Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, late last week Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer called Congressman Greenwood's legislative approach to human cloning ``a nightmare of a bill.'' He went on to write that the Greenwood substitute ``sanctions, licenses and protects the launching of the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in modern scientific history: the creation of nascent cloned human life for the sole purpose of its exploitation and destruction.'' Charles Krauthammer, Mr. Speaker, nailed it precisely. The Greenwood substitute would for the first time in history sanction the creation of human life with the demand, backed by new Federal criminal and civil sanctions, that the new life be destroyed after it is experimented upon and exploited. For the small inconvenience of registering your name and your business address, you would be licensed to play God by creating life in your own image or someone else's. You would have the right to create embryo farms, headless human clones, or anything else science might one day allow to be created outside the womb; and in the end only failure to kill what you had created would be against the law. A few moments ago, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) said that cloning doesn't result in the creation of a unique human being. That's ludicrous. That is exactly what the Weldon bill speaks to. That unique human being that would be created if left unfettered and untouched would grow, given nourishment and nurturing, into a baby, a toddler into an adolescent adulthood and right through the continuum of life. That is what we are talking about. Mr. Weldon's bill doesn't preclude other potentially legislative processes. Mr. Speaker, amazingly the only new crime created by the Greenwood amendment is the failure to kill all human lives once they are created. Federal law would say that it is permissible to create as many human lives as you want to for research just so long as you eventually kill them. That, my colleagues, is the stated intent of the Greenwood substitute. And Mr. Greenwood's substitute would not even stop the birth of a human clone, which it purports to do. Because his approach would encourage the creation of cloned human embryo stockpiles and cloned human embryo farms, it would make the hard part of human cloning completely legal and try to make the relatively easy part, implantation, illegal. So once these cloned human embryos are stockpiled in a lab, Mr. Speaker, who, or what is going to stop somebody from implanting one of those cloned humans? The Greenwood substitute has no tracking provisions. Greenwood would open pandora's box and verification would be a joke. The bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker, the Greenwood substitute permits the cloning of human life to do anything you would like to for research purposes just as long as you kill that human life. Mr. Speaker, to implement this debate some Members have taken to the well to say that everybody is against human cloning. Oh really? Just because we say it's so doesn't make it necessarily so. The simple--and sad-- fact of the matter is that Greenwood is pro-cloning. The Weldon bill, the underlying bill, would end human cloning and would prescribe certain criminal as well as civil penalties for those who commit that offense. We are really at a crossroads, Mr. Speaker. This is a major ethical issue. And make no mistake about it I want to find cures to the devastating disease that afflicts people. I am cochairman of the Alzheimer's Caucus. I am cochairman of the Autism Caucus. I chair the Veterans Committee and have just today gotten legislation passed to help Gulf War Vets. I believe desperately we have got to find cures. But creating human embryos for research purposes is unethical, it is wrong, and it ought to be made illegal. I hope Members will support the Weldon bill and will vote ``no'' on the substitute when it is offered.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me note that I believe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has injected what I really believe to be a straw man argument when he suggests the issue of insoulment is part of this debate. It is not relevant. We are not talking about insoulment. The real issue before us is the simple but highly profound issue of whether or not it will be legally permissible to create human life for research purposes. Mr. Speaker, human cloning, if it is not already here, it is certainly on the fast track. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. It seems to me we have to make sure that these newly created human beings are not created for the purpose of exploitation, abuse, and destructive experimentation. Human life, Mr. Speaker, can survive a few days, a few minutes, a few seconds, a few weeks, a few months, a few years, perhaps to old age. We need to understand and understand the profound truth that life is a continuum. Earlier in the debate, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) stated that the scientists would simply stop the process, stop the process. Think about those words. What does that mean, stop the process? Stop that human life. That is what we are talking about. Mr. Speaker, I remember the debate we had some years back in 1996 when some of our colleagues stood up and pounded the tables before them and said, and this is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), ``We should not be involved in the creation of embryos for research. I completely agree with my colleagues on that score.'' I remember that debate. I was here, as were some of my other colleagues. Everyone said they were against the creation of human embryos for human research. Today, Member after Member gets up and says, I am against human cloning. As I said before, just because we say we are does not mean that we really are. The only bill that stops human cloning is the Weldon-Stupak bill. I would respectfully say the bill that is offered by my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania will do nothing of the kind. It will perhaps stop some implantation but will not stop human cloning. We must vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to just say I certainly appreciate and empathize with the motion to recommit; but the committee has, in my opinion, tried to carefully and painstakingly craft a budget that fully funds a number of very important veterans' programs. I believe Chairman Walsh and Ranking Democrat Mollohan have produced a generous allocation of Federal funds for veterans' programs. VA construction gets more--and much needed monies--under the bill. As a matter of fact it fully funds the first year of my bill, passed by the House--H.R. 811--Emergency Hospital Repair Act of 2001. The Walsh bill provides approximately $1.6 billion over and above last year in the area of discretionary spending, and a significant $1 billion more in VA medical care funding. Sure, I would like to increase VA appropriations beyond what is in this bill. We would all like to spend more. But we have to live within at least some budget restraints. No budget or appropriations bill is ever perfect, Mr. Speaker, but is the result of careful compromise and a weighing of competing priorities. Tomorrow I will bring to the floor the Veterans Benefits Act of 2001, which provides a $2.7 billion increase over 5 years, to boost COLAs for more than 2.3 million disabled vets. And to assist Gulf War vets and for insurance and other purposes. This plus H.R. 1291 the doubling of the 61 education benefit--from $23,400 to $36,900--and H.R. 801, the Veterans Survivors Benefit Improvement Act of 2001 signed into law demonstrates are commitment to vets. So I just ask Members, however well-intended this motion is, I think it breaks the budget; and I would urge that it be voted down. Both the chairman and ranking member care deeply about veterans and have done their level best within their allocation to fund veterans programs. I just would ask for a no vote on this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I do thank my friend from New Jersey for his excellent question. I believe, like the gentleman does, that a veteran is a veteran is a veteran, no matter in what part of the country he or she happens to reside. As the gentleman knows, in some of our networks, there has been an erosion in certain specialty care services. For example, in 1996, we required the VA to maintain a certain level of capacity in specialized programs. We now know that despite this Congressional requirement, specialty care bed capacity has been reduced by as much as 65 percent. I wish to reassure the gentleman that, in fact, I am working, as chairman of the full Committee on Veterans Affairs, on a comprehensive VA health care improvement and capacity restoration bill. Once that bill is finalized and I have a chance to share that proposal with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I believe he and others will find that it will appropriately and compassionately address many of the concerns which the gentleman has raised so adequately on the floor today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman I want to commend the gentleman for his strong advocacy on behalf of Veterans Networks that have a rapidly aging population and an aging infrastructure to maintain. The VA in the State of New Jersey has the tough challenge of providing quality health care services to a veterans population that is the second oldest on average in the Nation. And unlike many other States that have older populations, New Jersey has an aging health care infrastructure that is proven costly to maintain and to operate. As the gentleman knows, we have been working for some time to find solutions to this problem so that our veterans are not shortchanged by VERA.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support for the Pallone-Saxton-Smith Amendment, which seeks an additional $3 million to the EPA budget for enhancing beach water monitoring programs. These programs are authorized under the BEACH Act (Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000), signed last year as Public Law 106-284. Beach water monitoring programs are critical to the health of the millions of people who swim in our oceans. Since 1988, more than 36,000 beaches have been closed due to contaminated water. During 1999 alone, more than 6,000 beaches were closed because beach waters were found contaminated with pathogens, or disease-causing bacteria and viruses. Pathogens are found in human and animal waste from polluted runoff, storm drains, sewer overflows and malfunctioning septic systems. When swimmers are unknowingly exposed to these pathogens, they can become sick from a whole host of diseases--gastroenteritis, dysentery, and hepatitis among others. Children, who frequent our beaches, are among the highest at risk because their immune systems are not as fully developed. If we do not take action to keep our shores safe and clean, the dream of a family vacation can become a nightmare of disease and illness. Many of these pathogens are invisible and undetectable to the naked eye. Without testing, there is no way of knowing if beach waters are too contaminated for swimming, surfing, and other recreational activities. Yet, until last year, no national standards were in place to monitor beaches for pathogen contamination to ensure the water is safe. As a result, Congress unanimously passed the BEACH Act (P.L. 106-284) to establish consistent water quality standards for our beaches. The bill also provides grants to help states develop and implement water quality testing and notification programs about unsafe conditions at our beaches. The fact of the matter is that our beaches are national assets that deserve national protection. Just like our national parks, our beaches are not enjoyed solely by those who live near them. In fact, just the opposite is true: our beaches are visited by tens of millions of people from all over the country. Foreign tourists come from all parts of the globe to visit our coasts and beaches, including the Jersey Shore. Our nation's beaches contribute heavily to our national economy--four times as many people visit our nation's beaches each year than visit all of our National Parks combined. And yet Congress provides copious funding for national parks--as it should. It is estimated that 75% of Americans will spend some portion of their vacation at the beach this year. Beaches are the most popular destination for foreign visitors to our country as well. The amount of money spent by beach-going tourists creates an extensive economic benefit--a portion of which goes back to the Federal government in the form of income and payroll taxes. Clean and safe beaches are not just good public health policy, clean beaches are also good for the economy. In my State of New Jersey, in 1999, tourism brought $27.7 billion to the state--out of the 167 million trips made to New Jersey in 1999, 101 million were to the Shore area. Mr. Chairman, I urge all members of Congress to support the Pallone- Saxton-Smith Amendment which adds an additional $3 million to the EPA budget for beach water monitoring programs, for a total of $10 million to states and localities to monitor pathogen contamination. Because, a trip to the beach should not result in a trip to the hospital.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support for the Bonior Amendment, which prohibits funds from being used to delay the national primary drinking water regulation for Arsenic, which was published on January 22, 2001. It is clear we have a problem with Arsenic in our water systems, and Congress must act expeditiously to remedy the problem. In 1999, in their report examining the levels of arsenic in drinking water, the National Academy of Sciences recommend that: EPA Must Immediately Propose and Finalize by January 1, 2001 a Health-Protective Standard for Arsenic in Tap Water. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has made it clear, and we agree, that EPA should expeditiously issue a stricter Maximum Contaminant Level standard for arsenic. Based on available scientific literature and NAS risk estimates, this standard should be set no higher than 3 ppb--the lowest level reliably quantifiable, according to EPA. Even an arsenic standard of 3 ppb could pose a fatal cancer risk several times higher than EPA has traditionally accepted in drinking water. EPA Must Revise Downward its Reference Dose for Arsenic. EPA's current reference dose likely does not protect such vulnerable populations as infants and children. Furthermore, ``safe'' arsenic intakes in the RfD present unacceptably high cancer risks. To protect children, EPA should reduce this reference dose from 0.3 micrograms per kilogram per day (mmg- kg/day) to at most 0.1 mmg-kg/day. For concordance with cancer risk numbers, EPA should reevaluate the RfD in more depth as expeditiously as feasible. EPA Should Assure that Improve Analytical Methods Are Widely Available to Lower Detection Limits for Arsenic. EPA must act to reduce the level at which arsenic can be reliably detected in drinking water, so that it can be reliably quantified by most labs at below 1 ppb, the level at which it may pose a health risk. Water Systems Should be honest With Consumers about Arsenic Levels and Risks. It is in public water systems' best long- term interest to tell their customers about arsenic levels in their tap water and the health implications of this contamination. Only when it is armed with such knowledge can the public be expected to support funding and efforts to remedy the problem. Water Systems Should Seek Government and Citizen Help to Protect Source Water. Water systems should work with government officials and citizens to prevent their source water from being contaminated with arsenic. Water Systems Should Treat to Remove Arsenic, and Government Funds Should be Increased to Help Smaller Systems Pay for Improvements. Readily available treatment technology can remove arsenic from tap water, at a cost that is reasonable ($5 to $14 per month per household) for the vast majority of people (87 percent) served by systems with arsenic problems. Very small systems serving a small fraction of the population drinking arsenic-contaminated water, however, will often be more expensive to clean up per household. Assistance to such systems should be a high priority for drinking water funds such as the SRF and USDA's Rural Utility Service programs. The SRF should be funded at least $1 billion per year to help systems with arsenic problems. EPA Should Improve its Arsenic, Geographic Information, and Drinking Water Databases. EPA should upgrade its Safe Drinking Water Information System to include and make publicly accessible all of the arsenic and unregulated contaminant data, as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA also should require water systems to provide accurate lat-long data using GPS systems, which will have widespread use in GIS systems by federal, state, and local officials, and the public, for source water protection, developing targeted and well-documented rules, and for other purposes. The risk of cancer from arsenic contamination is too great for Congress to further delay the rule. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the lifetime risks of dying from cancer due to Arsenic in tap water is 1 in 100, when the arsenic level in tap water is at 50 parts per billion (ppb), which is the current rate. At 10ppb, the risk is 1 in 500, and at .5ppb, the risk is 1 in 10,000. One in 10,000 is the highest cancer risk the EPA usually allows in tap water for any element--why should arsenic be different? Mr. Chairman, throughout my tenure in Congress I have supported legislation to reduce health risks and inform the public about water safety standards. in 1996, I voted for the Safe Drinking Water Reauthorization Act (PL 104-182), which directed the EPA to propose a new, cleaner, standard for arsenic in drinking water. At that time, Congress also directed the EPA, with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), to study arsenic's health effects and the risks associated with exposure to low levels of arsenic. Three years later, in 1999, NAS concluded their report, and made the appropriate recommendations. Now, nearly two years later, we are still debating the rule. Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear, Arsenic is in our water and poses a serious health risk--the American people can not wait any longer for action. I urge all members of Congress to support the Bonior Amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this year, Romania holds the chairmanship of the 55-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Obviously, this is one of the most important positions in the OSCE and, as Romania is a little more than half way through its tenure, I would like to reflect for a moment on some of their achievements and challenges. First and foremost, I commend Romanian Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana for his leadership. In late January Minister Geoana met in the Capitol with members of the Helsinki Commission which I co-chair and again two weeks ago at the Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Paris, we had a helpful exchange of views. He has demonstrated, in word and deed, that he understands how important the role of chairman is to the work of the OSCE. His personal engagement in Belarus and Chechnya, for example, illustrates the constructive possibilities of the chairmanship. I appreciate Foreign Minister Geoana's willingness to speak out on human rights concerns throughout the region. As Chair-in-Office, we also hope that Romania will lead by example as it continues to implement economic and political reform and to further its integration into western institutions. In this regard, I would like to draw attention to a few of the areas the Helsinki Commission is following with special interest. First, many members of the Helsinki Commission have repeatedly voiced our concerns about manifestations of anti-Semitism in Romania, often expressed through efforts to rehabilitate or commemorate Romania's World War II leadership. I was therefore encouraged by the swift and unequivocal response by the Romanian Government to the inexcusable participation of General Mircea Chelaru in a ceremony unveiling a bust of Marshal Ion Antonescu, Romania's war-time dictator. I particularly welcome President Iliescu's statement that ``Marshal Ion Antonescu was and is considered a war criminal for the political responsibility he assumed by making [an] alliance with Hitler.'' I encourage the Romanian Government to give even greater meaning to this statement and to its stated commitment to reject anti-Semitism. Clearly, the next step should be the removal of Antonescu statues from public lands, including those at the Jilava prison and in Slobozia, Piatra Neamt, and Letcani. Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the recent statement by Prime Minister Nastase that journalists should not be sent to jail for their writings. But frankly, it is not enough for the Prime Minister merely to reject efforts to increase the criminal penalties that journalists are now vulnerable to in Romania. Non-governmental organizations have spoken to this issue with one voice. In fact, since the beginning of this year, NGOs have renewed their call for changes to the Romanian penal code that would bring it into line with OSCE standards. Amnesty International, Article l9, the Global Campaign for Free Expression, the International Helsinki Federation and the Romanian Helsinki Committee have all urged the repeal of articles 205, 206, 207, 236, 236(1), 238 and 239 from the criminal code and, as appropriate, their replacement by civil code provisions. I understand the Council of Europe made similar recommendations to Romania in 1997. Moreover, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has said, clearly and repeatedly, that criminal defamation and insult laws are not consistent with OSCE commitments and should be repealed. There is no better time to take this step than now, while Romania holds the Chairmanship of the OSCE. Public authorities, of course, should be protected from slander and libel, just like every one else. Clearly, civil codes are more than adequate to achieve this goal. Accordingly, in order to bring Romanian law into line with Romania's international obligations and commitments, penal sanctions for defamation or insult of public authorities in Romania should be altogether ended. It is time--and past time--for these simple steps to be taken. As Chairman-in-Office, Minister Geoana has repeatedly expressed his concern about the Domestically, Romania is also in a position to lead by example in combating trafficking. Notwithstanding that the State Department's first annual Trafficking in Persons report characterizes Romania as a ``Tier 3'' country in the fight against human trafficking--that is, a country which does not meet minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with those standards--it is clear the Government of Romania is moving in a positive direction to address the trafficking of human beings from and through its territory. For example, the Ministry of Justice is actively working on a new anti-trafficking law. The government is also cooperating closely with the Regional Center for Combating Trans-Border Crime, created under the auspices of the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative and located in Bucharest, and in particular, with the Center's anti-human trafficking task force. I encourage the Govenmient of Romania to continue with these efforts and to undertake additional initiatives. For example, law enforcement officers in Romania, as in many other OSCE States, are still in need of thorough training on how to investigate and prosecute cases of suspected human trafficking. Training which reinforces the principle that trafficked persons deserve a compassionate response from law enforcement--as they are victims of crime themselves, not criminals--is necessary. When such training leads to more arrests of traffickers and more compassion toward trafficking victims, Romania will be a regional leader in the fight against this modem slavery. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the Romani minority in Romania. Romania may have as many as 2 million Roma, and certainly has the largest number of Roma of any OSCE country. Like elsewhere in the region, they face discrimination in labor, public places, education, and housing. I am especially concerned about persistent and credible reports that Roma are subjected to police abuse, such as the raids at the Zabrauti housing development, near Bucharest, on January 12, and in Brasov on February I and 9 of this year. I commend Romani CRISS and other groups that have worked to document these problems. I urge the Romanian Government to intensify its efforts to prevent abusive practices on the part of the police and to hold individual police officers accountable when they violate the law. In the coming months, the OSCE will conduct the Human Dimension Implementation Review meeting in Warsaw, a Conference on Roma and Sinti Affairs in Bucharest, and the Ministerial Council meeting also in Bucharest, among other meetings and seminars. The legacy of the Romanian Chairmanship will entail not only the leadership demonstrated in these venues but also progress made at home through further compliance with OSCE commitments.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am introducing the ``Department of Defense- Department of Veterans Affairs Health Resources Access Improvement Act of 2001'' on behalf of myself and Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Everett of Alabama, Mr. Simmons of Connecticut, Mr. Gibbons of Nevada, Mr. Wamp of Tennessee, Mr. Kirk of Illinois, Mr. Buyer of Indiana, and Mr. Bilirakis of Florida. America's servicemen and women, their families, and our veterans who have served in uniform deserve the best health care we can offer them as a Nation. My bill addresses the urgent need for the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to improve their programs of health resource sharing as originally authorized by Public Law 97-174, the ``Veterans' Administration and Department of Defense Health Resources Sharing and Emergency Operations Act of 1982.'' This authority was originally intended to provide opportunities to make it easier for the two Departments--whose combined health care budgets this year total over $35 billion--to increase the variety and amount of their health resource sharing for the benefit of their veteran and military beneficiaries, while helping hold down costs in Federal health care for the benefit of taxpayers. Currently, the Secretaries of each Department have at their discretion the option not to share. With this bill, we take a new approach: it would make sharing the order of the day. Sharing must be an important priority of both Departments, and we should create strong incentives for the Secretaries to work together to achieve common ends. The bill's proposed findings are indicative of our disappointment with the current state of VA-DoD sharing. We believe that neither department has taken full advantage of sharing opportunities and that the intended results of the 1982 sharing authority have not been achieved. We know VA-DoD sharing could be greatly increased, and with this bill we want to get sharing moving again. Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to establish a health care facilities sharing demonstration project in keeping with the intent of the original legislation for VA-DoD sharing. Under the bill, five qualifying sites across the country would be selected for participation in a demonstration project. The purpose of the demonstration project is to identify and measure the advantages of sharing, and work through the challenges of the two systems becoming true partners in health care This legislation would require a unified management system to be adopted in the five demonstration sites to the extent feasible. A unified system would incorporate budget and financial management, health care provider assignments, and medical information systems compatibility. At the present time, the two Departments' information systems are incompatible, but this legislation would also create a framework for greater software compatibility. By making such systems communicate better, we can better ensure continuity of care, equality of access, uniform quality of service and seamless transmission of data. This is a third important goal of our bill. In addition, the demonstration project would provide for enhancement of graduate medical educational programs at the five sites for physicians in training and other health care providers. This will create a unique opportunity for health professions students by giving them a combined exposure that has not been available to them before. It would also bring a greater awareness and understanding of differences in the two beneficiary populations for new and experienced health care professionals alike. Congress has made efforts in the past to promote specific sharing. At best, the results have been modest. For example, we authorized the Mike O'Callaghan Federal Hospital at Nellis Air Force Base outside Las Vegas. It is a 96-bed Air Force managed hospital with 52 VA-dedicated beds. This facility still has significant potential to serve as a model for sharing, but the VA and the Air Force made the decision to maintain separate budgets, financial, human resources, patient care records and data management systems. This facility, spending combined appropriations of over $46 million, is really operating as two independent federal facilities within the same walls, with needless duplications of systems and services and inefficient use of resources. Another example is the VA Medical center and Kirkland AFB Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Albuquerque is a VA-Air Force partnership that provides admitting privileges to Air Force physicians. The relationship between the VA and Air Force at these facilities is an example of a good beginning to sharing. What was once a 40-bed Air Force hospital occupying VA space has evolved to a contractual relationship today. Now the Air Force purchases inpatient care services from the VA, rather than operating less efficiently as a separate hospital within the confines of the Albuquerque facility. While many of the lost opportunities to share observed in Las Vegas do not pertain to the situation in Albuquerque, some do. For example, the Air Force and VA needlessly maintain separate dental clinics, central dental laboratory functions and separate supply chains. Also, the Air Force continues to maintain a management presence as though it were still operating as an independent facility, even though most of its activities duplicate those of VA. The Committee has also examined sharing in VA and DoD health care facilities in San Diego, CA; Fayetteville, NC; Charleston, SC; and San Antonio and El Paso, TX. It appears that substantial benefits could be achieved on both sides of the sharing equation if sharing became more of a standard operating policy between VA and DoD. Obviously, sharing is more likely to occur if one potential partner has something perceived to be valuable or useful to offer the other and if the right incentives are in place to encourage follow-through on sharing arrangements. VA Medical Centers have been successful in fields such as rehabilitation, prosthetics, treatment of spinal cord injuries and geriatrics, but DoD medical facilities treat a broader base of patients, which provides opportunities for the medical staff to broaden its experience. Some of these facilities that could share or share more are close neighbors, and close proximity clearly makes sharing much easier to achieve. For some of these essentially co-located facilities, a joint facility would almost certainly reduce administrative costs as well as staffing needs. With such savings, additional resources would be made available for patient treatment and technological improvements. For instance, at the San Diego VA Medical Center, the fiscal year 2001 budget is $202 million, and at the Balboa Naval Medical Center, the fiscal year 2001 budget is over $338 million. Although these facilities are only a few miles apart, no sharing occurs between them. The most recent clinical sharing between VA and the Navy in the San Diego area appears to have ended in 1989. It appears that Congress must be more vigorous or this deplorable situation will continue. For too many neighboring VA and DoD health facilities, separate management and operations have become the only way they can conceive of doing business, even when another federal medical facility, also supported by tax dollars, may be little more than a stone's throw away. This separateness is mostly about ingrained habits, organizational cultures and protecting turf, and is not about promoting the best quality medical treatment for veterans and military patients, extending specialty care to more federal beneficiaries, or conserving scarce resources and funding. Our bill would require, among other things, no later than two years after its enactment, the Secretaries of both Departments must submit to Congress a prospectus for the construction of a new joint federal medical facility. The two Secretaries would jointly select the location with two options to consider. They could select a location Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill would make VA-DoD health sharing mandatory. This change in the law would require jointly located facilities, beginning with those participating in the demonstration project, to actively engage in developing and implementing meaningful and sustainable plans for sharing. We understand that DoD and VA health facilities do not always operate in the same fashion, and that even a small change in policy or procedure can have large consequences. That is why in order to fully test the principles of this sharing legislation, the Secretaries of DoD and VA would be granted the authority to waive certain administrative regulations and policies otherwise applicable within their respective Departments. This bill includes provisions for close monitoring of any administrative regulations and policies that the Secretaries would deem appropriate for waiver, and would require them to report to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services on their use of such waiver authority. In summary, this bill reflects the Committee's belief that veterans and military beneficiaries deserve the best health care a grateful Nation can offer. Through the creation of this demonstration project and other provisions of this bill, we hope to improve health resource sharing by providing stronger incentives for both departments to join forces and make VA-DoD sharing a reality. When I assumed the Chairmanship of this Committee I promised to do what is right for veterans. I am convinced that the Department of Defense--Department of Veterans Affairs Health Resources Improvement Act of 2001 would be good for veterans and the military community alike. I urge my colleagues to come on board and support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), my good friend and ranking member on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to prohibit the use of funds in fiscal year 2002, to implement the administration's proposal that military retirees be required to make an irrevocable choice between military or VA health care for a defined period of years. While we certainly want to encourage more efficient use of scarce Federal health resources, at this juncture, we simply do not have enough information about the potential impact of that specific proposal. I do not think either the VA or the Department of Defense is really prepared to deal with the implications of requiring this choice, and both health care systems are already experiencing considerable strain serving their beneficiaries. We need to understand the implications of this proposal much, much better. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I want to commend the gentleman for the robust increases he has included in H.R. 2660 for veterans health care programs. I again want to reiterate to my colleagues that an increase of $1.2 billion for the VA's Medicare account will go a long way toward improving services for our veterans. There is an area of particular interest to me I would like to discuss the with the distinguished chairman, and that is the success of Alzheimer's disease. I am proud to support a bill that will help to improve the treatment of veterans that suffer from this debilitating dementia. As cochairman of the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force, I am proud of the clinical research the VA has been conducting on Alzheimer's disease. As the chairman is aware, the VA has developed a very promising model to treat Alzheimer's patients at the Bedford, Massachusetts, VA facility. This model emphasizes a home-like setting, making patients feel comfortable, instead of subjecting them to painful and heroic medical interventions, and employs an interdisciplinary team of clinicians, dieticians and therapists. All reviews of the Bedford program have concluded that it provides better care than traditional long-term care approaches. It is my hope that, with the additional resources contained in this bill, the VA will take concrete steps to examine successful Alzheimer's programs such as the Bedford VA model and look to expand this approach to other VA medical centers. I will yield to the chairman on that issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished chairman for his commitment to our Alzheimer's patients, particularly to those who happen to be veterans, the 600,000 that he mentioned.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the HUD/VA Appropriation bill. I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Walsh and ranking democrat Alan Molhan on the funding levels provided for veterans programs by the bill. This bill provides a 16 percent increase in funds for the Veterans Benefits Administration. VA Secretary Principi proposes to use these funds to hire and train 900 additional employees to address the increased workload in the disability and education claims areas. The increased workload is a result of an increased number of claims and legislative changes to the adjudication process. Addressing this backlog is an urgent task which the Secretary has attempted to confront in a very forthright and open manner. But, frankly, I am deeply concerned and dismayed about the blatantly unfair criticism that blames him and the Bush administration for a situation that clearly was the result of policies and practices in place before he became VA Secretary. I share his concern about partisan attacks that hold him accountable because this backlog has not yet been resolved. I say to those who would make such criticisms that they cannot absolve themselves of some of the responsibility. Congress passed the Veterans Claims Assistance Act last year and that Act alone required the VA to review over 50,000 disability decisions to assure compliance with that act. In addition, the two previous VA Secretaries had substantial opportunities to make the claims process more timely and responsive to veterans, yet Secretary Principi faced a backlog of over 500,000 disability claims and 130,000 education claims when he took office. Sec. Principle is a good and honorable man who cares deeply about veterans. He is responsive and an outstanding leader. The criticism of him is unjustified, unfair and unwarranted. As I noted, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides a 16 percent increase for the Veterans Benefits Administration. I cannot think of too many Departments that have seen a 16 percent increase in 1 year. I believe that this is probably as much money as could be productively used in fiscal year 2002. This budget is a very good one, but we should not assume that simply by increasing the budget these backlogs will disappear overnight. The VA is already hiring employees using funds they expect to receive in the supplemental appropriation bill. But it takes several years for an employee to obtain the requisite skills necessary to correctly decide a veteran's disability claim. While I expect we will see progress, there is no magic wand that will solve these matters overnight. Mr. Chairman, on the health care side, the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and again I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their faithfulness to our veterans. This legislation provide a $300 million increase in funds to funding bill H.R. 811, which we passed earlier this year for medical facility rehabilitation projects. I want my colleagues to understand that even though we have not gotten Senate agreement yet on the Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act, H.R. 811, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) are willing to fund this new authorization. I think they break some very important ground by their willingness to do this. As the chief sponsor of H.R. 811, I can say that it is readily apparent that even though the VA may need to tear down or declare excess some of its aging facilities that are vacant and not needed to serve veterans in the future, there is an urgent need to renovate medical facilities throughout the country that will be serving veterans for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the proposed budget for VA facility repair and renovation has not come close to meeting the documented needs of a system with an estimated value of some $35 billion. An independent study by Price Waterhouse suggested that with a system as valuable as this one, an annual investment of about $700 million to $1.4 billion would be ideal. Unfortunately, VA budget proposals in the past few years contained far less than this for capital renovation projects. The changes in medical practice and technology demand that facilities be modernized on a regular basis; and frankly we have ignored that need in VA health care facilities in the last few budgets. That is why all Members should be aware of the provision in the bill pledging $300 million in capital construction funds to keep VA facilities and the care they deliver up to date. This is the problem we were attempting to address in H.R. 811 when we passed it earlier this year, and this appropriations language likewise addresses it as well. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from New York and all members of the committee for supporting this funding. The reported bill also includes substantial increases in the budgets for state home construction grants, medical and prosthetic research, and the national cemetery system. Coupled with a projected increase in receipts from insurers, an increase of $1.2 billion over the 2001 level would be provided for medical care. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee is aware, the VA carried forward $1.3 billion from last year into the current fiscal year. In addition, health care receipts are about 25 percent higher this year than last year, so that a total of $800 million in additional funds of medical care attributable to these receipts is a realistic possibility. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is also fair to mention the issue of VA managers diverting medical care funds in a manner that reached new heights late last year. Of the $20 billion in medical care funds provided for the current fiscal year, $6.2 billion was appropriated for three items. Those three items are pharmacy (drugs), Hepatitis C care, and long-term care. As we learned earlier this year from newly- confirmed VA Secretary Tony Principi, VA doesn't need all of this $6.2 billion, and plans to spend $750 million of it on other health care needs. Given the VA's ability to reprogram sums as a large as this without any explanation or authorization, it seems to me we need to take a much closer look at how VA is spending its money and what it is currently requesting. One of the themes I've stressed since becoming Chairman is to hold VA officials accountable for the decisions they make and how they spend taxpayer dollars. Thus, I think a one billion dollar increase is defensible and generous if we're going to have officials requesting funds for one purpose and then spending it one something else altogether. In addition, I believe we will finally see the long- awaited improvement in medical collections of around $200 million in the current fiscal year, and that increase should carry over into fiscal year 2002. All in all, I believe this is a very good bill for veterans, one that provides substantial increases where the funds will do the most good. Given the demands by millions of veterans for a high-quality affordable health care benefit, it is nearly impossible to say that higher appropriations for medical care are unnecessary. But they is a very good bill, and it keeps our pledge to maintain the quality for those veterans now enrolled with VA for their health care. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote for this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. The government of Vietnam is not making progress on human rights. On the contrary, in recent months the government has substantially increased the frequency and the severity of its human rights violations and just recently, beginning in late winter, began a new and very cruel crackdown on the Montagnards, torturing, murdering, cordoning off. Mr. Speaker, this is the reality on the ground in Vietnam. Let me also point out to my colleagues that there is no real religious freedom allowed by the government of Vietnam. The Unified Buddhist Church, the largest religious denomination in the country, has been declared illegal by the government, and over the last 25 years its clergy have often been imprisoned and subjected to other forms of persecution. The patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church, 83-year-old Thich Huyen Quang, has been detained for 21 years in a ruined temple, an isolated area in central Vietnam. Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the executive president of the Unified Buddhist Church, has been in detention for many years and was recently rearrested when he sought medical care for Thich Huyen Quang. The Hoa Hao Buddhist Church has also been under severe repression. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, ``this organization is made up of almost entirely,'' that is to say, the governing body of it, ``of members of the Communist party,'' and they have not recognized and have not been recognized by the majority of the Hoa Haos. Let me just say, recently Father Ly gave testimony to the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom. We know what happened when he gave that testimony, and it was written testimony. He did not come here and present it. He, too, was arrested by the government of Vietnam and is being held. So Catholic priests in Vietnam who speak out against religious persecution, sorry, they are going to be arrested and persecuted. That is the government that we are subsidizing. Mr. Speaker, we have to take the side of human rights and the oppressed, and not stand with the oppressor. Let us see some real progress before we lavish trade on the government of Vietnam.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide my time with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire whether or not the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will offer his amendment now, and then the time will be equally divided?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), my good friend and colleague and coauthor of this amendment, be allowed to control half of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 15 seconds. Among the largest new sources of revenue we could possibly provide the Castro regime at this point would be large scale United States tourism. So I and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) are offering this human rights amendment in the hope that any lifting of remaining travel restrictions to Cuba will be done carefully and thoughtfully with some regard to the consequences. Mr. Chairman, it is important to be honest about what we are talking about when we talk about tourism to Cuba. The dictatorship gets rich-- filthy rich--let us make no mistake about that, and will go on its merry way in arresting, beating, and torturing political dissidents. Let me just point out, Mr. Chairman, that Human Rights Watch, in its report, and I urge Members to read it, makes the point that conditions in Cuba's prisons are inhuman. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws. Torture is commonplace in Cuba, and ugly beyond words. There is no freedom of speech or assembly in Cuba. The people of Cuba have no right to emigrate. And dissent continues to be suppressed with unspeakable cruelty. In light of this we should lift the travel ban. And to make matters worse, there is another outrageous lucrative form of travel to Cuba called sex tourism. Cuba is on the short list of destinations for middle-aged men looking for inexpensive commercial sex, including sexual exploitation by children, which is actively condoned by the government. We should have no part whatsoever in facilitating this kind of exploitation. I want to make very clear, Mr. Chairman, that under current U.S. policy vis-a-vis Cuba much travel is permitted. As a result of Clinton's soft and feckless policy towards Cuba, Americans can and do travel to Cuba for certain purposes: journalism, educational purposes, humanitarian missions, government business, sick family members, and the list goes on. The amendment I propose today focuses on the tourist industry and whether or not reasonable, modest conditions should be imposed before we lift that particular travel ban. Our amendment has two conditions: the Cuban government should return the violent criminals who have escaped American justice and who are currently hiding out in Cuba. The case of Joanne Chesimard is particularly egregious. Chesimard was sentenced to life for the murder of a New Jersey State Trooper, Werner Foerster, but is now living it up in Cuba. She--and scores of other murderers and air pirates and drug smugglers--must be returned to the U.S. to serve their time behind bars. The second condition, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the release of hundreds of political prisoners. The State Department's Country Reports estimates that there are between 300-400 political prisoners, and they are being mistreated, tortured and abused. Before we give the green light to tourism en masse, before we head to Havana with bathing suits in our bags and fun and diversion on our minds, let's not forget the persecuted and the oppressed. Let us not abandon, undermine or betray some of the most courageous dissidents on the face of the earth. We should lift the travel ban, if and only if all political prisoners are released. We should lift the travel ban, only when all cop killers and felons convicted in the U.S. are back in U.S. prisons. Vote ``no'' on Flake and ``yes'' on Smith-Rothman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake as a Substitute for Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.

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