Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and thank him on behalf of his good work for autistic children. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), the cochairman of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education (C.A.R.E.). It is a privilege to work with him, and I thank the gentleman for his work and the work his staff has been doing. Mr. Speaker, we have 119 members on the Coalition for Autism Research and Education, CARE, and I hope my colleagues who might be watching in their offices and their staffs would look into joining this coalition. We are trying to mobilize Congress in a bipartisan way on behalf of autistic children and adults and their families, who are in great need of our support. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the majority leader for releasing this resolution to the floor. It was referred to their respective committees, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The majority leader and the committee chairman worked together to get the resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for his work on behalf of this, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who held a very important hearing on the issue of autism, trying to get to the core reasons as to what is causing it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who was the prime sponsor of the Children's Health Act which contained title I which sets up the Centers of Excellence. Many of us worked on that language, and we were very pleased when the gentleman made that title I of his very important health care initiative. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 91 calls attention to one of the major public health issues of our time, the developmental disorder called autism. Last Friday (April 27), as Members probably know, parents and families of autistic children from all over the country came down to Washington to mark the second annual Autism Awareness Day and to raise awareness of the challenges and sacrifices families make on behalf of their loved ones. H. Con. Res. 91 calls attention to autism and tries to dedicate this Congress, this body, this House, to supporting efforts to treat and to eventually cure autism. In the meantime, we need to at least mitigate its occurrence. Mr. Speaker, it is not an exaggeration to say that autism spectrum disorders may be the silent epidemic of our time. It is silent because this developmental disorder has robbed at least 400,000 children of their ability to communicate and interact with their families and their loved ones. It is silent because there are currently no operational autism registries in the Nation to tell us how many people are actually afflicted with this disorder. Conventional wisdom and passive reporting suggests that autism affects at least one in every 500 children in America. Much of the recent anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that autism rates are significantly higher, some say closer to one in every 250 children. We have got to get to the bottom of the numbers but more importantly the why of it. Why is this exploding on our scene in America today? What is the cause? What is the pathway? Is it environmental? Is it an immunization shot? Nobody really knows. There are a lot of theories, but not much when it comes to getting to the bottom of the why of it. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleagues, I was brought into this 21 years ago by a Dr. Holmes who runs the Eaton Institute in Princeton, a very, very important, dedicated person who has done so much, has literally written books and books on the issue of autism. But more recently it was a family, Bobbi and Billy Gallagher in Brick Town, New Jersey who came to me and said, ``We think we have an elevated number of autistic cases in Brick Township, New Jersey.'' They brought evidence. They had done their own survey, finding that there may be as many as 4 per 1,000 rather than the estimates of 2 per 1,000 in that municipality. We then invited the CDC and ATSDR in and they did an empirical, very scientific study. The bottom line is that they brought forth information that suggested an elevated incidence of prevalence that exceeded what was supposedly the norm. CDC and ATSDR found, about 4 per 1,000 children had autism, and in the spectrum, 6.7 per 1,000 children this was much higher than what we anticipated. This study may indicate that there is a cluster of children with autism in Brick Township, but this study may portend a much higher incidence occurring throughout the country. We need to spend more money on this. This resolution at least puts us on record as saying it is important to us, we want to get to the bottom of it, and we want to see implementation of title I of the Children's Health Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is not an exaggeration to say that autism spectrum disorders may be the silent epidemic of our time. It is silent because this developmental disorder has robbed at least 400,000 children of their ability to communicate and interact with their families and loved ones. It is silent because there are currently no operational autism registries in the nation to tell us how many people are actually afflicted with this disorder. Current statistics tell us that autism affects at least one in every 500 children in America, and much of the recent anecdotal evidence suggests that autism rates are increasing. The real prevalence rate may be closer to one in every 250 children. One of the reasons Congressman Mike Doyle and I formed the Coalition for Autism Research and Education (C.A.R.E.), which now has 115 members, is to provide us with a critically needed forum where autism issues--and proposed solutions--can be debated and discussed. Autism briefings, such as the one we held earlier today on early identification and intervention of autism, allow us to talk about the many problems associated with this disorder and give us the opportunity to find legislative remedies to these problems. For example, I am in the process of drafting legislation that I believe can help the victims of autism and their families. This legislation will focus on improving education and support services, such as early intervention, for persons with the autism spectrum disorder. First, my proposed legislation will seek to correct the inequities of existing early Another provision in this bill will address the lack of specially trained professors to educate autistic children by increasing funding in Part D (the National Activities Programs) of OSEP. Increasing funding at OSEP will provide federal grants to states to help them rigorously prepare teachers for educating children with autism. The program will provide both advanced education training for current special education teachers and introductory through advanced education training for future special education teachers. In addition, tax credit incentives will be provided for those who receive training in autism. Finally, my legislation will help children with autism make the transition to work. The bill will require the Department of Labor to conduct a comprehensive review of existing vocational training programs to assess whether they are adequately serving the needs of disabled persons, particularly those persons with autism. The Department of Labor will then establish an annual report to Congress in which each department lists what measures it is taking to make their training programs more accessible and more effective in helping autistic adults make the transition to part time or full time employment. The Department of Labor should also include a list of legislative recommendations to Congress for making improvements in ways to make the transition to work for disabled persons easier. As you may know, there is limited information on the prevalence, cause, or treatment of autism. In order to unlock the mysteries of autism, the members of C.A.R.E. are working to increase funding levels for programs focusing on autism spectrum disorders so that our nation can pursue several emerging scientific opportunities. First, we requested a $20 million increase at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for Second, we asked for a $5 million dollar increase at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for FY 2002. These additional funds would be used to implement the ``Centers of Excellence in Autism Epidemiology'' specified in P.L. 106-310. This is a program I authored, which was included as Title I of P.L. 106-310. Furthermore, funding will go towards awarding grants and assistance to states which want to establish their own autism surveillance programs. This funding is essential as the CDC must collect data from approximately 30 states before it can move forward with a comprehensive analysis of trends that may reveal correlative factors, potential causes, and hopefully effective treatments and cures for autism. C.A.R.E. has been involved in other autism initiatives as well. On March 29, C.A.R.E. introduced H. Con. Res. 91, which calls upon Congress to support April as Autism Awareness Month and today as Autism Awareness Day. The resolution also commends the parents and relatives of autistic children for their sacrifice and dedication in providing for the special needs of their autistic children. In addition, H. Con. Res. 91 endorses the goals of increasing federal funding for aggressive research to learn the root causes of autism. The Second Annual Autism Rally that is being held today in Washington is a prime example of how important citizen participation in our democratic process is. There are no more eloquent and powerful advocates for autism research and education than the parents of those who must love and care for their autistic child each and every day. We are deeply indebted to the parents and families who care for autistic children. Without you, these children would be hopelessly lost. It is my hope that the federal government can help provide you with its tools you need to continue your excellent work.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood and a virtual who's who of abortion activists in America so vehemently oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and promote a gutting substitute in its stead? Why is it that on the floor of the House on a very pleasant Thursday afternoon that so many intelligent and talented and gifted lawmakers, to whom so much has been given, are going to such great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who has been shot, beaten, stabbed or otherwise mauled by an attacker? Could it be that America's abortion culture, a culture of death, has so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become incapable or unwilling of recognizing the obvious? Could it be denial? Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine, unborn children are today often treated as patients in need of curative procedures and healing, just like any other patient. Is the concept of unborn child as victim really so hard to grasp, even when we are not talking about abortion, but assault by a mother? Is it lacking in logic or courage or common sense or compassion? Have the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people, especially in medicine and the media, ripped off our capacity to think? Has the horrific specter of 40 million poisoned or dismembered babies, legally enabled by Roe v. Wade, robbed us of our capability to see and to understand and to empathize? Have unborn children now become mere objects, a dehumanizing and deplorable status that feminists once rightly rebelled against? Does a mugger, Mr. Speaker, have an unfettered access to maim or kill a baby without triggering a response for a separate penalty for that crime? For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women, and that is as it should be. Crafting such protections and penalties for perpetrators are among our highest responsibilities and duties as lawmakers. Last year, I am happy to say, I was the prime sponsor of bipartisan legislation, Public Law 106-386, the Victims of Trafficking in Violence Protection Act of 2000, a $3.4 billion comprehensive package of sweeping new laws designed to protect women from violence at home and overseas. Women who are victims of violence need every legal protection, appropriate shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster; but I would respectfully submit to my friends, so do children. A victim is a victim no matter how small. Why is it so difficult to recognize an unborn child as a victim who is all too capable of suffering trauma, disfigurement, disability or death? Unborn children feel pain. Unborn children bleed and bruise easily. Unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers to an assailant wielding a knife, a gun or a steel pipe. The amniotic sac is like a protective bubble, but it is not made of Kevlar. It pierces easily. Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, I met with Tracy Marciniak. Three years ago, her husband beat her and killed her almost full-term baby. The child, Zachariah, died from the bleeding; and this is what Tracy has said to all of us: ``Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Opponents of the bill have put forth a counterproposal known as the Lofgren amendment. I have read it,'' she said, ``and it is offensive to me because it says there is only one victim in such a crime, the woman who is pregnant. Please hear me on this,'' she goes on to say. ``On the night of February 8, 1992, there were two victims. I was nearly killed but I survived. Little Zachariah died,'' she goes on. ``Any law maker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren one-victim amendment should first look at the picture of me holding my dead son at the funeral. Then I would say to that representative,'' she continues, ``if you really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the one-victim but please remember Zachariah's name and face when you decide.'' Vote for the underlying bill and against the substitute. Mr. Speaker, why would Planned Parenthood and a virtual who's who of abortion activities in America so vehemently oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and promote a gutting substitute in its stead? Why is it, that on the floor of the House of Representatives on a pleasant Thursday afternoon in April, so many intelligent, talented and gifted lawmakers to whom so much has been given, are going to such great lengths to deny basic protections in law for an unborn child who has been shot, beaten, stabbed, or otherwise mauled by an attacker? Could it be that America's abortion culture--a culture of death--has so numbed our hearts and dulled our minds that we have become incapable--or unwilling--of recognizing the obvious? Could it be ``Denial'' with a Capital D? Amazingly, as a result of breathtaking breakthroughs in medicine, unborn children are today often treated as patients in need of curative procedures and healing just like any other patient. Is the concept of unborn child as victim really so hard to grasp--even when we are not talking about abortion, but assault by a mugger? Have the soothing voices of denial by credentialed people--especially in medicine and the media--ripped off our capacity to think? Has the horrific specter of 40 million poisoned or dismembered babies legally enabled by Row v. Wade robbed us of our capability to see and understand and empathize? Is it a lacking in logic, or courage or common sense or compassion? Have unborn children become mere objects--a dehumanizing and deplorable status that feminists once rightly rebelled against? Does a mugger--like an abortionist--have unfettered access to maim or kill a baby without triggering a separate penalty for the crime? For years, Mr. Speaker, Congress has updated and strengthened laws and stiffened penalties for those who commit violence against women. And that is as it should be. Crafting such protections--and penalties for perpetrators--are among our highest responsibilities and duties as lawmakers. Last year, I was the Prime Sponsor of bipartisan PL 106-386,-- ``Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000--a $3.4 billion comprehensive package of sweeping new laws designed to protect women from violence at home and overseas. Women who are victims of violence need every legal protection, appropriate shelter and assistance a caring society has to muster. But, I would respectfully submit--so do children. A victim is a victim, it seems to me, no matter how small. Why then is it so difficult to recognize an unborn child as a victim who is all too capable of suffering serve trauma, disfigurement, disability or death? Unborn children feel pain; unborn children bleed and bruise easily; unborn children are as vulnerable as their mothers to an assailant wielding a knife, or gun, or steel pipe. The amniotic sac is like a protective bubble, but it isn't made of Kevlar. It pierces easily. Earlier this week, I met with Tracy Marciniak. A few years ago her husband beat her and her almost full term baby. The child--Zachariah-- died from the beating. Her attacker was charged and convicted of an assault on Tracy. He did minimal time. No charges, however, were brought against the abuser for the crime--murder--he committed on Zachariah. Why? Because Zachariah had no legal value or standing--and could be killed with impunity. Tracy has written: Congress should approve the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Opponents of the bill have put forth a counter proposal, known as the Lofgren Amendment. I have read it, and it is offensive to me, because it says that there is only one victim in such a crime--the women who is pregnant. Please hear me on this: On the night of February 8, 1992, there were two victims. I was nearly killed--but I survived. Little Zachariah died. Any lawmaker who is thinking of voting for the Lofgren ``one-victim'' amendment should first look at the picture of me holding my dead son at his funeral. Then I would say to that representative, ``If you really think that nobody died that night, then vote for the ``one- victim'' amendment. But please remember Zachariah's name and face when you decide. Anybody who thinks there is no dead baby in this picture should vote for the ``one-victim'' amendment. But anyone who sees a grieving mother holding her dead son should vote for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Mr. Speaker, under H.R. 503, if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of an already-defined federal crime of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim--the unborn baby. Of significance, 24 states have enacted laws recognizing unborn children as victims of violent crime. In upholding the Minnesota statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court said ``Roe v. Wade does not protect, much less confer on an assailant, a third party unilateral right to destroy the fetus.'' The Lofgren amendment, stripped of its surface appeal trappings and enhanced penalty has one pro-abortion strategic objective--Denial. Denial that an unborn child has inherent dignity. Denial that an unborn child has worth. Denial that an unborn child has innate value. How incredibly sad--and dangerous. The Lofgren amendment must be rejected.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as we do every year, I rise to mark April 24, the somber anniversary of one of the great crimes of modern history: the beginning of the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. During and after World War I, a government-orchestrated campaign to eliminate the Armenians under Ottoman rule led to the slaughter of about one and a half million people. Entire communities were uprooted, as survivors fled their homes and were forced into exile. Fortunately for them, the United States offered a haven. In turn, Armenian refugees gave this country the best they had to offer. Their contributions in many fields of endeavor have energized and enriched American culture and politics. Surely Turkey's loss has been America's gain, as Armenian refugees in the early part of the 20th century and their progeny have become an inspiring success story. Turkey has lost in another way: its longstanding campaign of denial that the atrocities perpetrated during 1915-1923 were a genocide has not convinced anyone. More and more representative institutions across the world have openly declared their recognition of the genocide, and their number will grow. By refusing to acknowledge what the rest of the world sees, Turkey has stunted its own development and complicated its ability to come to terms with its own past, present, and future. As we soberly mark April 24 this year, there is at least reason to hope for progress on a front important to all Armenians. The OSCE- brokered negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh finally seems to be making headway. Though the details remain confidential, the recent meeting between Armenia's President Kocharian and Azerbaijan's President Aliev in Key West, Florida apparently went well enough for the OSCE Minsk Group to prepare a new peace proposal that will be presented to the parties in Geneva in June. Much hard bargaining surely lies ahead. Nevertheless, for the first time in years, we can allow ourselves of bit of optimism about the prospects for peace in a very troubled and important region. Mr. Speaker, nothing can compensate for the loss of so many Armenians last century. But a prospering Armenia, at peace with its neighbors, and giving free rein to the natural abilities of this talented people, would mitigate the pain and sorrow we feel today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this fall, the Belarusian Government is planning to hold their second presidential elections since independence. Judging by the continuing actions of the repressive regime of Aleksandr Lukashenka, free, fair, and transparent elections-- consistent with Belarus' freely undertaken OSCE commitments--will be very difficult to achieve. Democratic elections require an all- encompassing atmosphere of trust and a respect for basic human rights. Unfortunately, recent actions in Belarus do nothing to encourage such trust. Most recently, on March 25, Belarusian authorities cracked down on participants of the Independence Day march, arresting and beating several protestors, subsequently fining and jailing some, including Belarusian Popular Front Chairman Vintsuk Vyachorka, who received a 15-day sentence on March 29, Ales Byaletsky, head of the human rights center ``Viasna'', who received a 10-day sentence, and Yuri Belenky, acting chairman of the Conservative Christian Party, who also received a 10-day sentence. Also detained and beaten was 17-year-old Dmitri Yegorov, a photojournalist for a Grodno-based, non-state newspaper. On the day of the march, Belarusian state television accused the opposition of ``seeking to draw Belaras into some bloody turmoil'', reflecting its increasingly shrill tone of late. Earlier this year, for instance, Belarusian television claimed the CIA was intensifying ``subversive activity'' as the presidential election draws nearer. On March 24, Belarus' KGB chief pledged on Belarusian television to intensify surveillance of foreigners in order to prevent them from interfering in the country's domestic matters. On March 12, Lukashenka signed Decree #8, which essentially imposes restrictions from abroad offered to NGOs for democracy building and human rights, including election monitoring. Moreover, the Belarusian Government has claimed that the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group's (AMG) domestic election observation project does not conform with the Belarusian Constitution and Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about recent assaults on religious communities. Last month, the Council of Ministers restricted visits by foreign clergy for ``non-religious'' purposes--including contact with religious and other organizations, participation in conferences and other events, or charitable activities. Government officials are also refusing to register some Reform Jewish communities because they do not have ``legal'' addresses. In February, state-controlled Belarusian television aired a documentary alleging Catholicism as a threat to the very existence of the Belarusian nation. And in January, leaders of Belarus' Protestant community alleged that state newspapers carried biased articles that present Pentecostals as ``wild fanatics.'' Religious freedom is not the only liberty in peril. Freedom of the press and of self expression are also in jeopardy. Editors of a variety of newspapers are being fined on fictitious and trumped-up charges for violating the Law on Press and Other Mass Media. Various periodicals are being confiscated and destroyed, and distributors of independent newspapers have been arrested. Youth organizations have been accused of engaging in activities that weaken the Belarusian statehood and undermining socioeconomic stability. Teenagers have been arrested for picketing and protesting, and others have been detained for distributing newspapers or pasting stickers advocating reform and calling on the authorities to solve the cases of political disappearances. Belarusian Television and Radio (BTR) has also canceled scheduled addresses to be made by potential presidential candidates or opposition leaders. The Deputy Minister of Education has ordered heads of the educational community to ban seminars conducted by the People's University. Lukashenka has also undertaken repressive acts against the potential presidential candidates and their families in an attempt to thwart their campaign progress. Family members of former Prime Minister Mikhail Chigir have become the target of persecution. Chigir's wife has been accused of interfering with the work of the police, and his son, Alexander, has been charged with large scale larceny. Chigir is not the only potential candidate whose actions have been thwarted by Lukashenka. Semyon Domash's meeting with potential voters at the Tourist Hotel was canceled on orders from the Mogilev authorities and a director of the clubhouse of the Brest Association of Hearing-Impaired People lost her job after hosting a February 3 voters' meeting with Domash. Vladimir Goncharik, a labor leader, has had to deal with newly state-created ``unions'' trying to muscle out unions supporting him. Two officials of a manufacturing plant were reprimanded by a Borisov city court for hosting a meeting between Chigir and employees at the plant. When one looks at these and other recent actions of the Lukashenka regime, the inescapable conclusion is that the regime has created an unhealthy environment in advance of the elections. Mr. Speaker, the regime's behavior is obviously not conducive to the promotion of free and fair elections. A few weeks ago, President Lukashenka stressed the need to establish an atmosphere of trust in bilateral Belarusian-U.S. relations. I strongly encourage Mr. Lukashenka to translate his words into concrete deeds that will encourage this trust and lead to the emergence of Belarus from its self-imposed isolation from the Euro- Atlantic community of democracies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on International Roma Day last year, the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities released a detailed report on the situation of Roma in the OSCE region. Unfortunately, in the intervening months, relatively little progress has been made by government authorities in addressing the problems he described. The Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, receives so many reports on an almost daily basis which demonstrate the magnitude of the problems Roma face. We receive reports of Roma who are denied access to public places, like the three Roma who were turned away from a Warsaw restaurant last September 29, just before the OSCE convened its annual human rights meeting in that city. We receive reports of discrimination in housing, like the January 27 Hungarian television report that local authorities in Rabakoez, Hungary, have called for prohibiting the sale of real estate to Roma. We receive reports of police abuse, such as the repeated cases of unlawful police raids in Hermanovce, Slovakia. We receive reports of violent attacks, such as the assault on a Romani church in Leskovac, Serbia, at the beginning of this year. Too often, courts are part of the problem, not the solution. Rather than providing a remedy for victims, they compound the abuse. Take a recent case from the Czech Republic. The Czech Supreme Court issued a ruling that a violent attack on a Romani man in 1999 was premeditated and organized, and then remanded the case back to the district court in Jesenik for sentencing in accordance with that finding. But the district court simply ignored the Supreme Court's finding and ordered four of the defendants released. I am hopeful that Slovak courts, which are currently weighing the fate of three of the defendants charged in last years brutal murder of Anastazia Balazova, will do a better job of bringing her murderers to justice. In a few places, there are some glimmers of hope. In Viden, Bulgaria, for example, the Romani organization Drom has led a successful effort to bring 400 Romani children, who previously attended segregated schools, into the mainstream school system. In that instance, the cooperation of local and national authorities, governmental and non- governmental bodies, is paying off. Unfortunately, too few government leaders demonstrate the courage necessary to address these issues. Some pass the buck, looking to the European Union or the Council of Europe to fix problems that must be tackled, first and foremost, through political leadership at home. Moreover, a number of EU countries have little to teach the applicant countries about tolerance towards Roma. Many OSCE countries--not just the former Communist states--are in need of comprehensive anti- discrimination laws, a priority recognized in the 1999 OSCE summit agreement and by the European Commission in the adoption of its ``race directive'' in June of last year. Regrettably, nearly two years after Bulgaria received praise from many quarters for agreeing to adopt such legislation, the government is not one step closer to fulfilling its commitment. The Slovak Government's human rights office, in contrast, has undertaken a serious study of legislative options and may soon have a draft ready for a vote. In addition, it is imperative that political and civic leaders condemn anti-Roma manifestations in clear and unequivocal terms. Mr. Speaker, when the Mayor of Csor, Hungary--a publicly elected official--said ``the Roma of Zamoly have no place among human beings; just as in the animal world, parasites must be expelled,'' I believe it is the responsibility of Hungary's political leadership to condemn these outrageous slurs. If more leadership was demonstrated, perhaps confidence would have been strengthened and maybe 5,772 Hungarian Roma would not have applied for asylum in Canada over the past three years. When the Mayor of Usti nad Labem built a wall to segregate Roma from non-Roma, all members of the Czech parliament--not just a paper slim majority of 101 out of 200 MPs--should have voted to condemn it. And when Mayor Sechelariu of Bacau, Romania, announced plans to build a statue of Marshall Antonescu--the World War II dictator who deported 25,000 Roma to Transniestra, where some 19,000 of them perished-- Romanian officials, who have pledged to the OSCE community to fight intolerance, should begin at home by ridding their country of every Antonescu statue built on public land.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be the principal sponsor of this resolution on human rights in Cuba and especially grateful to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee of International Relations and Human Rights, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for her courage, for her consistency in promoting human rights in Cuba and all around the world. That consistency, I think, is very much needed in politics and in statesmanship, and I applaud her for it. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who has been outstanding in his defense of those who labor against all odds time and time again. Mr. Diaz-Balart is a powerful voice in Congress on behalf of the persecuted and opposed. It is an honor to be his friend and collegue. We had the only hearing last year on Elian Gonzalez when he was abducted and sent back to Cuba. We heard from a number of people who dealt with children's rights--or the lack of children's rights--in Cuba, who talked about how the child is molded by Marxist ideology and that the parents have little or no rights with regard to their own offspring. We heard testimony from Reverend Walker who cited Matthew 25, one of my favorite teaching in the Bible, which talks about our Lord saying, ``When I was hungry did you feed me, when I was naked did you clothe me?'' And he was defending the Cuban dictatorship. Amazingly, he said that he saw the fulfillment of Matthew 25 in Cuba, which was an astounding and patently untrue statement to be made by a clergyman. Then I asked him about a portion of Matthew 25 which he somehow left out. Jesus said: ``When I was in prison, did you visit me?'' So we asked him--I asked him and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) jumped in right after me--did you Rev. Walker ever visit any of the 400, maybe as many as 1,200, political dissidents who have languished in Castro's gulags day in and day out? Did you ever visit any of those? He said, oh, yes. Then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) asked if I would yield and he jumped in and said, ``Name them.'' Not one single person was named because apparently he had never visited, to the best of our knowledge, any specific dissident; never spoke to power the dictatorship that is to say to Castro, in Havana of the needs and the daily degradations that are suffered and endured by those who labor for democracy. As this resolution attests, and other speakers will surely amplify, the Castro regime is a totalitarian government that routinely employs torture, extrajudicial killings, forced abortion, and other gross abuses against its own citizens. In my remarks, I would like to concentrate some of my time on the particularly grave situation of human rights defenders, the brave men and women inside of Cuba who dare to criticize the actions of the regime or who simply advocate compliance with the minimum standards of civility and decency set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One thing that frequently happens to human rights defenders in Cuba is that they are subjected to what the government calls ``acts of repudiation.'' Here is what the most recent Country Report on Human Rights Practices issued by our State Department had to say about these acts. At government instigation, and I quote, ``Members of state-controlled mass organizations, fellow workers or neighbors of intended victims are obliged to stage public protests against those who dissent from the government policies, shouting obscenities and often causing damage to the homes and property of those targeted. Physical attacks on the victims sometimes occur. Police and state security agents are often present but take no action to prevent or to end the attacks. Those who refuse to participate in these actions face disciplinary action, including loss of employment.'' If a human rights defender persists in disagreeing with the government, he or she may be committed to a psychiatric institution. Like its former ally and protector, the Soviet Union, the Cuban government abuses psychiatry to imprison religious and political dissenters under the rubric of such diagnoses as, quote, ``apathy towards socialism, or,'' and I quote, ``delusions of defending human rights.'' Last year, Dr. Oscar Biscet criticized the government for a wide range of human rights violations, including its policy of forcing women and girls to have abortions. Fidel Castro called Biscet a ``little crazy man.'' The police then took Dr. Biscet to a psychiatric hospital for testing. Dr. Biscet is now serving a 3-year sentence for the crime of what they call ``dangerousness''. Recently for fasting in remembrance of the murder of the men and women on the 13th of March, the boat that was deliberately cleared of its occupants and who were drowned by Castro's thugs, Dr. Biscet got over a month of solitary confinement simply because he fasted in protest. Madam Speaker, political and religious prisoners are often subjected to torture and a number have died in prison due to the effects of such mistreatment and denial of proper medical care. Madam Speaker, reasonable people may have some disagreement about what we should do from time to time with regard to U.S. policy for these brutal acts. Some believe in a policy of so-called constructive engagement. I strongly believe that our policy of isolating the regime subject to carefully defined humanitarian exceptions for food and medicine that are already a part of U.S. law with respect to Cuba is the right policy. The one thing we should all agree on, whatever our differences on other aspects of U.S. policy, is that the United States should tell the truth. Indeed, the whole purpose of the U.N. Human Rights Commission now meeting in Geneva is to provide a forum in which representatives of sovereign nations will speak to each other openly and honestly about human rights. This is not always as easy as it sounds, because the Commission's membership includes such world-class human rights violators as the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia; and it also includes Cuba, whose delegate stood up in Geneva last week and proudly reported that, and I quote, ``there are no human rights violations in Cuba.'' Give me a break, Madam Speaker. What utter nonsense. Madam Speaker, a strong bipartisan vote for today's resolution will send a signal to Havana, to the community of nations assembled in Geneva, and to the victims themselves, that we Americans remain united in our commitment to tell the truth, and our commitment to the well being of those who suffer daily for democracy and human rights; and it is our hope that the truth, with the help of God, will set the Cuban people free.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my good friend, for yielding the time to me. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) on his sponsorship of this very important resolution. I am very proud to be one of the cosponsors, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) the distinguished and effective chair of the International Operations and Human Rights Committee for her work and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) the Chairman of the Full Committee for moving this legislation to the floor. I would just say to the previous speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), that this resolution simply tells the truth, and it seems to me that truth-telling should always be in season; but there is also the timeliness issue. The U.N. Human Rights Commission is currently meeting in Geneva, and Members should be aware that decisions are being made by various delegations and by various diplomats right now. A postponement of this resolution could mean the loss of a vote or two from delegates who might think that we are ducking the issue or having second thoughts that perhaps we are not as serious as we have said we are. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. We are indeed very, very serious. Time is not on our side. There is only a few weeks left for deliberations by the U.N. Commission on human rights. Madam Speaker, I have been there. I lobbied delegations on behalf of human rights in the past. We need to send this message right now that we are very serious about human rights in China. No if, ands or buts, about it! Madam Speaker, just let me say that the new tension created by the holding of 24 American servicemen by the People's Republic of China--a crisis situation that all of us want to see resolved immediately--only underscores anew how the policies of the Beijing dictatorship are harsh and unreasonable and how those policies have continued to worsen and to deteriorate with each and every passing year. Sadly, universally recognized norms and international laws have no meaningful application to the dictatorship. The dictatorship in Beijing mocks the rule of law. Madam Speaker, any honest assessment of China's record on human rights makes it abundantly clear that the leaders who rule China with an iron fist have no respect whatsoever for human life, especially the lives of their own citizens, especially the lives of women and children. Madam Speaker, forced abortion is an unspeakable cruelty to women and babies, and was properly construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunals when the Nazis were held to account. Today, the crime of forced abortion in China is pervasive, it is systematic, and it is common place. Forced abortion in China is state-sponsored violence against women and children. As I think many Members know, as a means of enforcing what they call their one-child-per-couple policy, first announced back in 1979, the Chinese Government routinely coerces mothers in China, to have abortions often late in pregnancy or to undergo forced sterilization or mandatory birth control. Over the past decade, Madam Speaker, I have led three human rights trips to China. I have met with Li Peng. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I raised human rights issues; face to face he just dismissed it out of hand as if it was all exaggerated and fabricated. There was no engagement--constructive or otherwise. I have chaired over 18 hearings and markups on legislation pertaining to Chinese human rights abuses; and in the 1980s and the 1990s, I and many others in this Chamber have repeatedly spoken out against forced abortion and forced sterilization in China as well as other egregious abuses. To my shock and to my dismay, many family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood have decided to either look the other way, as millions of Chinese women are cruelly forced to undergo abortion, or in the case of the U.N. Population Fund to aggressively defend it, to whitewash these abuses as ``nonexistent'' or as the ``exception'', rather than the rule. Madam Speaker, at one of my hearings we heard from a woman by the name of Mrs. Gao. Mrs. Gao ran one of the family planning programs in Fukien Province. She made the point that during the course the decade that she ran the program, they literally would take women and put them or their relatives behind bars until they acceded to the so-called ``voluntary'' abortion. She finally summed up her testimony by saying, by day, I was a monster; by night, a wife and mother. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the Chinese Population Control Program is a ``monster''--a monstrous abuse of women; and the indifference of both the East and the West makes us, however unwittingly, complicit in these crimes. Madam Speaker, just let me say that I encourage Members to read the country reports on human rights practices, all 59 pages dedicated to what is going on in the People's Republic of China. That report is very accurate; and it makes the point in the declarative sentence near the beginning and I quote, The government's poor human rights record worsened, and it continued to commit numerous serious abuses. The government intensified crackdowns on religion and in Tibet, intensified its harsh treatment of political dissent and suppressed any person or group perceived to be a threat to the government. The State Department report goes on to say that by the end of the year 2000, and I quote, Thousands of unregistered religious institutions have either been closed or destroyed, and hundreds of Falun Gong leaders have been imprisoned, thousands have been sent to the lao gai, or mental institutions. The report notes, and I think Members need to take note of this, that more than 100 Falun Gong practitioners were tortured to death in Chinese prisons. Death by torture is often a long, exceedingly painful ordeal. It does not happen overnight. After daily beatings and deprivations of food and sleep, finally the victum succumbs to death as a result of those beatings and abuse. Madam Speaker, the United Nations has documented and numerous human rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty and, of course, our own Country Reports on Human Rights Practices that torture is endemic in China. If you are arrested as a political prisoner, a religious dissenter or even a common criminal, they beat you black and blue, sometimes to death. That is the reality of what is going on in the People's Republic of China. Let me just finally say something about truth-telling. Some years back, President Clinton invited Chu Haotien to the United States--the Butcher of Beijing, the man who literally ordered the crackdown on the students at Tiananmen Square, and said, go and bayonet and kill and maim and hunt down those individuals. After he was invited here, he was at the U.S. War College and gave a speech and made the outrageous claim--a big lie--that no one died at Tiananmen Square. My staff and I quickly put together a hearing and invited eyewitnesses to that massacre; and we invited Chu Haotien to come and testify, or anyone else from the Chinese Government, including Ambassador Li. We had an empty chair because nobody showed up. We heard from an editor from the People's Daily in China, who accurately reported on the killing--and paid a big price--and we heard from a Time Magazine correspondent and a host of others, others who gave witness to the big lie uttered by General Chu. I see I'm out of time--I have so much more to say. Suffice to say, this resolution puts us on record in favor of the oppressed, and the persecuted, and encourages the Bush administration to continue its work on behalf of human rights.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 83 and against the pending substitute. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for crafting a responsive and responsible budget in general and for being especially sensitive to the needs and the concerns of our veterans around this country. The decision of the Committee on the Budget to increase the veterans' affairs budget by 12 percent, that is $5.6 billion over last year, including $1 billion more than even the Bush administration suggested, is a breakthrough and a very, very important plus-up for all of our veterans. I have said all along that the Bush budget was a work in progress and that we would do more, and today our budget chairman has done so. This 12 percent increase in funding will be a serious and a very tangible expression of solidarity and support for veterans and is especially justified in light of the sacrifices that our veterans have made. Let me just say to my friends and colleagues, that record increases in spending for medical care will compensate, one, for inflation, as well as for significant increases in spending on mental health care, long-term care, additional staff for reducing waiting times, higher pharmacy costs, spinal cord injury care, homeless veterans, transitional housing, and the list goes on and on. Yesterday this House passed two very important pieces of legislation that I was the sponsor of--H.R. 801 passed 417 to 0 and then H.R. 811 passed overwhelmingly as well. Both of those bills are fully accommodated by this budget. As a matter of fact, the second bill, H.R. 811, would provide $550 million for emergency repair of our hospitals. We saw what happened with the recent earthquake, the seismic damage that was done to the American League Hospital. There are many hospitals that have, unfortunately through neglect they are in grave need of upgrading and repair. This legislation would do that. Tomorrow I will be introducing the new GI Bill of Rights, the Education GI Bill of Rights. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote in favor of H. Con. Res. 83. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 83--and against the pending substitute. I want to begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Nussle for crafting a responsible budget in general--and for being especially sensitive to the needs and concerns of veterans in particular. The decision of the Budget Committee to increase funding by 12 percent for the Department of Veterans Affairs--up $5.6 billion over last year--including $1 billion more than the Bush administration's budget proposal--is a breakthrough increase for veterans. I have said all along that the Bush budget was a work in progress-- and that we would do more. This 12-percent increase in funding in the underlying resolution is a serious and tangible expression of solidarity and support for veterans and is especially justified in light of the personal sacrifices made by the men and women who have protected our Nation, in peace and war, and whose lives have forever been changed by their experiences. This victory is a victory for all veterans, especially those who continue to suffer from the disabling effects of war wounds or from lingering mental illnesses connected to their service. They answered the call and now we must do the same. Mr. Chairman, record increases in spending for medical care will compensate for inflation, as well as allow for significant increases in spending on mental health care, long-term care, additional staff to reduce waiting times, higher pharmacy costs, spinal cord injury care, homeless veterans transitional housing and emergency care. Additional funds will also be provided for research and construction, state nursing home and cemetery grants, the Veterans Benefits Administration and National Cemetery Administration. For the first time in my memory, the Budget Resolution includes additional funds to cover mandatory increases which will be needed to fund H.R. 801, the Veterans Opportunities Act of 2001, and a bill I will introduce later this week to increase benefits available to veterans using the Montgomery GI bill. By providing funds in this year's budget to immediately implement H.R. 801, the Congress will be able to provide overdue increases to cover the rising costs of many urgently needed veterans' services, such as adaptive automobile and housing grants for severely disabled veterans. H.R. 801, which passed the House yesterday by an overwhelming vote of 417-0 will also expand the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program to include spouses and children, and make the increase in the maximum benefit from $200,000 to $250,000 retroactive to October 1, 2000, in order to provide a higher benefit to those men and women who have recently lost their lives in tragic military accidents. The bill also increases funds for specially adopted housing grants as well as other important projects. Under our proposal to update the Montgomery GI bill, the monthly benefit will be increased to a level that allows a qualified recipient to cover their monthly costs of attending a State college as a commuter. It would increase the monthly benefit available to a full- time student over a 3-year period beginning October 1, 2001 from $650 to $1,100 per month. Last night, the House also approved the Veterans Hospitals Emergency Repair Act, H.R. 811, a bill that I introduced to provide immediate emergency funding to repair and rebuild dilapidated VA medical care facilities. The increase in funds for veterans contained in this resolution is based in part on the need for funds authorized in H.R. 811. This legislation authorizes $550 million over the next 2 years for the Department of Veterans Affairs to immediately address urgent construction needs, specifically in facilities identified as having patient safety hazards, requiring seismic protection, or to improve privacy or accommodations for disabled veterans. In closing, let me again thank the Committee and advise all of my colleagues that the level for veterans authorized in this resolution is both fair and defensible. Although there are certainly advocates who are calling for even higher levels of funding, I tell my colleagues that this is a good budget and one we should take pride in.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me just again thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and all the Members who have helped fashion this legislation. I especially want to thank our staff: Pat Ryan, our general counsel and staff director; Kingston Smith; Jeannie McNally; Darryl Kehrer; Paige McManus; John Bradley; Sarah Shigley; Michael Durishin; Debbie Smith; Todd Houchins; Beth Kilker; Susan Edgerton; Mary Ellen McCarthy; Sandra McClellan; and Jerry Tan. I hope I did not miss anybody, but it really does make a difference to have staff and Members working so well together. These two pieces of legislation, in all candor, would not be possible without the good work of our very professional staff, and I want to thank them very deeply; all the veterans are better served because of the expertise, as well as the compassion of our staff. I want to thank them for their work.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 811) to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out construction projects for the purpose of improving, renovating, and updating patient care facilities at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise in strong support of this legislation, H.R. 811, as amended, the Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out urgently needed medical facility construction projects over the next 2 fiscal years, and would authorize appropriations of $250 million in fiscal year 2002 and $300 million in fiscal year 2003 for those projects. I will briefly discuss the bill, and then would ask our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), to provide a more detailed expansion explanation. He has done a great deal of work on this bill. On March 1, 2001, Mr. Speaker, I introduced the Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act with our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and a number of our colleagues, including the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran). We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the flow of appropriated funds for VA construction programs, at one time in the hundreds of millions of dollars every year, in recent years slowed to barely a trickle, and then bottomed out last year. No funding was provided through the appropriations process for VA major construction in fiscal year 2001. However, as construction funding for veterans' hospitals and other medical facilities dried up, they continued to age. Hundreds of VA medical buildings are over 50 years old and have become run-down, substandard and, in some cases, unsafe. Part of the reason funding has not been appropriated for construction projects has been the VA's Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services, or CARES, initiative. CARES is expected to provide comprehensive planning for VA facilities across the country. While the VA committee supports CARES, it is a phased process that could take 3 to 5 years to produce just the plans for some VA medical centers. Then it would take more time for projects to go forward through the authorization and the construction process. Among these identified construction needs are some 67 VA buildings currently used by patients and staff that could be damaged or collapse in the event of an earthquake, including three that suffered damage several weeks ago at the American Lake Medical Center in the State of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues know the urgency we are talking about. Hopefully it is self-evident to all of us. Our Nation's veterans simply cannot wait any longer, the CARES process notwithstanding. They need our health care today, as well as tomorrow. As a country we have obligations to these men and women who have served in the military uniform and have done so with honor, and deferring these obligations is the same thing as not keeping those obligations. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee, I am going to do my best to see that our veterans have high-quality health care in modern, well- maintained, and safe buildings. All of our committee members are together on this. H.R. 811, as amended, is an important step that would provide a temporary authority to the Secretary to set aside for 2 years existing authorization requirements. It would allow the Secretary some discretion to approve repair projects based on recommendations of the VA Capital Investments Board. This legislation, frankly, would depart from current authorization practice by effectively eliminating congressional influence in deciding how this money should be spent. We call it an emergency because it is. I know the media likes to sometimes focus on pork in bills we consider. We hope that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs will make the most meritorious choices, those facilities that need repairs the most. Again, that is why we call it an emergency repair act. The major veterans' organizations, Mr. Speaker, testified in support of this bill at the Committee on Veterans' Affairs' legislative hearing on March 13 of this year. The administration supports the bill, so long as it aligns with the President's overall budget. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, and encouraged that the proposed budget resolution that we begin debating later on today fully accommodates the amount of money that we anticipate will be required to do this work. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank again, as I did on the previous bill, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and his staff, and our staff, as well, for working in a bipartisan way in ensuring that this legislation meets the needs of our crumbling infrastructure. Finally, just let me say, there have been studies done as to what we actually have in the inventory of the VA; the Pricewaterhouse study, for example, done a couple of years ago. They estimated that we have about $35 billion worth of assets, and in order to keep those assets up and running and in fine shape, it would require about $700 million to $1.4 billion a year. We have been nowhere near that amount. Hence, we have a crumbling infrastructure crying out for repair, crying out for the money, the down payment for which is contained in this legislation. This is a modest bill, even though it is over half a billion dollars, a modest bill vis-a-vis the need, the unmet need, for repairing the physical infrastructure of the VA. If we want to care for veterans, if we want world-class health care for our veterans, we need the physical plant to accommodate that. This legislation takes us forward in that process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), a good friend. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I testified before the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on the importance of setting aside sufficient funding for critical life-saving and life affirming medical research. First Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend President Bush for continuing the commitment to double biomedical research funding in five years by providing a $2.8 billion increase for the National Institute of Health (NIH) in his budget proposal to Congress. The President's proposal provides the largest annual funding increase in NIH's history, and it is my hope that Congress follows in the President's footsteps. Today I am here to represent the interests of those afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, autism, and Lyme disease. These devastating diseases have left the elderly helpless, the children voiceless, and people across the nation getting weaker and sicker. Alzheimer's Disease As co-founder of the Bipartisan Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I am seeking support for increased funding of the National Institute on Aging so that it could accommodate an additional $200 million in Alzheimer's research. This appropriation will help us reach our goal of funding Alzheimer's research at $1 billion by fiscal year 2003 and allow us to launch an all-out assault on Alzheimer's disease. This year, Mr. Speaker, we hope to increase funding for research to discover ways in which to prevent Alzheimer's for two critical target populations. The first target is people who will have clinical Alzheimer's disease 10 to 20 years from now. Researchers must find ways to slow or alter the changes that are already taking place in the brain so that symptoms of Alzheimer's never develops. The second target population is those persons who are already suffering with the disease. Researchers need more resources to help them find ways to prevent the health crises, the unmanageable behaviors, and the rapid functional decline that leads to hospitalization and nursing home placement. We are aware of the tremendous cost Alzheimer's already brings to bare on society. Not only is there an economic burden, but Alzheimer's also destroys the quality of life for the patient and the caregiver alike. An increased investment from the government will allow for researchers to search for simple, practical, widely available, and affordable ways to detect the earliest changes in the brain. Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the Alzheimer's investments Congress has made over the past decade are now paying off in rapid discoveries regarding the basic mechanisms of the disease, the complex interplay of genetic and environmental risk factors, and the treatments and interventions that can slow decline. Discoveries in the past year alone have generated great excitement in the field of Alzheimer's. For instance, scientists have developed a third FDA-approved drug designed for the treatment of the disease's cognitive symptoms. In addition, scientists have completed Phase 1 of a clinical trial involving humans in which they used a vaccine that appears to prevent in the brains of mice the amyloid deposition that forms plaques which characterize Alzheimer's disease. The United States enters the 21st Century facing an imminent epidemic. By 2050, 14 million of today's baby boomers will have Alzheimer's disease. For most of them, the process that will destroy their memories, their lives, and their savings has already begun. The annual cost of Alzheimer's diseases will soar to at least $375 billion, overwhelming our health care system and bankrupting Medicare and Medicaid. The only way to avoid this crisis is to act now. Autism As the co-founder of the Coalition for Autism Research and Education (C.A.R.E.), I am seeking support for the provision of $5 million for the Center of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to help the states conduct autism epidemiology research. Autism is a developmental disorder that has robbed at least 400,000 children of their ability to communicate and interact. The disorder affects at least one in every 500 children in America. Currently, there is limited information on the prevalence, cause, or treatment of autism. To address the lack of understanding Mr. Speaker, CDC began conducting epidemiological research on the incidence and surveillance of autism in two metropolitan areas in Georgia and my home state, New Jersey. Last year, Congress made a major and vital investment in the centers of excellence, and as a result, CDC expanded its research to include data collection in West Virginia, Arizona, South Carolina, Maryland, and Delaware. CDC's efforts in these states seek to identify the prevalence rate of autism and to verify that these cases are accurately diagnosed. The studies also seek to establish any relevant environmental or other exposures in these communities. The basic data collection and verification is integral to better understanding the incidence of autism, the factors which may contribute to a higher rate of incidence, and effective treatment. The challenge is that effective analysis of this data must wait for the data collection efforts to expand to an additional 24 states. CDC must receive the funding to collect data from approximately 30 states before it can move forward with a comprehensive analysis of trends that may reveal correlative factors, potential causes, and hopefully effective treatments and cures for autism. Lyme Disease As a Member of Congress who has been active on the subject of Lyme disease for nearly two decades, I believe there are two critical areas we must focus upon if our nation is to better control the disease. First, I am seeking support for an increase of $8 million at the NIH, which would bring total Lyme disease funding to $32 million. NIH would use this infusion of funds to make the development and improvement of direct detection tests for Lyme a priority. Second, we must double the funding at CDC and bring total Lyme disease funding to $16 million. The CDC has admitted that ``the (Lyme) disease is greatly under-reported.'' Thus, we must urge CDC to re-examine its surveillance system to see where improvements can be made and accurately enhanced. In order to do this, they need adequate funding and oversight. Lyme disease continues to harm tens of thousands of Americans who engage in outdoor activities, both from work and from recreation. Symptoms of Lyme disease can include a reddish skin rash, chills, flu- like symptoms, headaches, joint pain and fatigue. Without treatment, Lyme disease can result in acute headaches, arthritis, and nervous system and cardiac abnormalities. The CDC notes that Lyme disease is the leading cause of vector-borne infectious illness in the U.S. with approximately 15,000 cases reported annually. Over 125,000 cases of Lyme disease infection have been reported since 1982, and some studies indicate cases of Lyme may be under-reported by as much as 10 or 12 fold. Furthermore, various estimates of the cost of Lyme disease on our society at between $500 million and $1 billion annually. Consequently, I believe funding to address detection and surveillance would greatly assist Congress in ensuring the constituents in Lyme disease endemic areas that Lyme disease research is on the right track. The case is amply made that extra monies for Alzheimer's disease, Autism, and Lyme disease will be very well put to use and represent a small payment toward preventing future health care costs. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of Congress to support increased funding for Alzheimer's, autism, and Lyme disease.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the 107th Congress is only a few months old, but it is already apparent that this is going to be one that works to keep America's promises to veterans and their families. Later today we will begin consideration of H. Con. Res. 83, the congressional budget resolution, which contains record levels of funding for veterans' programs. As a matter of fact, it contains a 12 percent boost for VA spending, both mandatory and discretionary, to bring it to $52.3 billion, a $5.6 billion increase over fiscal year 2001. In the past month, Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs has met 10 times to hear the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as veterans' organizations. We have heard from organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Gold Star Wives, the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, the Retired Enlisted Association, Fleet Reserve Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, the Jewish War Veterans, Blinded Veterans Association, Noncommissioned Officers Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, Amvets, American Ex-Prisoners of War, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Retired Officers Association, 16 organizations in all. Mr. Speaker, we learned a great deal about what is taking place in the lives of veterans and their families. We also learned about government programs that are effective and making a difference in their lives, and about some that need to be revised and updated and reformed. Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members and their constituents to visit the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Website to review the testimony presented at these hearings to learn more about these hearings and the testimony that we have received. For the Record, that is http:// veterans.gov/. It is a font of information and a great resource on veterans legislation and hearings. Mr. Speaker, we also heard during the course of those hearings from our distinguished VA Secretary Anthony Principi on two of those occasions. We heard about his determination to make the VA a more responsive and a more effective organization. Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs also told the Secretary that it is not enough that a grateful Nation remember its veterans and their sacrifice. The Nation that provides in excess of $47 billion, and as I said, that is likely to jump to $52.3 billion for veterans' programs, expects the VA to be held accountable. We need accountability to make sure that that which we pass is faithfully implemented. We hope that in the future Secretary Principi will share this message with all of his employees. We really want the best bang for the buck. We want our veterans to be well served. Today the House is considering two measures reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs last week. I would like to briefly summarize the purposes of the Veterans Opportunities Act of 2001. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), the very distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Benefits, will provide a more detailed explanation of the bill momentarily. Mr. Speaker, the Veterans Opportunities Act of 2001 is designed to enhance nonhealth programs serving veterans and their families. Many of the ideas contained in this bill were favorably mentioned in the testimony we received from the veterans' service organizations during the 107th Congress. One of this bill's provisions updates the law governing the type of training veterans can pursue under the Montgomery GI bill. We see more and more education and training opportunities offered outside of the traditional classroom setting. Veterans pursuing a good job should be able to use their GI benefits to offset the cost of these courses, and this bill will make those types of training more affordable to veterans eligible for the Montgomery GI bill. The life insurance program available to all active duty servicemembers and many reservists does not provide coverage to members of the servicemember's family. Since so many persons on active duty today desire coverage for family members at an affordable premium, this bill would authorize that coverage. The bill also includes a provision to make the increase in life insurance coverage, which is scheduled to go into effect next Sunday, April 1, retroactive to cover the deaths of many of the service members who have tragically lost their lives since October 1 of last year. I want to salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking Democrat of the Subcommittee on Benefits, and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), a new member, for suggesting this provision in the bill. H.R. 801 also authorizes increases in payments to families of deceased veterans for burial expenses and in amounts provided to assist seriously disabled veterans purchase cars and to fix up their homes with specially adapted devices. It also requires the VA to improve its outreach efforts so that more veterans and their families are informed about the benefits for which they qualify. Another provision is designed to ensure that service members are fully briefed on benefits that they may qualify for before they leave the service. Before yielding to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), I want to express my very deep appreciation for his hard work and that of our staff and his staff and many, many Members on the bills that we are discussing today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the very distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis). (Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for his very kind remarks and for his donation to the bill, particularly as it relates to informing our servicemen prior to discharge. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), my good friend and colleague.

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