surrounding areas has been so effective on many fronts. In addition to serving as pastor at several churches, Monsignor Toomey founded the Children's Youth Organization Day Camp so area children had a safe and fun place to go during the summer. He also brought God's guidance to the brave men and women of the Trenton Fire Department, as well as to the inmates at New Jersey's State Prison in Trenton, a maximum security facility where those convicted of the state's worst crimes are housed. Monsignor Toomey has held numerous posts throughout the Diocese and has given his time to several local boards including those for public housing projects, museums and historical societies, and St. Francis Hospital. I always enjoy marching in Trenton's St. Patrick's Day Parade, and this year's experience will be equally meaningful for I will be marching behind a man who truly has been a bedrock of the city of Trenton for the better part of a century. I join Monsignor's many admirers, friends, proteges and parishioners in thanking and congratulating him on another well-deserved recognition and milestone for his leadership and contributions to our community. Celebrating 100 Years of Jarrett Stationary Statement of the Honorable Howard Coble, February 27, 2002 Mr. Speaker, On Friday, March 1, 2002, one of the most respected family-owned businesses in High Point, North Carolina, will celebrate its 100th birthday. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we wish to congratulate Jarrett Stationary on its first century of existence. ``We don't know the exact date when Gene Jarrett started the business, but is was in February 1902,'' David Wall, the store's president told the High Point Enterprise. Wall, a third-generation owner and a High Point City Councilman, told the newspaper, ``I figured holding the celebration on March 1 would help us cover the date properly. Ever since we got to 95 years, it seems like it's taken forever to get to 100 years, so I'm both proud and relieved that this time has finally come.'' Because small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, Mr. Wall, all of us are proud that Jarrett Stationary has succeeded for 100 years. Jarrett Stationary is the 16th oldest business entity in High Point according to the local Chamber of Commerce. Jarrett Stationary has had a rich and colorful history during its century in business. There have only been three presidents during its 100-year existence. Gene Jarrett ran the company for approximately 45 years. Thurman Wall, Jarrett's son-in-law, served as president before his son, David assumed the role in 1981. The company also served as a bookstore during its first 40 years before concentrating on office supplies after World War II. It has been at its downtown North Wrenn Street location since 1929. Despite the glut of national office supply chains, and that many other small businesses have abandoned the downtown retail core, Jarrett Stationary has stayed and thrived. The future looks equally bright for Jarrett Stationary. In fact, the very name of the company has come up for discussion in the past. Though a Wall family member has run the business longer than a Jarrett, David Wall said there was never any real consideration to abandon the company name. ``Both my father and I thought about all those years that the good name of Jarrett Stationary has been built up in this city,'' Wall told the High Point Enterprise. ``In retail especially, if you have that, that's like money in the bank, so why change?'' We concur that Jarrett Stationary should not change. It should continue to serve the people of High Point the same way it has for 100 years. On behalf of the citizens of the Sixth District of North Carolina, we congratulate Jarrett Stationary on its centennial celebration, and we offer our best wishes for the future.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1892, The Family Sponsor Immigration Act, a bill that will help keep the American Dream alive for immigrants whose hopes have been crushed by the sudden or unexpected death of their American sponsors. We know that hundreds of thousands of immigrants throughout the world go through the immigration process each year for the chance to share in the promise of America. And what a wonderful promise it is--the opportunity to share in the freedom and blessings of a nation born out of ideals. In many ways, our immigration process is unique. President Reagan often remarked, ``You can go to Turkey and live there your whole life, but never really become a Turk. You can go to Japan and live there, but never really become Japanese. You can go to Germany, but never become German. But, you can come from any place in the world and become an American.'' This process is often lengthy and many times even tedious. But our laws are designed to provide for the fairest and most just system possible, a system that will not only allow others access to our society, but that will also help foster their success. Integral to the success of immigrants are their American sponsors--proven citizens with established roots and financial security. American sponsors provide the support necessary to help an immigrant begin their journey in America. We know, however, that under current law, in the rare case that an immigrant's American sponsor passes away, so too dies the promise of America for the immigrant. Imagine the case of an immigrant who applies to become a permanent resident, who plays by all the rules and waits patiently in hope, perhaps to be united with a long separated loved one, but who at the last minute is hit by the death of this loved one. Not only is the loss of this person a tragedy to be overcome, but the hopes and dreams of the immigrant are thwarted as well. According to reports from INS, this scenario became part of the September 11 tragedy. As the towers crumbled and thousands of lives were lost, so too was lost the chance for immigrants in-waiting to continue on the road to become Americans. Thankfully, the Patriot Act which the President signed last fall included important provisions to extend visas and filing deadlines for the alien relatives of those killed in the World Trade Center already involved with the immigration process. However, more needs to be done to accommodate future scenarios. HR 1892 will help correct this glitch in our immigration law. It says if a qualifying relative of the deceased sponsor exists, they can act as a replacement. As an immigrant you don't have to start the whole process over again. Remember, we want to reward those who have played by the rules--those who attempt to go through the process we have designed, seeking justice and fair treatment. Let's correct this unfair technicality in our immigration law to help keep the American Dream a reality for those who lose their sponsors. The hope of freedom should not die because of the untimely death of a sponsor. I thank my colleagues for supporting HR 1892.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I rise to urge the enactment of H.R. 622, The Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, also known as the Hope for Children Act. I cannot overemphasize how proud I am to be an original cosponsor of the Hope for Children Act. Mr. DeMint deserves our thanks and praise for his work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, throughout my 21 years in Congress, I have worked tirelessly with a broad, bipartisan group of colleagues, to protect children. Encouraging adoption has been among our primary concerns. Along those ends, I have introduced my own legislation that designated National Adoption Week, and I worked to help establish the current $5,000 tax credit for adopting parents. The $5,000 tax credit, which was incorporated into the ``Contract with America,'' passed by Congress, and later signed into law, is helping many families that have adopted a child. But there is still so much to be done. There are so many children that need to be adopted. There are so many infertile couples who desperately want to raise children. This legislation today is needed. H.R. 622 seeks to double the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for all adoptions and double the employer adoption assistance exclusion to $10,000. The legislation also increases the income cap at which the credit begins to phase out from $75,000 to $150,000. The fact of the matter is that adoptions are very costly, ranging from $8,000 to $30,000 per year. There are many families who would like to open their home to a child, but are prevented or delayed on doing so by the high cost of adoption. H.R. 622 helps to ease this financial burden to ensure that children quickly find a permanent, loving home-- so that no child is left behind to end up in the foster care system permanently. The empirical evidence shows conclusively that the tax credit must be increased. Just take a look at the tax return data. According to the Committee report accompanying this bill, half of the taxpayers who received income tax benefits for adoption expenses in 1998 reported expenses in excess of $5,000, while 25 percent of taxpayers receiving tax benefits for adoption reported expenses totaling more than $10,000. It is important to note that the $5,000 tax credit expires this year and the current $5,000 employer adoption assistance exclusion also expires--it is vital that we enact this important legislation to help defray these costs. The Hope for Children Act is a solid start to ensuring that more children find a loving home. While some adoptions will cost well over $10,000--the data suggests that as many as 25 percent of all adoptions fall into this category--raising the limit will aid more families in their efforts to adopt a child in need. If the President signs the Hope for Children Act into law this year, families could claim the $10,000 tax credit beginning with their 2003 tax returns. One final note. Virtually every well-conducted social research study that has examined the impact of adoption on a child concludes that adoption is far more preferable than state custody. The adoption of a child into a traditional two-parent, man and woman family, has profoundly positive social consequences for both the child, as well as for our society. A recent Heritage Foundation analysis of the adoption research literature shows that adopted children raised in a two-parent family, measure as well as, if not better than, a biological child on virtually every social, educational, and health indicator assessed. The route by which the Hope for Children Act has arrived here in the House again deserves some discussion. On May 17, 2001, this bill was agreed to by a vote of 420-0. On February 6, 2002, the Senate passed the measure with an amendment to add tax relief and economic stimulus language. Today we are adding some additional tax relief provisions, so that unemployment insurance benefits will be extended to all displaced workers regardless of how their job losses occurred. New Jersey's economy was hit very hard by terrorism. First we lost approximately 700 New Jerseyans on September 11, including nearly 50 from my own Fourth District. In addition to the unbearable loss of life, there were tens of thousands of jobs held by people from New Jersey that disappeared into the great cloud of fire, smoke, and ash of the collapsing Twin Towers. Entire businesses and departments were wiped out in an instant. Before the shock waves of September 11, had even faded, New Jersey was plunged into another unprecedented crisis, as the first major biological weapons attack in U.S. history took place on New Jersey soil. Our mail system ground to a halt. Items frozen in the mail included everything from an engagement ring to credit card bills. Thousands of lives were turned upside down. Another wave of jobs were lost. To this day, the John K. Rafferty Post Office in Hamilton has not reopened, and hundreds of postal workers who work there are now scattered all over the state in makeshift accommodations. Mr. Speaker, New Jersey's residents need a helping hand. We need this stimulus package. People are hurting. I think the Senate should move promptly and pass H.R. 622. It is time to put the interests of the American people ahead of partisan calculations. Mr. Speaker, I urge the unanimous passage of the Hope for Children Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, today I am introducing on behalf of Mr. Evans, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Filner, Mr. Baker, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Shows, Mr. King, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Baldacci, Ms. Carson, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Moore, a bill to increase funding, for State Approving Agencies (SAAs). Some of my colleagues are familiar with the work of SAAS, but for those who are not, these vital institutions review and evaluate for approval in each state, programs of education that are offered by educational institutions under the Montgomery GI Bill and three other VA veterans' educational assistance programs. SAAs usually operate through state departments of education or postsecondary education commissions. SAAs also approve employer sponsored on-job training and apprenticeship programs, some through state departments of labor. The need to increase funding for SAAs primarily reflects the new SAA duties in occupational licensing and credentialing and veteran, servicemember and employer outreach in each state. In recent years, Congress has increased SAA responsibilities, most recently through enactment of Public Law 107-103, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001. This landmark legislation increased the basic MGIB benefit by 19 percent in January 2002 to $800 per month from $672. It will also increase 30 percent in October 2003 and 39 percent in October 2004 when the benefit again increases to $900 and $985, respectively. But as important as these enacted increases for the MGIB benefits are, our veterans will not be able to take full advantage of the improved educational opportunities unless the SAAs are given the resources necessary to certify high-quality educational programs. From fiscal years 1995 to 2000, SAA funding was ``capped''--without an annual increase--at $13 million. In Public Law 106-419, enacted on November 1, 2000, Congress increased SAA funding to $14 million, but only for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. If Congress does not act, in fiscal year 2003 the SAA budget reverts back to the $13 million level. In effect, our inaction would return SAAs to the FY 1995 funding level, and they would be unable to guarantee our nation's veterans that their hard-earned MGIB benefits will be safeguarded against scam-artists and flimsy programs that seek to exploit veterans. Indeed, since World War II Congress has relied on SAAs to ensure the quality of the education and training offered to our Nation's veterans and to protect the integrity of VA education programs popularly known as the ``GI Bill.'' My proposal simply increases SAA annual funding from $14 million to $18 million, with a three percent increase the following two years, in order to provide SAAs with the resources necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, troubling amendments to the current Kazakh law on religion await President Nursultan Nazarbayev's signature to enter into force. Both the lower and upper houses of the Kazakh parliament passed the amendments without any substantive modifications. As a result, if President Nazarbayev signs the legislation into law during the ten-day window, Kazakhstan would seriously undermine its commitments as a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to ensure the freedom of the individual to profess and practice their religion or belief. Introduced without public consultation in late November 2001, the amendments passed the lower house on January 17 and the upper house on January 31 of this year. The sudden rush to passage was surprising. Kazakhstan had been working with the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts for Freedom of Religion or Belief to craft a law in harmony with its OSCE commitments. In fact, an earlier draft heavily criticized by the Advisory Panel was withdrawn in August 2001. The Advisory Panel issued a report on the latest draft on January 16, 2002, highlighting serious deficiencies in the text. However, it appears little heed was given to their critique. Reportedly, the executive branch pushed vigorously for legislation providing stricter controls on minority religious groups, which would explain the rapid consideration. In response to these unfolding events, myself, Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell and six other Commissioners of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission, wrote President Nazarbayev last week about these developments. The text of that letter which I am submitting for the Record, highlights several, but not all problematic elements of the recently passed legislation. Of particular note are the increased hurdles for registration and vaguely worded articles, which could allow for arbitrary denials of registration for religious groups, and consequently their legal existence. Accordingly, there is great concern for the future of religious freedom in Kazakhstan, whether for Muslims or Christians. Mr. Speaker, in the letter we respectfully asked President Nazarbayev not to sign the amendments into law. Our concerns are not based on mere supposition; related laws and regulations have been utilized to suppress faith communities in Kazakhstan. For example, this past summer Article 375 of the Administrative Code was introduced, requiring the registration of all religious groups and including language penalizing unregistered religious groups. Police have since justified several raids on religious meetings citing Article 375, resulting in harassment and imprisonment as well as reported beatings and torture. Actions late last year against unregistered Baptist pastors is an illustrative example. On October 27, 2001, Pastor Asylbek Nurdanov, a Baptist leader in the Kyzyl-Orda regional city of Kazalinsk, went to a police station after his church was raided for failing to register. Once there, he was reportedly severely beaten and stripped, with one officer attempting to strangle him with a belt. Another threatened to cut off his tongue with scissors if he did not renounce his faith. It was also reported that on November 10, Pastor Nurdanov was forcibly taken and detained in a psychiatric hospital in Kyzyl-Orda. While he was released on November 16, such abuse is unacceptable. Other reports of police harassment and detention of Baptist pastors who have not registered their faith communities also exist. For example, on September 25, 2001, the Aktobe public prosecutor initiated legal proceedings against Baptist Pastor Vasily Kliver on the charge of ``evading the registration of a religious community.'' In October, Baptist pastor Valery Pak was jailed in Kyzyl-Orda for five days on the same charge. These reports of harassment, torture and detention indicate a serious failure to uphold Kazakhstan's human rights commitments as an OSCE participating State. As is evident, our concerns about Kazakh authorities utilizing the proposed amendment's restrictive nature to harass, if not condemn, religious groups are borne out by past practice in Kazkahstan. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that President Nazarbayev will honor the obligations his nation freely chose to uphold as a participating OSCE state and not sign the amendments into law. Mr. Speaker, I request that the text of the letter sent to President Nazarbayev last week be included in the Record. January 30, 2002. His Excellency Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, Kazakhstan. Dear President Nazarbayev: We write today to express our concern over the proposed amendments to the Law on Freedom of Religion and Religious Associations. We view the amendments, scheduled for consideration by the Senate on January 31st, as problematic, since they would seriously undermine Kazakhstan's commitments to human rights as a participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Therefore, should the Kazakh Senate approve the amendments, we respectfully ask that you not sign them into law. The OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion and Belief issued a review of the proposed amendments on January 16, 2002. The review found the proposed amendments, while an improvement from an earlier draft withdrawn in August 2001, seriously deficient in many respects. In addition, the OSCE Centre in Almaty has stated the current religion law meets international standards and found no justification for initiating the new provisions. Therefore, we believe the remarks contained in the OSCE Advisory Panel critique should be followed fully. Problematic areas include, but are not limited to, permitting the registration of Muslim groups and the building of mosques only after a recommendation of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Kazakhstan. In addition, the number of individuals required to form a religious association would increase from 10 to 50, regardless of religion. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would permit dissolution of a religious group should individual members of the group commit repeated violations of the law. Each of these examples would allow the government to arbitrarily deny registration, and thereby legal existence, on specious legal grounds not in harmony with OSCE commitments. Reportedly, your government's justification for the new requirements in the current amendments, which create hurdles for registration, is to combat religious extremism. Yet the definition of ``religious extremism'' in the amendments is vague and inherently problematic, potentially categorizing and prohibiting groups on the basis of their beliefs, rather than on their having committed illegal actions. Such vague language would allow the arbitrary interpretation of a group's beliefs and uneven implementation of the law. Our fear of Kazakh authorities harshly employing new requirements against religious groups is not unfounded. While the existing religion law does not require registration of faith communities, Article 375 of the Administrative Code, a provision added last year, requires the registration of faith communities. Since the promulgation of that article, we have received several reports of unregistered groups being penalized through criminal sanctions, as well as individuals being beaten while in custody. The harassment, detention and beating of individuals for merely belonging to unregistered religious groups, as well as disproportionate criminal charges for an administrative violation, are in direct violation of OSCE commitments. In calling for these actions, we remind you of the 1991 Moscow Document in which the OSCE participating States declared that ``issues relating to human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of international concern'' and ``are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.'' It is in this light that these requests are made. Last autumn, your government made a wise decision by choosing to honor its OSCE commitments and withdrawing the earlier version of the amendments. Recognizing the crucial importance that the very highest standards of religious freedom and human rights agreed to and proclaimed in various Helsinki documents be upheld, we respectfully urge you to take similar steps and not sign the amendments into law, should they pass the Senate without substantive modification. Sincerely, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, U.S.S. Chairman, Steny H. Hoyer, M.C., Zach Wamp, M.C., Alcee L. Hastings, M.C., Christopher H. Smith, M.C. Co-Chairman, Joseph R. Pitts, M.C., Robert B. Aderholt, M.C., Louise McIntosh Slaughter, M.C.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation designed to ensure the federal government appropriately assists parents with the financial burdens associated with their child's education. The legislation gives parents more options, and helps them as they search out the best educational setting and tools for their children. To this end, the Education, Achievement, and Opportunity Act will provide refundable tuition tax credits per year, per child, for educational expenses incurred by parents for elementary and secondary school. The legislation would allow parents sending their child to an elementary school up to $2,500 in tax relief, and parents with children in a Catholic or parochial high school could claim up to $3,500 in assistance. Parents who send their child to a Catholic school already pay twice for their child's education: once through their taxes, and a second time for the tuition. These out-of-pocket expenses can really add up and pose an enormous obstacle to the child's lifetime learning opportunities. Without federal support, many parents struggle--and in some cases forgo--a Catholic school education, or any education in a spiritual setting, because the costs are so high. In my own district in New Jersey, a parent who feels Catholic schools are best suited for their child will pay somewhere between $1,840 and $2,566 in tuition costs. If you want to send your child to a parochial high school in the central New Jersey area, a parent is looking at an average tuition bill of $5,571 per student, per year. In other areas of the country, the costs are very similar. Middle-class and lower-income families just cannot--and should not have to--absorb these kinds of costs without some help or recognition from the government. America's children have unique educational needs and goals, and parents are the ones who are best qualified to decide what's in their child's best interest. It just isn't fair to deny a child the ability to pursue the educational program best suited to his/ her needs simply because the child's parents do not have the resources to afford the education program of their choice. We have 59,000,000 youngsters in elementary and secondary school across the U.S.; about 10 percent of these students are enrolled in private, parochial and rabbinical schools. Those families who are already sending their children to such schools, and others planning to send their children to them, would benefit enormously from this proposal, because they are often struggling to make ends meet. Importantly, my education proposal is a tax credit, rather than a voucher, so the total amount of education resources available for all school age children will increase. Under a voucher system, if a school loses enrolled students to a competing school, that school may lose funding and have fewer resources available for their educational program. Under my plan, that outcome is avoided, because it is a ``win- win'' scenario, whereas voucher programs can become a zero-sum situation with ``winners and losers.'' I was very pleased that President Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut reform legislation--The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, now P.L. 107-16 included several child and family tax credits to help individuals with their educational priorities. The Bush Tax Cut was a solid down payment to help parents meet the educational needs of their children. Parents can now save up to $2,000 per year in their Education Savings Accounts, and the interest that builds up in them is tax free. When the parent withdraws money for elementary or secondary school expenses, the withdrawal is excluded from their taxable income. If we are to truly make good on our promise that ``no child is left behind,'' we must ensure that Catholic schools are included in this national promise and goal. A child is a child, regardless of what school system they are enrolled. The children enrolled in Catholic, private, and rabbinical schools deserve nothing less than our full support and compassion. The benefits of my legislation are available to any child, no matter what their race, creed, or national origin. And make no mistake: the public school system will continue to remain the backbone of our nation's education system. But we must never forget that the public school system was created to serve students--not the other way around. If a student is performing poorly at a particular school, a parent should have the opportunity to enroll the child in another appropriate setting which has a better chance to meet the child's needs. I urge my colleagues to support the Education, Achievement, and Opportunity Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for the resolution before us today, which recognizes the valuable contributions of Wendy's Founder, R. David Thomas. Born in 1932 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Dave Thomas never knew his birth parents, and was adopted when he was six weeks young. One of Dave's most cherished childhood memories was eating out at restaurants. Thus, as a young man, he committed himself to opening up his own restaurant where families could enjoy eating and spending time together. On November 15, 1969, Dave Thomas founded Wendy's Old- Fashioned Hamburgers in Columbus, Ohio, and transformed it into one of the most successful food franchises in the country. Mr. Thomas was much more than a successful businessman, however. He never forgot his roots, and he used his financial success to promote and advocate the cause of adoption. In 1990, Former President George H. W. Bush asked Mr. Thomas to be a spokesperson for his administration's adoption initiative, ``Adoption Works. . .For Everyone.'' Mr. Thomas gracefully accepted the challenge, and began to speak out and encourage people to consider adoption. The Wendy's corporation championed adoption as its national charitable cause, while taking a corporate leadership role in advancing the cause of adoption by encouraging other corporations to offer family leave and adoption benefits to employees who welcomed and adopted a child into their family. In conjunction with National Adoption Month every November, over 6,000 Wendy's North American restaurants undertake an aggressive advertising campaign advocating the cause of adoption. These widely successful adoption efforts, such as public service announcements tray- liners an posters account for approximately 40 percent of all calls taken at the National Adoption Center's toll free number (1-800-TO- ADOPT). Dave's personal contributions of time, money and initiative to the cause of adoption have been equally successful. Dave donated all of the proceeds from his 1991 autobiography Dave's Way and his 1995 book Well Done! to the foundation. Then in 1992, Mr. Thomas founded The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, a nonprofit organization that supports over 134,000 children in America's foster care system waiting for permanent and loving homes. Virtually every well-conducted social research study that has examined the impact of adoption on a child concludes that adoption is far more preferable than state custody. The adoption of a child into a traditional two-parent, man and woman family, has profoundly positive social benefits for the child and family as well as for our society. Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of Congress to support the Dave Thomas Resolution. America has lost an important champion for children with the death of Dave Thomas. It is fitting and appropriate that we honor his good deeds today. We all hope and pray that his good work will continue on, despite his passing.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for H. Res. 335, a resolution recognizing the valuable contributions of Catholic Schools. This week marks the 28th 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 8,146 Catholic Schools in our country. A Catholic education challenges students through a combination of high standards, strong motivation, effective discipline, and an atmosphere of caring. These characteristics foster excellence in students. In a society where academic and moral standards are constantly being debased and watered down, Catholic schools consistently deliver a level of student performance that is well supported by the evidence. Too often these days, our kids are bombarded with mushy, well-meaning rhetoric that says that everybody can score ``above average.'' Too many school systems have adopted the false notion that filling our children with a bogus sense of self-esteem is more important that actually ensuring that they master their subject material. President Bush rightfully denounces ``the soft bigotry of low expectations.'' Fortunately, Catholic schools are part of the solution of the problem of low expectations. 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 of students in public schools. In addition, 83 percent of Catholic high school graduates go on to college, as compared to 52 percent of public high school graduates. While there are a variety of factors that can partially account for these differences, sociologists and education therorists cannot explain all of these differences away without acknowledging that challenging our students and expecting more from them inspires students to work harder and take more pride in their academic work. Catholic schools recognize parents and family as primary educators, while fostering a shared vision among the two. As the father of four children who have attended Catholic schools, I know they strive to create a special bond between families and the school. As Pope John Paul II said, ``. . . and so the purpose of Catholic Education is to communicate Christ to you, so that your attitude toward others will be that of Christ.'' Obviously, children do not from their core moral values because of what schools teach them. Respect for life, and for the rights of others, does not start at school. It starts at home. But that does not mean that our schools don't have a role to play in helping parents instill in their children a sense of right and wrong. Schools can help parents, or they can help undermine their efforts. I am proud that Catholic schools are working every day to help parents to instill decency fair play, and respect for others. Parents know their job is not an easy one these days. Their moral lessons are constantly being undermined by contradictory messages that bombard our kids from every possible direction. It's very reassuring to parents of Catholic school students to know that at least they child's school can be counted upon to be an ally in this struggle. Lastly, in honoring the contributions of Catholic schools, we must not forget or neglect the vital role of our public school system. Both school systems assist and teach each other. Many troubled children have transferred out of the public school system and have been turned around in a Catholic school. This symbiotic relationship strengthens both systems. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members lend their support to H. Res. 335, and pass it unanimously.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 21, Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbaev will be meeting with President Bush. Sometime in January, Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov is likely to arrive for his visit, The invitations to these Heads of State obviously reflect the overriding U.S. priority of fighting international terrorism and the corresponding emphasis on the strategic importance of Central Asia, which until September 11 had been known largely as a resource-rich, repressive backwater. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have chaired a series of hearings in recent years focused on human rights and democratization in the Central Asian region. Clearly, we need the cooperation of many countries, including Afghanistan's Central Asian neighbors, in this undertaking. But we should not forget, as we conduct our multidimensional campaigns, two vitally important points: first, Central Asian leaders need the support of the West at least as much as we need them. Unfortunately, Central Asian presidents seem to have concluded that they are indispensable and that we owe them for allowing us to use their territory and bases in this fight against the terrorists and those who harbor them. I hope Washington does not share this misapprehension. By striking against the radical Islamic threat to their respective security and that of the entire region, we have performed a huge service for Central Asian leaders. Second, one of the main lessons of September 11 and its aftermath is that repression of political opposition and alternative viewpoints is a key cause of terrorism. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have declared that the war on terrorism will not keep the United States from supporting human rights. I am hopeful the administration means what they have said. But given the sudden warming of relations between Washington and Central Asian leaders, I share the concerns voiced in many editorials and op-eds that the United States will downplay human rights in favor of cultivating ties with those in power. More broadly, I fear we will fall into an old pattern of backing repressive regimes and then being linked with them in the minds and hearts of their long-suffering peoples. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, on the eve of President Nazarbaev's meeting with President Bush and in anticipation of the expected visit by President Karimov, as well as possible visits by other Central Asian leaders, I want to highlight some of the most glaring human rights problems in these countries. To begin with, corruption is rampant throughout the region, and we should keep this in mind as the administration requests more money for assistance to Central Asian regimes. Kazakhstan's President Nazarbaev and some of his closest associates are under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for massive corruption. Not surprisingly, to keep any information about high-level misdeeds from the public--most of which lives in dire poverty--the Nazarbaev regime has cracked down hard on the media. Family or business associates of President Nazarbaev control most media outlets in the country, including printing houses which often refuse to print opposition or independent newspapers. Newspapers or broadcasters that try to cover taboo subjects are harassed by the government and editorial offices have had their premises raided. The government also controls the two main Internet service providers and regularly blocks the web site of the Information Analytical Center Eurasia, which is sponsored by Kazakhstan's main opposition party. In addition, libel remains a criminal offense in Kazakhstan. Despite a growing international consensus that people should not be jailed for what they say or write, President Nazarbaev on May 3 ratified an amendment to the Media Law that increases the legal liability of editors and publishers. Furthermore, a new draft religion law was presented to the Kazakh parliament at the end of November without public consultation. If passed, it would seriously curtail the ability of individuals and groups to practice their religious faith freely. Uzbekistan is a wholesale violator of human rights. President Karimov allows no opposition parties, permits no independent media, and has refused even to register independent human rights monitoring groups. Elections in Uzbekistan have been a farce and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) rightly refused to observe the last presidential ``contest,'' in which Karimov's ``rival'' proclaimed that he was planning to vote for the incumbent. In one respect, however, Karimov is not lacking--brazen gall. Last week, on the eve of Secretary Powell's arrival in Tashkent, Uzbek authorities announced plans to hold a referendum next month on extending Karimov's tenure in office from five years to seven. Some members of the tightly controlled parliament urged that he be made ``president for life.'' The timing of the announcement could have had only one purpose: to embarrass our Secretary of State and to show the United States that Islam Karimov will not be cowed by OSCE commitments on democracy and the need to hold free and fair elections. I am also greatly alarmed by the Uzbek Government's imprisonment of thousands of Muslims, allegedly for participating in extremist Islamic groups, but who are probably ``guilty'' of the ``crime'' of attending non-government approved mosques. The number of people jailed on such dubious grounds is estimated to be between 5,000 and 10,000, according to Uzbek and international human rights organizations. While I do not dismiss Uzbek government claims about the seriousness of the religion- based insurgency, I cannot condone imprisonment of people based on mere suspicion of religious piety. As U.S. Government officials have been arguing for years, this policy of the Uzbek Government also seems counterproductive to its stated goal of eliminating terrorists. Casting the net too broadly and jailing innocent people will only inflame individuals never affiliated with any terrorist cell. In addition, Uzbekistan has not only violated individual rights, but has also implemented policies that affect religious groups. For example, the Uzbek Government has consistently used its religion law to frustrate the ability of religious groups to register, placing them in a ``catch-22''. By inhibiting registration, the Uzbek Government can harass and imprison individuals for attending unregistered religious meetings, as well as deny property purchases and formal education opportunities. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Uzbekistan's record on human rights, democratization and religious freedom is unacceptable. I am not aware that Kyrgyzstan's President Askar Akaev has been invited to Washington, but I would not be too surprised to learn of an impending visit. Once the most democratic state in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan has gone the way of its neighbors, with rigged elections, media crackdowns and repression of opposition parties. At a Helsinki Commission hearing I chaired last week on democratization and human rights in Kyrgyzstan, we heard from the wife of Felix Kulov, Kyrgyzstan's leading opposition figure, who has been behind bars since January 2001. Amnesty International and many other human rights groups consider him a political prisoner, jailed because he dared to try to run against President Akaev. Almost all opposition and independent newspapers which have sought to expose high-level corruption have been sued into bankruptcy. With respect to the proposed religion law the Kyrgyz Parliament is drafting, which would repeal the current law, significant concerns exist. If the draft law were enacted in its current emanation, it would categorize and prohibit groups based on beliefs alone, as well as allow arbitrary decisions in registering religious groups due to the vague provisions of the draft law. I encourage President Akaev to support a law with strong protections for religious freedom. Implementing the modification suggested by the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts on Religious Freedom would ensure that the draft religion law meets Kyrgyzstan's OSCE commitments. Mr. Speaker, this morning I had a meeting with Ambassador Meret Orazov of Turkmenistan and personally raised a number of specific human rights cases. Turkmenistan, the most repressive state in the OSCE space, resembles North Korea: while the people go hungry, megalomaniac President Saparmurat Niyazov builds himself palaces and monuments, and is the object of a Stalin-style cult of personality. No opposition of any kind is allowed, and anyone who dares to express a view counter to Niyazov is arrested. Turkmenistan is the only country in the OSCE region where places of worship have been destroyed on government orders--in November 1999, the authorities bulldozed a Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Since then, Niyazov has implemented his plans to provide a virtual bible for his benighted countrymen; apparently, he intends to become their spiritual as well as secular guide and president for life. Turkmenistan has the worst record on religious freedom in the entire 55-nation OSCE. The systematic abuses that occur almost weekly are an abomination to the internationally recognized values which undergird the OSCE. Recent actions by Turkmen security agents against religious groups, including harassment, torture and detention, represent a catastrophic failure by Turkmenistan to uphold its human rights commitments as a participating OSCE State. In addition, last January, Mukhamed Aimuradov, who has been in prison since 1995, and Baptist pastor Shageldy Atakov, imprisoned since 1999, were not included in an amnesty which freed many prisoners. I hope that the Government of Turkmenistan will immediately and unconditionally release them, as well as all other prisoners of conscience. Rounding out the Central Asian countries, Tajikistan also presents human rights concerns. A report has recently emerged concerning the government's religious affairs agency in the southern Khatlon region, which borders Afghanistan. According to reliable sources, a memorandum from the religious affairs agency expressed concern about ``increased activity'' by Christian churches in the region, calling for them to be placed under ``the most stringent control.'' Tajik Christians fear that this statement of intolerance could be a precursor to persecution. Keston News Service reported that law enforcement officials have already begun visiting registered churches and are trying to find formal grounds to close them down. Additionally, city authorities in the capital Dushanbe have cracked down on unregistered mosques. Mr. Speaker, as the world focuses on Central Asia states with unprecedented energy, I wanted to bring these serious deficiencies in their commitment to human rights and democracy to the attention of my colleagues. All these countries joined the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe soon after their independence from the Soviet Union a decade ago. By becoming OSCE participating States, they agreed without reservation to comply with the Helsinki Final Act and all subsequent agreements. These documents cover a wide range of human dimension issues, including clear language on the human right of religious freedom and the right of the individual to profess and practice religion or belief. Unfortunately, as I have highlighted, these countries are failing in their commitment to promote and support human rights, and overall trends in the region are very disturbing. The goals of fighting terrorism and steadfastly supporting human rights are not dichotomous. It is my hope that the U.S. Government will make issues of human rights and religious freedom paramount in bilateral discussions and public statements concerning the ongoing efforts against terrorism. In this context, the considerable body of OSCE commitments on democracy, human rights and the rule of law should serve as our common standard for our relations with these countries.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001'' reflects a compromise agreement that the Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Veterans' Affairs reached on certain provisions of a number of bills considered by the House and Senate during the 107th Congress, including: H.R. 2792, a bill to make service dogs available to disabled veterans and to make various other improvements in health care benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes, by the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on October 16, 2001, and passed by the House on October 23, 2001 [hereinafter, ``House Bill'']; S. 1188, a bill to enhance the authority of the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to recruit and retain qualified nurses for the Veterans Health Administration, and for other purposes, reported by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on October 10, 2001, as proposed to be amended by a manager's amendment [hereinafter, ``Senate Bill'']; S. 1576, a bill to amend section 1710 of title 38, United States Code, to extend the eligibility for health care of veterans who served in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War; and, S. 1598, a bill to amend section 1706 of title 38, United States Code, to enhance the management of the provision by the Department of Veterans Affairs of specialized treatment and rehabilitation for disabled veterans, and for other purposes, introduced on October 21, 2001. The House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs have prepared the following explanation of the compromise bill, H.R. 3447 (hereinafter referred to as the ``Compromise Agreement''). Differences between the provisions contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related provisions in the bills listed above are noted in this document, except for clerical corrections and 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 rise today to honor and congratulate the students and faculty of the Burlington City High School Music Department in Burlington City, New Jersey for their recognition by the national GRAMMY Foundation as a GRAMMY Signature School. Burlington City is now one of 100 high schools from across the country to receive a certificate of recognition based on its high level of commitment to music education. The GRAMMY Signature School Program honors high school music students, teachers, principals, and school districts that promote and preserve music education--both performing and studying music--as a key part of their curriculum. The importance of music education in the overall educational experience of students is becoming clearer every day. In fact, several studies have shown a quantifiable value of the arts in improving overall academic performance. According to the College Entrance Examination Board, students of the arts continue to outperform their non-arts peers on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). In 1995, for example, SAT scores for students who studied the arts for four or more years were 59 points higher on the verbal, and 44 points higher on the math portion of the exam, than students with no course work on experience in the arts. Moreover, most teachers know that music appreciation and performance can often provide a critical mechanism to engage, and stimulate interest in, other school activities. Students who otherwise would have dropped out of school, and put their long term economic futures at risk, have been re-engaged through music and the arts. The GRAMMY Signature School Program is developed through the GRAMMY Foundation, a non-profit arm of the Recording Academy that is dedicated to advancing music and arts-based education across the country. Through educational, cultural and professional initiatives, the Foundation aims to strengthen our educational system. What makes Burlington City's accomplishments so special is the knowledge that it successfully competed against 18,000 public high schools nationwide. In the end, Burlington City's program was chosen by an independent screening committee comprised of university music professors, and representatives from professional music organizations to receive the Signature School Award for their exceptional job of cultivating their arts program. Mr. Speaker, I commend the faculty and students in the music department for their commitment to furthering music education. I would like to thank the school and the local school board for their hard work and dedication to providing an outstanding music educational program that superbly serves the students of Burlington City.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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, the ``Helsinki'' Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe recently convened a briefing which examined the policies of various governments which require registration of religious groups and the effect of such policies on the freedom of religious belief and practice. There was evidence that such requirements can be, and often are, a threat to religious freedom among countries in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, mandated to monitor and encourage compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE commitments, I have become alarmed over the past decade by the creation of new laws and regulations in some OSCE countries that serve as a roadblock to the free exercise of religious belief. These actions have not been limited to emerging democracies, but include Western European countries such as Austria. Many of these laws are crafted with the intent to repress religious communities deemed nefarious and dangerous to public safety. One cannot deny that certain groups have hidden behind the veil of religion in perpetrating monstrous and perfidious acts. The September 11th tragedies have been a grim reminder of that. Yet, while history does hold examples of religion employed as a tool for evil, these are exceptions and not the rule. In our own country, during the Civil Rights Movement, religious communities were the driving force in the effort to overturn the immoral ``separate but equal'' laws and provide legal protections. If strict religious registration laws had existed in this country, government officials could have clamped down on this just movement, possibly delaying long overdue reform. While OSCE commitments do not forbid basic registration of religious groups, governments often use the pretext of ``state security'' to quell groups espousing views contrary to the ruling powers' party line. Registration laws are often designed on the premise that minority faiths are inimical to governmental goals. Proponents of more strenuous provisions cite crimes committed by individuals in justifying stringent registration requirements against religious groups, ignoring the fact that criminal laws should be adequate to combat criminal activity. In other situations, some governments have crafted special church-state agreements, or concordats, which exclusively give one religious group powers and rights not available to other communities. By creating tiers or hierarchies, governments run the risk of dispersing privileges and authority in an inequitable fashion, ensuring that other religious groups will never exist on a level playing field, if at all. In a worst case scenario, by officially recognizing ``traditional'' or ``historic'' communities, governments can reflect an ambivalence towards minority religious groups. Such ambivalence can, in turn, create an atmosphere in which hostility or violence is perpetrated with impunity. The persistent brutality against Jehovah's Witnesses and evangelical groups in Georgia is an example of State authorities' failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of such violence. Mr. Speaker, religious registration laws do not operate in a vacuum; other rights, such as freedom of association or freedom of speech, are often enveloped by these provisions. Clamping down on a group's ability to exist not only contravenes numerous, long-standing OSCE commitments, but can effectively remove from society forces that operate for the general welfare. The recent liquidation of the Salvation Army in Moscow is a lucent example. Who will suffer most? The poor and hungry who now benefit from the Salvation Army's ministries of mercy. Each OSCE participating State has committed to full compliance with the provisions enumerated in the various Helsinki documents. The Bush Administration's commitment to religious freedom has been clearly articulated. In a March 9, 2001 letter, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, wrote: ``President Bush is deeply committed to promoting the right of individuals around the world to practice freely their religious beliefs.'' She also expressed her concern about religious discrimination. In a separate letter on March 30th of this year, Vice President Dick Cheney echoed this commitment when he referred to the promotion of religious freedom as ``a defining element of the American character.'' He went on to declare the Bush Administration's commitment ``to advancing the protection of individual religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy agenda.'' Since the war on terrorism was declared, the President has made clear the distinction between acts of terrorism and religious practice. In his address to the country, Mr. Bush stated: ``The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. . . . Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.'' He further stated, ``The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.'' Accordingly, I believe this administration will not stray from supporting religious freedom during this challenging time. Out of concern about recent developments and trends in the OSCE region, the Helsinki Commission conducted this briefing to discuss registration roadblocks affecting religious freedom. I was pleased by the panel of experts and practitioners assembled who were kind enough to travel from Europe to share their thoughts and insights, including Dr. Sophie van Bijsterveld, a professor of law in The Netherlands and current Co-Chair of the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Gerhard Robbers, a member of the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts and professor of law in Germany; Mr. Vassilios Tsirbas, interim executive director and senior legal counsel for the European Centre for Law and Justice in Strasbourg; and Col. Kenneth Baillie, commanding officer for the Salvation Army in Eastern Europe. Dr. van Bijsterveld made the point that ``the assessment of registration from the point of view of religious liberty depends entirely on the function that registration fulfills in the legal system, and the consequences that are attached to registration.'' She continued: ``A requirement of registration of religious groups as a pre-condition for the lawful exercise of religious freedom is worrisome in the light of international human rights standards. [Needing the government's] permission for a person to exercise his religion in community with others is, indeed, problematic in the light of intemationally acknowledged religious liberty standards. Religious liberty should not be made dependent on a prior government clearance. This touches the very essence of religious liberty.'' Dr. Robbers noted that registration of religious communities is often a requirement but ``it need not be a roadblock to religious freedom. In fact, it can free the way to more positive religious freedom if correctly performed.'' If utilized, ``registration and registration procedures must meet certain standards. Registration must be based on equal treatment of all religious communities. . . . [and] the process of registration must follow due process of law.'' He further noted that ``religious activity in and as community, must be possible even without being registered as religious community.'' He made clear that the minimum number of members required for registration need not be too many and there should be no minimum period of existence before registration is allowed. The third panelist, Mr. Tsirbas, opined, ``Within this proliferation of the field of human rights, the Helsinki Final Act is a more than promising note. The commitment to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, basically summarizes the . . . protection of international and domestic legal documents. Religious liberty stands out as one of those sine qua non conditions for an atmosphere of respect for the rights of individuals or whole communities.'' Mr. Tsirbas also stated, ``If the protection of the individual is considered the cornerstone of our modern legal system, religious freedom should be considered the cornerstone of all other rights. The right itself is one of the most recent to be recognized and protected, yet it embraces and reflects the inevitable outworking through the course of time of the fundamental truths of belief in the worth of a person.'' Lastly, Col. Kenneth Baillie, spokesman for the Salvation Army in Eastern Europe, outlined the experience of registering his organization in Moscow. ``In Russia, as of February this year, we are registered nationwide as a centralized religious organization, [however] the city of Moscow is another story. We have been registered as a religious group in Moscow since 1992. In response to the 1997 law, like everyone else, we applied for re-registration, thinking that it would be merely pro forma. Our application documents were submitted, and a staff person in the city Ministry of Justice said everything was in order, we would have our signed and stamped registration in two days. ``Two days later,'' Col. Baillie continued, ``the same staffer called to say, in a sheepish voice, `There's a problem.' Well, it is now three years later, and there is still a problem. Someone took an ideological decision to deny us, that is absolutely clear to me, and three years of meetings and documents and media statements and legal briefs are all window-dressing. Behind it all is an arbitrary, discriminatory, and secret decision, and to this day I do not know who made the decision, or why.'' Based on the difficult experience of trying to register in Moscow and the Salvation Army's subsequent ``liquidation'' by a Moscow court, Col. Baillie offered some observations. He noted how ``the law's ambiguity gives public officials the power to invent arbitrary constructions of the law.'' Col. Baillie concluded by stating, ``We will not give up,'' but added he is ``understandably skeptical about religious registration law, and particularly the will to uphold what the law says in regard to religious freedom.'' Mr. Speaker, this Helsinki Commission briefing offered a clear picture of how the law and practice affecting, registration of religious groups have become critical aspects in the defense of the right to freedom of conscience, religion or belief. No doubt registration requirements can serve as a roadblock which is detrimental to religious freedom. The Commission will continue to monitor this trend among the region's governments which are instituting more stringent registration requirements and will encourage full compliance with the Helsinki commitments to ensure the protection of this fundamental right.