Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Hannah is a happy 2\1/2\-year- old little girl. She is a normal, healthy toddler discovering the joys of life. In a few days I hope to meet Hannah and when I do, I will reassure her that there is no such thing as a ``spare'' or ``leftover'' person. Although she may not yet understand what that means, her parents sure do. They understand perfectly, because little Hannah used to be a frozen embryo in an invitro fertilization clinic. She was what those who support embryonic stem cell research--research that destroys human embryos--callously call ``spare'' and ``leftover'' embryos. But Hannah is neither ``spare'' nor ``leftover,'' despite the fact that she spent a considerable amount of time in a deep-freeze tank that served as her frozen orphanage. The perky toddler could have been fodder for researchers, but instead today is talking a blue streak, and in a few years will go to school. Mr. Speaker, the story of Hannah and other adopted embryos underscores why we should not spend Federal tax dollars to destroy human embryos to steal their precious stem cells. These stem cells are not ours to take. And given the breathtaking discoveries from adult stem cell research, which does not rely on destroying human embryos, arguments for federally funding embryonic stem cells is less persuasive than ever.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for setting aside sufficient funding for Beach Protection projects, and to keep the current language in the bill which states that 65 percent of the initial construction costs of beach replenishment projects are to be financed by the Federal Government, and 35 percent of the costs are to be paid by states and local governments. 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 or on them. 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. My good friend, Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, has offered an amendment today to strike language in the bill that directs the Secretary of the Army to honor existing Federal contracts with States, counties, and cities throughout coastal America. Under the gentleman's amendment, the Federal government would essentially shirk its responsibility, and shuffle it onto the shoulders of state and local governments, by switching the cost share ratio to 35 percent federal/65 percent local. I rise in opposition to this amendment, because it is bad national policy, as well as bad for local taxpayers in coastal communities. Mr. Speaker, the record is clear: states and local governments have consistently shown their commitment to assist in the preservation and replenishment of beaches along the Nation's coastlines. The proposed Federal change in cost sharing would result in the delay or elimination of several important Corps of Engineers projects, which would potentially increase the property damage from hurricanes and severe storm events. Additionally, states and localities would not be able to absorb the increased costs without raising taxes or cutting other vital priorities. Our nation's beaches contribute to our national economy--four times as many people So to suggest, as the amendment from Mr. Tancredo does, that beach protection confers benefits to only a handful of beach-house owners, is simply false. Just look at my own State of New Jersey. Tourism is the second greatest contributor to the New Jersey economy. 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. I would also like to thank the Committee for setting aside $413,000 in funds to complete the next stage of the Manasquan Inlet Project, which extends from the Manasquan Inlet to the Barnegat Inlet and includes the beaches of several coastal towns in Ocean County, which are in my district. Additionally, the Manasquan Inlet is absolutely crucial the fishing industry and the general economic health of the New Jersey metropolitan shore. It is through the Manasquan Inlet that many large deep-sea fishing vessels gain their entry to the ocean and where they can return with their catch. Nearly 22,000 people are employed by the fishing industry in New Jersey, with an economic output of almost $2.1 billion. Protecting the beaches and preventing erosion benefits more than just the tourism industry. Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of Congress to protect our nation's beaches, coastal communities and tourism industry by keeping the Federal/Local cost share at 65 percent Federal, 35 percent local. Vote ``no'' on the Tancredo amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, we do have some additional speakers; but regrettably, they are either en route from their home districts or are in appropriations markups. So at this point since they are not here, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in an emotional appeal before the House Committee on International Relations last Tuesday, the wife of Dr. Li Shaomin and the husband of Dr. Gao Zhan, two highly respected scholars held hostage by the People's Republic of China, asked Congress and the President to leave no stone unturned in securing the release of their loved ones. Also at that hearing, Mike Jendrzejczyk of Human Rights Watch made a number of incisive comments and said, ``The detentions of respected China scholars have sent a shock wave through the international academic community. Many researchers are increasingly worried about the risks of working in China, and have taken extraordinary steps to speak out.'' He noted on April 17, more than 400 leading scholars from 14 countries, as well as Taiwan and Hong Kong, all of them who work in the field of China studies, sent a petition to President Jiang Zemin. The authors of the letter noted that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the latter, which was ratified last February, makes it very clear that holding academics and scholars are precluded by international law. Movever, China's intolerance to free expression will likely deter other academics from pursuing research in the People's Republic of China. The respected human rights leader bottom-lines it and says, ``The detentions raise serious questions about the rule of law in China and whether it exists.'' Indeed, Madam Speaker, at least six Chinese American scholars and intellectuals are today being unjustly detained. They are being held hostage by the PRC, an outrage that demands immediate relief. H. Res. 160, which I introduced on June 8 and now has approximately 40 cosponsors, calls for the immediate and unconditional release of these scholars and academics. These include: Dr. Li Shaomin, who is a United States citizen and scholar who has been detained by the PRC for 120 days and counting. He has been deprived of his basic human rights by arbitrary arrest, detention and indictment, and has not been allowed to contact his wife and child, both of whom are American citizens as well, nor has he been in contact with his lawyer. Dr. Gao Zhan is a permanent resident of the United States and is a member of the faculty of American University. She has been detained by the People's Republic of China for 134 days and counting. Mr. Wu Jianmin is an American citizen and author who has been detained by China and deprived of his basic human rights by arbitrary arrest and detention. Qin Guangguang is a permanent resident of the United States and a researcher who has been detained by China on suspicions of leaking state secrets. His human rights have been violated by arbitrary arrest and detention. Ms. Teng Chunyan is a permanent resident of the United States, a researcher and a Falun Gong practitioner. She has been sentenced to 3 years in prison for spying by the PRC. The apparent reason for her sentence is her research showing that the PRC is violating the human rights of Falun Gong adherents in China. If that is true, Madam Speaker, the U.S. State Department is guilty of that charge. This country's Report on Human Rights Practice, which catalogs the myriad of human rights abuses by China, also points out that at least 100 Falun Gong were tortured to death last year as part of their crackdown. Then there is Mr. Liu Yaping. He is a permanent resident of the United States and a businessman. He was arrested in Inner Mongolia in March 2001. He has been diagnosed with severe health problems while in detention, including a brain aneurysm which may rupture. The reason for his arbitrary arrest and detention are unclear. He has had no contact with his family, and has not had regular access to his lawyers. Madam Speaker, at a hearing of the Committee on International Relations, noting that both she and her husband, Li Shaomin, are American citizens, Liu Yingli testified, ``If China's Ministry of State Security can get away with imprisoning my husband now, it may well detain more academics in China in the future, regardless of their skin color, or country of origin.'' Despite the fact that Dr. Li is not a political activist or dissident, but is a teacher who worked for AT&T in New Jersey for 8 years, Liu Yingli said, ``This case is not just about the freedom of one man, but about academic freedom.'' Again, Dr. Li has been held hostage for 120 days. Liu Yingli also testified, ``It has been nearly 4 months since Li Shaomin's detention on February 25: 4 months of grief and pain, 4 months of worry and fear. But we are American citizens. We should not have to live with such fears.'' She said, ``This painful experience has not spared our daughter, who is only 9, and our parents, who are more than 70 years old. Our family has spent sleepless nights and restless days waiting for news of Shaomin. Our daughter, Diana, has asked repeatedly when Daddy will come home.'' Madam Speaker, when this unjust detention was brought to my attention I expressed concern and dismay. But when I met with Liu and her daughter--I knew more--much more had to be done. Diana, the 9-year-old daughter of Dr. Li asked me to help her dad. She composed two letters and drawings in crayon that really hit home with me. One that was for me and one I was asked to give to President Bush. I would just like to quote the one that I gave to the President on April 25. I hand delivered it to him. ``Hi, Mr. President, ``My name is Diana Li. I am 9 years old. I have never written to a President before in my life. Now I am writing because China has captured my daddy, Shaomin Li. I need your help to rescue my daddy. Would you please help me? I miss my daddy very much. I can imagine if you were captured by China, your daughters would miss you very much, too. And so would their mom. ``Please help me rescue my daddy. Thank you. Diana Li.'' Madam Speaker, let us hope that the crayon is mightier than the sword and that Beijing will understand the extreme folly of their hostage- taking and listen as well to the plea of a 9-year-old asking for her father. And, Madam Speaker, the cases of the other hostages are equally compelling. At the hearing last Tuesday, we also heard from Donghua Xue, the husband of Dr. Gao Zhan, who has been held hostage for 134 days. Mr. Xue, a senior systems analyst at EDS Corporation, told us how on February 11 when he and his wife, a U.S. permanent resident and research fellow at American University and their 5-year-old son Andrew, an American citizen, were leaving China after a brief vacation, were arrested and detained. To quote Mr. Xue. ``The three of us were separated by force, blindfolded and held in three different places.'' Donghua was held for 26 days. His 5-year-old son, an American citizen, was separately held for 26 days without any contact whatsoever with his parents or family members. Even our embassy in Beijing was in the dark about this littlest hostage who, I need to say again, is an American citizen. Madam Speaker, it was and is abundantly clear that Mr. Xue is desperately worried about his wife's condition, and he told us at the hearing that her attorneys in Beijing have made several attempts to visit her and they have all been denied. The only reason we can think of, he went on to say, is that she perhaps has been physically tortured or at least has some obvious wounds that they do not want the outside world to see. In a word he went on, ``My wife Gao Zhan is in a very dangerous situation. I am calling on the American government to try even harder to help.'' In his testimony, Madam Speaker, Mr. Xue also underscored the Chinese government's rhetorical commitment to the rule of law. He said ``the Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. emphasized several times in his letters to the congressional Members and to U.S. officials that, quote, ``China is a country ruled by laws.'' The spokesman from the Chinese foreign minister has said that they, quote, ``strictly follow the legal procedures to deal with the scholars' cases.'' ``I certainly wish that these statements were true,'' he went on, ``but from my nightmare experience in China, the statements are far from reality. To make a family disappear from the earth for almost a month, to illegally detain my son Andrew,'' he testified, ``a U.S. citizen for 26 days, without even notifying the U.S. embassy, to separate a 5-year-old American child by force from his legal guardians and his family, to emotionally and psychologically torture a 5-year-old child for several weeks just for interrogations hostage. These actions not only violate Chinese and international laws and U.S.-China treaties, these actions are inhuman and they are barbaric. We can only associate these actions with the terrorism organizations, not with a country that purports to be ruled by laws.'' Mr. Xue also made an important comparison, Madam Speaker, with the way in which his wife's case has been portrayed and that of our 24 detained servicemen and women from the EP-3E reconnaissance aircraft. I quote him again: ``When our 24 crew members had been detained in China, they were allowed to meet with U.S. officials. They were allowed to send messages to their families. They lived in a hotel condition according to news reports. They were finally released after 11 days of diplomatic negotiations. We don't know where our scholars are. We don't know anything about my wife's health condition. But one thing we are 100 percent sure of, they are not living in a hotel condition. Why do they treat crew members and the scholars so differently? It is the Chinese government who is discriminating against the Chinese people. I hope the American government pays the same effort as they did for the crew members to rescue these detained scholars.'' Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of this resolution. Hopefully, this is the first step in raising everyone's consciousness concerning this outrage of hostage-taking of these Chinese Americans. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 160) calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to immediately and unconditionally release Li Shaomin and all other American scholars of Chinese ancestry being held in detention, calling on the President of the United States to continue working on behalf of Li Shaomin and the other detained scholars for their release, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, even in the midst of war or violent conflict, the need for some limits must be underlined. Those limits are of crucial importance in that they remind us of our essential humanity. When humanitarian standards are ignored, we need to call them to the attention of those who seem to be violating them. In the case of the individuals mentioned in the resolution now before us, who are Israeli soldiers and civilians, the rules are, in fact, being ignored. This resolution relates to several Israeli soldiers and one civilian who have been kidnapped from Israel itself or in Europe. Their captors have admitted holding them and they have said that they are alive, but that is all that is known about them. In defiance of international norms, their captors are not permitting the International Committee of the Red Cross to have access to them. Of course, the captives should be treated humanely. Of course, they should be released, but they should certainly, at the very least, be provided with protections of international humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross should be provided with access to them so that their welfare can be ascertained and other appropriate protections be afforded to them. It is cynical and cruel for Hezbollah to deny the ICRC access to them. The real harm is being done to their families who wait for word of their welfare. Madam Speaker, let me just say that the governments of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran either fund Hezbollah or allow it to operate on their territory. This resolution asks those governments to use their influence to ask Hezbollah to do the right thing. It is not too much to ask. I request that my colleagues join me in supporting this resolution. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); and the ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for moving this bill through their committees. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for sponsoring it. It is a good resolution and it deserves the support of this body. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 99) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Lebanon, Syria, and Iran should call upon Hezbollah to allow representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit four abducted Israelis, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, Omar Souad, and Elchanan Tannenbaum, presently held by Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1291) to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the amount of educational benefits for veterans under the Montgomery GI Bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today the House of Representatives has an historic opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to veterans, promote higher education, boost military recruitment and retention and strengthen the ladder of opportunity by passing H.R. 1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. This legislation, which I introduced on March 29 with 57 cosponsors, including my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), now has over 100 cosponsors and is supported by almost two dozen veterans service, military and higher education organizations as well as Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi. The bill responds to the rising costs of college education by providing a 70 percent increase in total benefits to eligible veterans in less than 3 years. Not since the enactment of the Montgomery GI Bill in 1985 have we had the opportunity to vote for such a dramatic increase in veterans educational benefits. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation. Madam Speaker, since the enactment of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly called the GI Bill, we have continuously provided educational support for our Nation's veterans. The original GI Bill is universally recognized as one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever approved by the Congress. In the decade following World War II, more than 2 million eligible men and women went to college using these educational benefits. The result was an American workforce enriched by 450,000 engineers, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists, and another million college-educated men and women. It is estimated that another 5 million men and women received other schooling or job training using the GI Bill. All told, approximately 7.8 million men and women were educated or trained by the GI Bill, helping to create what we know as the modern middle class. The original GI Bill exceeded all expectations and had enormous benefits beyond the immediate benefits given to our deserving war veterans. College enrollment grew dramatically. In 1947, GI Bill enrollees accounted for almost half of all the total college population, resulting in the need for more and larger colleges and universities. In my home State of New Jersey, for example, Rutgers University saw its admissions grow from a pre-war high of 7,000 to almost 16,000. A Veterans' Administration study in 1965, Madam Speaker, showed that due to the increased earning power of GI Bill college graduates, Federal Government income tax revenues rose by more than $1 billion annually. And in less than 20 years, the $14 billion cost of the original program had been recouped. Madam Speaker, there is widespread agreement on the effect and effectiveness of veterans' educational programs. Building upon the success of the GI Bill, Congress approved a second bill, the Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, during the Korean War; then a third bill, the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966, during the Vietnam War; and a fourth bill, the Veterans Educational Assistance Act, for the post-Vietnam War era. Finally, in 1985, Congress approved today's Montgomery GI Bill, or MGIB, which was designed not only to help veterans make a transition into the workforce through additional education and training, but also to support the concept of an all-volunteer Armed Forces. The use of educational benefits as a recruitment tool has been one of the most spectacularly successful of all the tools given to our Nation's military recruiters. However, Madam Speaker, as we all know, the skyrocketing costs of a college education have seriously eroded the buying power of the MGIB benefits. The Congressional Research Service stated in its testimony to the committee, and I want to thank our distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), for the two outstanding hearings that he chaired, that between academic years 1980-1981 and 2000-2001, average tuition and fees at 4-year public and 2-year public colleges rose 336 percent. For private colleges it rose by 352 percent. Under current law, a full-time veteran student receives $650 monthly under the Montgomery GI Bill from which the veteran student pays tuition, books, supplies, fees and subsistence allowance, including housing, food and transportation. However, according to data furnished by the College Board, the current $650 per month would have to be raised to $1,025 for a veteran student to attend a 4-year public college as a commuter student at an average cost of $9,229 per year. That is just what our legislation does, I say to my colleagues. H.R. 1291 increases the $650 monthly amount to $800 per month effective this October 1, then to $950 per month effective October 1, 2002, and then finally to $1,100 per month effective October 1, 2003. This represents, a 70 percent increase in the monthly educational benefit in 3 years. As we point out in this chart, it goes from $23,400 to $39,600 after being fully phased in. Madam Speaker, in this era of investing our scarce resources in areas that produce positive results, let me briefly share with my colleagues what the effect of this bill will be. At the moment, there are 266,000 veterans who are enrolled in school under the Montgomery GI Bill. This is anticipated to increase to about 330,000 over the next 10 years. However, with the approval of our legislation, the number of veteran students in school under the MGIB will increase to about 375,000 in 2011, an increase of 45,000 over the current estimate. And each of these students will be positioned, we believe, to obtain a better job and make more money, thus repaying many times over our Nation's investment in them under the MGI Bill. Let me also point out to my colleagues that there will also be an ancillary impact on utilization. We know that something on the order of 50 percent of the people who are eligible are using this benefit. It just has not been enough to make the difference. This, we believe, will boost that participation. Let me also say, Madam Speaker, that this bill is indeed a starting point. It is not an ending point. Our committee report on the Budget for fiscal year 2002 says that the ultimate goal is a Montgomery GI Bill that pays tuition, fees and a monthly subsistence allowance, thus allowing veterans to pursue enrollment in any educational institution in America limited only by their own aspirations, abilities and initiative. However, after looking at the history of the program, our committee report on the fiscal year 2002 budget also states that we need to take major steps now, no delay, to increase the benefit for today's veterans who are currently eligible for the program. On a bipartisan basis, Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs agreed that a graduated increase in the current monthly benefit was the most important step we could take over the next 3 years to encourage veterans to use the benefit they had earned by faithful service to our Nation. For the first time in anyone's memory, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget accepted our committee recommendation and included the necessary funds in the budget resolution. He also fought to keep those funds in the conference report. As a result, we are able to bring to this floor a bill that is in compliance with the Budget Act. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1291 is good news for veterans. It is good for education. It is good for our military and our national defense. And it is good for our economy. H.R. 1291 is good public policy. I sincerely hope that all of our Members will support it. Finally, Madam Speaker, I must, regrettably, comment on the process that brought us here today. Since I first entered the House in 1981, I have had the honor to serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, first as a Member, later as Vice Chairman and now as Chairman. During these twenty-one years, I had the privilege of serving for 14 years with Chairman Sonny Montgomery, the Montgomery GI Bill's namesake, as well as for 6 years with Chairman Bob Stump, now the Armed Services Committee Chairman. During all these years, the Veterans' Affairs Committee operated on a bipartisan basis with one simple goal: to help improve the lives of our nation's veterans. During the five and half months I have served as Chairman, we have sought to continue this tradition and operate on a bipartisan basis. I was gratified when the Committee approved in a unanimous vote--let me emphasize that--a unanimous vote, the Views and Estimates Report for the Budget Committee. It was in large part due to our bipartisan approach--doing what was right for our veterans, not for our parties or our political careers--that we were successful in seeing a 12 percent increase for veterans spending in this year's budget. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1291, the legislation we are considering today, resulted from a lot of hard work by the Members and staff of the Veterans' Affairs Committee--Republicans and Democrats--over many, many months. This legislation offers a realistic yet substantial increase--a 70 percent increase--in the amount of money available to veterans for educational benefits. Madam Speaker, it was with some sadness last week that I learned that the Democrats on the Committee, having already agreed to our bipartisan strategy for moving H.R. 1291, reversed course and decided instead to take a political course. Their ploy to offer an amendment raising the cost of the program from $9 billion over ten years to more than $23 billion over ten years may appear alluring to some, but is not paid for in the budget resolution and ultimately it is unsustainable and would stand no chance of becoming law. Madam Speaker, I understand that some members would like to see an even larger increase in educational benefits for veterans than the 70 percent increase that my legislation offers--frankly I would like to get to the point where we can offer a full tuition and expenses GI bill--but we are not yet there. That's why the Committee, on a bipartisan basis, had made the decision to move quickly to pass H.R. 1291 with its 70 percent increase, get it signed into law, and then see what could be done next. That's why on March 27, when we held our bipartisan press conference introducing H.R. 1291, Mr. Evans himself said: ``I view the Smith-Evans legislation that will soon be introduced as the next interim step toward the Committee's final goal of providing our veterans with the full costs of getting educated.'' That's why on May 24, Mr. Reyes, the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Benefits said: ``H.R. 1291 . . . represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that these opportunities for our veterans remain real and truly meaningful opportunities for all. ``While I think everyone wishes it could do more, H.R. 1291 would indeed go far toward fulfilling our collective goals. And I am proud to be a cosponsor of this very important and vital legislation.'' Madam Speaker, I said at the outset that today can be an historic day for our nation's veterans. We have an opportunity to continue our longstanding tradition of supporting our veterans in a bipartisan manner. Let's do what is right for our veterans. Let's make real progress, not just speeches. Let's agree to work together, on a bipartisan basis, without rancor or ill-will, to join together to ensure that we do right for those who have done right for us. Let's pass this historic legislation which will result in a dramatic increase in GI educational benefits--a 70 percent increase. In 1944, during consideration of the original GI Bill, the Senate voted 50 to nothing for approval and the House followed suit, voting 387 to 0 in favor of this historic legislation. I hope we can do the same today. Madam Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to join me today in voting unanimously to approve H.R. 1291, and renew our commitment to the men and women who are on the front lines promoting freedom and peace all over the world. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hayworth and Mr. Reyes, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Benefits Subcommittee, for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank Ranking Member Evans for his continuous efforts on behalf of our servicemembers and veterans. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the African subcommittee, for yielding and commend him for his outstanding leadership on behalf of the suffering individuals, not just in Sudan, but in other countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, who have been victimized by human rights abuse. I want to especially thank on this bill my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and all of the bipartisan sponsors of this Sudanese Peace Act. Is a step clearly in the right direction. It is an outstanding bill. It tries to advance the ball so that there will be peace. We have lost 2 million Sudanese people, many of them women and children who have been slaughtered. Food has been used as a weapon in Sudan by the Khartoum government. We know that Operation Lifeline, very often efforts to feed those in the south have been vetoed by Khartoum because they wanted to deny access to food and medicines. Back in 1996, Mr. Chairman, we had a series of hearings really on what was happening in Sudan, the first hearing of its kind on slavery. At that point, people objected and said what are you talking about? Shadow slavery, the buying and selling of people, not unlike what we had in the United States and in other western countries before the civil war. A horrific practice. Yet it was going on in modern day Sudan. Thankfully, there is an effort. At least there is exposure now. People understand that this has occurred. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) mentioned this forced religious conversion. I have met people who have lost their children through forced Islamization, where their young men, their young boys, have been literally abducted out of their homes and brought to these camps where they are brainwashed, for want of a better word, day in and day out, to accept Islam. That is not what conversion is all about. But this civil war is being financed, and it is not a civil war, it is a slaughter, increasingly by oil monies. I just bring to the attention of members that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) will be offering an amendment at the appropriate time that will deny the access of those companies to the capital markets of the United States, like Talisman. Talisman is an oil company that, unfortunately, like some of the others coming out of China and elsewhere, that are building up the capability of the Sudanese government to get real dollars, hard currency, which is now funding this slaughter of women and children and men. They have doubled their military spending. For example, since 1998 much the oil revenues have amounted to about $500 million, and that is going to grow as a direct result of their ability to get cash at the New York Stock Exchange and elsewhere to fund this slaughter of innocent people. This war might have been over, it certainly would have been much reduced, had it not been for oil money. If we really want to be peacemakers, it seems to me we need to deny the access, turning off that spigot to the best of our ability to deny the killers, the murderers, the rapists, the ability to do business as usual. Again I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has done great work on this, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Of course, the Bachus amendment, which will be coming up shortly, is deserving of my colleagues' support. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the African subcommittee, for yielding and commend him for his outstanding leadership on behalf of the suffering individuals, not just in Sudan, but in other countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, who have been victimized by human rights abuse. I want to thank Chairman Hyde for his leadership in pushing this legislation. And I want to especially thank my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) the prime sponsor of the bill and all of the bipartisan sponsors of the pending Sudanese Peace Act. Is a step clearly in the right direction. It is an outstanding bill. It tries to advance the ball so that there will be peace. We have lost 2 million Sudanese people, many of them women and children who have been slaughtered. Food has been used as a weapon in Sudan by the Khartoum government. We know that Operation Lifeline has often been stymied in efforts to feed those in the south. Amazingly the dictatorship has veto power over both where and whom humanitarian relief and food dispersements can be made. Khartoum is guilty of denying access to food and medicines by untold numbers of starving and emaciated people. Back in 1996, Mr. Chairman, I chaired a series of hearings on Sudan. We convened the first hearing of its kind on slavery in Sudan. At that point, some people objected, were in disbelief and denial and said what are you talking about? Chattel slavery--the buying and selling and ownership of people, not unlike what we had in the United States and in other western countries before the civil war was--is--thriving in Sudan. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) mentioned forced religious conversion and at hearings I chaired we heard from victims of the egregious practice. I have met mothers who have lost their children through forced Islamization, where their young children were literally abducted out of their homes and brought to camps where they were brainwashed. That is not what conversion is all about. Now we know that the Sudanese genocide is being financed, by oil--petrol dollars. I just bring to the attention of members that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) will be offering an amendment at the appropriate time that will deny the access of oil companies to our capital markets of the United States, if they are doing business in Sudan. Talisman of Canada is an oil company that, unfortunately, like some of the others based in China are building up the capability of the Sudanese government to get boatloads of money, hard currency, which is now funding the slaughter of women and children and men. As a direct result of oil revenue, Sudan has doubled its military spending. Since 1998 the oil revenues per year have amounted to about $500 million, and that is going to grow as a direct result of Sudan's oil revenue and its ability to procure funds from U.S. equity sources. Had it not been for oil revenues, the Sudanese genocide might have been over. It almost certainly would have been less lethal had it not been for oil money. If we really want to be peacemakers, it seems to me we need to deny Sudanese access to cash. We must turn off that spigot. We must deny the killers, the murderers, the rapists, the ability to conduct the business of genocide. Again I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). The Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Hyde, always a champion of human rights and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who has also done great work on this vital cause.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me again say that the underlying bill is a good bill. This is a strengthening amendment, and I rise in very strong support of it. This amendment is about stopping genocide, Mr. Chairman, the deliberate and systematic attempt to eliminate an entire people in southern Sudan, by cutting off the flow of U.S. dollars to entities that are making genocide possible. The whole world knows, Mr. Chairman, that the Khartoum regime routinely bombs schools and hospitals, and uses enslavement, mass rape, and starvation as weapons of war against black Christians and animists in the south. The good news, until 1997, was that the south was likely to win its independence and an end to the bloodshed. However, then Khartoum got foreign companies from China, Malaysia, and even Canada to develop oil fields and build a pipeline. The equation is simple: By selling oil to the west, Khartoum can buy an army that can destroy the south and is destroying the south. We all know that the devastation is absolutely numbing and frightful. Two million people have been killed. Millions more have been wounded, and over 4 million people have been displaced. Oil revenues have enabled the government to double spending on its war machine since 1998. The government has used roads and air strips built for oil projects to launch military attacks. As one Sudanese victim put it, ``Oil has done nothing but bring us death.'' Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and I have worked very hard to get New Jersey out of the mix with Talisman, which is a Canadian company. We held over 60,000 equities in that Talisman company as part of our New Jersey commitment to our State employees. Thankfully they got out of it, at some point kicking and screaming; but they are only one of many. There are many individual shareholders who will never read the disclosure information sent to them and maybe will not even care. Mr. Chairman, we need to act in a collective manner that will have a high utility to say we want out. We want no part of this killing machine going on in Sudan. It is worth pointing out that the speaker of the Sudanese parliament does not make any bones about it. He said that the oil revenues will be used to buy war weapons. They are taking this oil revenue and buying guns and planes, and all kinds of other implements of destruction that are used against innocent men, women, and children. The Talisman chief executive said that 70 percent of the oil revenue from the partnership will be going to the government. We are talking about a massive amount of money, $500 million per year, being put into the coffers of this war machine. Finally, let me say the Bachus-Hall-Smith amendment prohibits any foreign company from raising capital or listing its securities in U.S. markets as long as the company is engaged in oil development in Sudan. We have trade sanctions in place against Sudan, but foreign companies continue to invest in Sudan, and then they freely and openly raise money in the U.S. stock market and bond market to finance these activities. Shame on us, Mr. Chairman, if we do not realize that we are facilitating the deaths of so many innocent children. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) should be commended as should the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and all of us who are trying to make some difference here to stop this facilitation. Mr. Chairman, we can make a difference; and hopefully our European and other allies will follow suit. We must lead by example. That is what this amendment does. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me again say that the underlying bill is a excellent piece of legislation. The Bachus-Hall-Smith strengthening amendment improves the Sudan Peace Act. This amendment is about stopping genocide, Mr. Chairman, the deliberate and systematic attempt to eliminate an entire people in southern Sudan, by cutting off the flow of U.S. dollars to entities that are making genocide possible. The whole world knows, Mr. Chairman, that the Khartoum regime routinely bombs schools and hospitals, and uses enslavement, mass rape, and starvation as weapons of war against black Christians and animists in the south. The good news, until 1997, was that the south was likely to win its independence and an end to the bloodshed. However, then Khartoum got foreign companies from China, Malaysia, and even Canada to develop oil fields and build a pipeline. The equation is simple: By selling oil to the west, Khartoum can buy an army that can destroy the south and is indeed destroying the south. We all know that the devastation is absolutely numbing and frightful. Two million people have been killed. Millions more have been wounded, and over 4 million people have been displaced. Oil revenues have enabled the government to double spending on its war machine since 1998. The government has used roads and air strips built for oil projects to launch military attacks. As one Sudanese victim put it, ``Oil has done nothing but bring us death.'' Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and I worked very hard a couple of years ago to get New Jersey out of complicity with genocide. We worked--and succeeded--in convincing state officials to divest its stock holdings of Talisman, which is a Canadian oil company. Before divestiture, New Jersey owned over 600,000 shares of Talisman. Thankfully, New Jersey got out, but New Jersey is only one of many institutional holders of this stock. There are many individual shareholders who own Talisman oblivious to its facilitation of genocide. Some argue mere disclosure is adequate. I respectfully disagree. Disclosure information sent to shareholders or potential buyers of the stock may or may not make any difference. Mr. Chairman, we need to act in a collective manner in unison, if we are to help end this horrific slaughter. We want no part of this killing machine. It is worth pointing out that the speaker of the Sudanese parliament does not make any bones how oil money equals a more lethal military force. He has said that the oil revenues will be used to buy war weapons. The Sudanese dictatorship is taking oil revenues and buying weapons of every stripe to be used against innocent men, women, and children. We are talking about a massive amount of money, $500 million per year, being put into the coffers of this war machine. The bottom line is this I say to my distinguished colleagues. The Bachus-Hall-Smith amendment prohibits any foreign company from raising capital or listing its securities in U.S. markets as long as the company is engaged in oil development in Sudan. We have trade sanctions in place against Sudan, but foreign companies continue to invest in Sudan, and then they freely and openly raise money in the U.S. stock market and bond market to finance these activities. Shame on us, Mr. Chairman, if we do not realize that we are facilitating the deaths of so many innocent children. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) should be commended for crafting this humanitarian amendment. Mr. Chairman, we can make a difference; and hopefully our European and other allies will follow suit. We must lead by example. We must be serious about ending the nightmare endured by the Sudanese people.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to commend Chile for its legal protection of unborn children. Chile has a wonderfully coherent constitution and system of laws relative to the protection of human life. The consistency of Chile's laws protecting human life is something that I look at very favorably when I consider the United States' relations with Chile. That is why, as the Vice-Chairman of the House International Relations Committee as well as a Member of Congress with over 20 years of service, I am concerned about recent reports that the Chilean government has taken actions inconsistent with Chile's own legal protection of life. I am specifically concerned about reports that the government has authorized and is promoting the ``morning after pill.'' Although the international abortion industry has misleadingly labeled this pill an ``emergency contraceptive,'' it operates not as a true contraceptive but as an abortifacient. That is, it does not prevent conception, but instead ensures the expulsion of the unborn child from the womb, causing its death. As Congress reviews the free trade negotiations currently underway between the United States and Chile, the Chilean government's apparent failure to comply with its own benign laws regarding protection of human life from the moment of conception has become a factor in my consideration. For pro-life Members of Congress, admiration for Chile's continuing commitment to unborn children is an important reason to want to have a close and positive relationship with Chile. We believe Chile and other countries that still protect their unborn children should be commended and rewarded for setting an example to other nations, including the United States, whose courts or legislatures have imposed a legal regime that treats unborn children not as human beings to be nurtured and protected, but as disposable objects. I am sure that other Members of Congress who admire Chile's legal protection of unborn children will share my concern about reports that the government has taken actions in violation of that legal protection. As the United States moves forward in our relations with Chile, I hope the Chilean government will consistently follow its own enlightened pro-life laws. I commend Chile for these laws, which reflect a consistent ethic of life over death.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 801) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve programs of educational assistance, to expand programs of transition assistance and outreach to departing servicemembers, veterans, and dependents, to increase burial benefits, to provide for family coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), my good friend, for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am very proud to bring to the floor today H.R. 801, as amended, the Veterans' Survivor Benefits Improvements Act of 2001. It is fitting that we consider this legislation shortly before the Memorial Day period, a day on which we remember all of those who died while serving in our Nation's Armed Forces. This bill is a reminder of what we have owed to the survivors of our servicemen and women. And although much remains to be done by this Congress, it is the harbinger of what we can accomplish to keep our commitment to veterans and to their families. Mr. Speaker, those who have been following this particular bill may be a little bit surprised that it does not contain all of the provisions that were in the bill when we originally passed it in the House late March. Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure my colleagues that those provisions that were stricken by the Senate amendment remain the subject of a very active conversation between our colleagues over on the Senate side. We expect that the Senate will hold hearings on most, if not all, of those provisions later this year and we will be reintroducing them as well. Virtually all of those who have testified before our Subcommittee on Benefits earlier this year expressed support for the provision of H.R. 801; and I anticipate that when the Senate holds its hearings, they will have the input from the VSOs and will be supportive of those provisions. Mr. Speaker, I also want to encourage the Senate to give favorable consideration to H.R. 811, the Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act; and I just remind my colleagues that we passed that last March as well. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to provide a very brief explanation of the provisions being considered today. When Congress created the Civilian Health and Medical Program, Veterans Affairs program nearly 30 years ago, it intended CHAMPVA to provide services for certain severely disabled veterans' families that were similar to the benefits furnished to retired families under CHAMPUS. Over the years, however, CHAMPUS changed from a simple fee-basis reimbursement program to a managed care activity now known as TRICARE. Last year, TRICARE became entwined with Medicare as a secondary payer for military retired families under the ``TRICARE for Life'' extension approved by the Floyd Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. What we are doing today with H.R. 801 is an effort to make the two programs comparable once again by authorizing benefits similar to those under the TRICARE for Life. H.R. 801 also directs VA to improve outreach services of spouses, surviving spouses, children and dependent parents of veterans and requires the VA to ensure that eligible dependents are made aware of veterans' services through the media and veterans' publications. As amended, H.R. 801 retains the House provision to expand the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program to provide coverage for the spouse and children of a servicemember enrolled in the insurance program. This is a very family-friendly provision, and I am glad it survived over on the Senate side. Finally, Mr. Speaker, within the last few years, we have lost a number of servicemembers to plane crashes, training accidents, and, of course, to acts of terrorism at sea. Last year, the Congress approved legislation to increase the maximum amount of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance from $200,000 to $250,000. Even though the bill was signed into law on November 1 of 2000, this particular provision did not go into effect until April of this year. The Senate amendment to H.R. 801 leaves unchanged the House proposal to provide an increase retroactive to October 1, 2000 for survivors of servicemembers who died during the performance of their duty and had previously elected maximum insurance amount. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), along with Senator John Warner, for working with the full committee and for working so very hard on this provision. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for the gentleman's steadfast leadership, not just for this provision, but for all of the contents of this bill and for working in a very bipartisan way on so many of these issues that we have and will continue to bring to the floor.