Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it has been almost three weeks since the highly disturbing disappearance of Heorhii Gongadze, a journalist known for his articles exposing corruption in the Ukraine and for playing a prominent role in defending media freedoms. Mr. Gongadze, whose visit to the United States last December included meetings with the Helsinki Commission staff, was publisher of a new Internet newspaper called Ukrainska Pravda (meaning Ukrainian Truth), a publication often critical of senior Ukrainian officials and their associates. In fact, shortly before he vanished, Mr. Gongadze had apparently been facing pressure and threats and had complained that police were harassing him and his colleagues at Ukrainska Pravda. Unfortunately, Mr. Gongadze's disappearance takes place in an increasingly unhealthy media environment. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, his disappearance follows several suspect or inconclusive investigations into the suspicious deaths of several Ukrainian journalists over the last few years and the beatings of two journalists following their articles about official corruption this year. This disappearance has occurred within an environment which has made it increasingly difficult for professional journalists to operate, including harassment by tax police, criminal libel prosecutions, the denial of access to state-controlled newsprint and printing presses, and phone calls to editors suggesting that they censure certain stories. Such an atmosphere clearly has a chilling effect on press freedom. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that the Verkhovna Rada--the Ukraine's parliament--has formed a special ad hoc committee to investigate Mr. Gongadze's disappearance. I am also hopeful that the Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs and other law enforcement agencies will conduct a serious, vigorous investigation to solve the case of this missing journalist. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and as someone who has a longstanding interest in the Ukraine, I am deeply disappointed that the Ukraine's relatively positive human rights record has been tarnished by an environment not conducive to the development of a free media. I remain hopeful that the Ukrainian authorities will make every effort to reverse this situation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that H.R. 3244, the Smith-Gejdenson-Brownback-Wellstone Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, is now poised to be passed and, hopefully, will be passed by the Senate and sent to the President for signature. Interestingly and importantly, it has been endorsed by people like Chuck Colson and Gloria Steinem, by the Family Research Council and Equality Now, by the Religious Action Center of Reformed Judaism, as well as the National Association of Evangelicals. In crafting this legislation, we also had the very able assistance of impartial experts, such as Gary Haugen of the International Justice Mission, which goes out and rescues trafficked women and children one by one, and Dr. Laura Lederer of the Protection Project, whose painstaking research has been indispensable to ensuring that we have the facts about this worldwide criminal enterprise and its victims. I also especially want to thank my Staff Director and Chief Counsel Grover Joseph Rees, who has been indefatigable in his expertise on a myriad of these issues. As former general counsel of the INS, he has been indispensable in writing and crafting this legislation. I also want to thank David Abramowitz with the Democratic staff, who has also done yeoman's work. This is truly bipartisan legislation. I also want to express my gratitude to Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute who has supported this effort from day one. H.R. 3244 has attracted such broad support not only because it is pro-woman, pro-child, pro-human rights, pro-family values, and anti- crime, but also because it addresses a problem that cries out for a solution. Division A of this conference report, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, focuses on the most severe forms of trafficking in human beings: on the buying and selling of children into the international sex industry, on sex trafficking of women and children alike by force, fraud, or coercion, and on trafficking into slavery and involuntary servitude. Each year as many as two million innocent victims--of whom the overwhelming majority are women and children--are brought by force and/ or fraud into the international commercial sex industry. Efforts by the United States government, international organizations, and others to stop this brutal practice have thus far proved unsuccessful. Part of the problem is that current laws and law enforcement strategies--in the United States as in other nations--often punish victims more severely than they punish the perpetrators. When a sex- for-hire establishment is raided, the women (and sometimes children) in the brothel are typically deported if they are not citizens of the country in which the establishment is located--without reference to whether their participation was voluntary or involuntary, and without reference to whether they will face retribution or other serious harm upon return. This not only inflicts further cruelty on the victims, it also leaves nobody to testify against the real criminals, and frightens other victims from coming forward. This legislation seeks the elimination of slavery, and particularly sex slavery, by a comprehensive, balanced approach of prevention, prosecution and enforcement, and victim protection. The central principle behind the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is that criminals who knowingly operate enterprises that profit from sex acts involving persons who have been brought across international boundaries for such purposes by force or fraud, or who force human beings into slavery, should receive punishment commensurate with the penalties for kidnapping and forcible rape. This would be not only a just punishment, but also a powerful deterrent. And the logical corollary of this principle is that we need to treat victims of these terrible crimes as victims, who desperately need our help and protection. The bill implements these principles by toughening up enforcement and by providing protection and assistance for victims. Mr. Speaker, I am also very proud that Division B is the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, of which I was also a co-sponsor along with Henry Hyde, Bill McCollum, Connie Morella and other colleagues from both parties. This Act includes provisions to reauthorize federal programs that combat violence against women, to strengthen law enforcement to reduce violence against women, to strengthen services to victims of violence, to limit the effects of violence on children, to strengthen education and training to combat violence against women, to enact new procedures for the protection of battered immigrant women, and to extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait one more day to begin saving the millions of women and children who are forced every day to submit to the most atrocious offenses against their persons and against their dignity as human beings. I urge unanimous support for the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey 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 Connecticut (Mr. Shays). (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who has been working very, very hard on the trafficking issue, particularly as a member of the Helsinki Commission.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the author of Aimee's Law.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough). (Mr. SCARBOROUGH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend for yielding and her good work and leadership on this issue. I say to my colleagues, this is the result of an enormous amount of bipartisanship. The legislation, division A, which deals with trafficking of women, we all know now that especially with the break up of the Soviet Union and the ascendancy of the Mob, organized crime in Moscow, in the Ukraine, and all around the world, is trafficking in women and children as never before. The estimates are as high as 2 million individuals, mostly women, who are being trafficked every year. About 50,000 are coming into the United States, and many of those are forced into prostitution. Our legislation, and, again I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) who has worked so closely on this, has been very bipartisan. It throws the book at those who would commit these heinous crimes and make money off the exploitation of women and children. Our legislation provides $95 million over 2 years for enforcement of anti-trafficking provisions. But, again, the life imprisonment aspect to it, the protection for the women themselves so they are not put on the next plane and sent back to Kiev or St. Petersburg or anywhere else where they might be in danger is very important. We try to put sandbags of protection around them and to say we will help you, we will give you a hand and assistance, and that is what this legislation does. There are many other aspects to it. It is a comprehensive bill. We have had three hearings in my subcommittee on this issue, and we heard from the victims themselves, who talked about how even the NGOs, like Miramed in St. Petersburg, which is out there on the cutting edge trying to help these women, are under tremendous duress by the Mafia, as well as very much underfunded. We want all of the world's governments, especially those that are countries of origination, to do all that they can to mitigate and hopefully end this egregious practice. Division B, the Violence against Women Act, provides about $3.3 billion over 5 years, more than double the current programs, to increase law enforcement and expand shelter space and rehab programs for battered and abused women. There are many, many important grants articulated in the legislation, like the $140 million for Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus Grants, to ensure that our young women on the college campuses are protected to the maximum degree possible, and then $60 million for the Safe Havens Project; and, very significantly, the money for the shelters is increased by $375 million to a total of $875 million to protect battered women and their children. There is also legislation, as my colleagues heard, dealing with Aimee's Law. Aimee's Law passed overwhelming in this House. It ought to be part of this package, and it will hopefully prevent those who have high rates of recidivism, the rapists, the murderers so they do not get out early to recommit these crimes, because we know that there are thousands of those who commit the crimes upon their release. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, and then I hope for support of the underlying conference report.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to those who commemorate the 20'' anniversary of the founding of Solidarity and join as a co-sponsor of this resolution, H. Con. Res 416. Significantly, one of the original 21 demands of the Gdansk workers was a call for the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I therefore take special satisfaction in hailing one of the success stories of the Helsinki process. Stalin is reputed to have once said that trying to impose communism on Poland was like trying to put a saddle on a cow. Certainly, there were few places in Central Europe where communism was more unwelcome and unnatural. The peaceful dismantlement of a totalitarian system imposed by force is testimony to the heroism, ingenuity, and integrity of Solidarity activists and the millions of Solidarity's supporters throughout the country. Of course, the events at the Gdansk shipyard in the summer of 1980 were the continuation--and elevation--of the opposition to communism that was the inevitable by-product of communism itself in Poland, from the workers' strikes in Poznan in 1956, to the university dissent in 1968, to the Gdansk riots of 1970. But Solidarity was unique in two critical ways. First, it established an unprecedented union between workers and intellectuals, making the whole more than the sum of the parts. Second, it evolved into a mass movement, drawing support from all segments of society. With the critical support of the Catholic Church, Solidarity came to embody the hopes and aspirations not only of the people of Poland, but of dissidents and democrats throughout the region. When Lech Walesa was awarded the Nobel Peace prize, that award rightly recognized the achievements of an extraordinary individual as well as the historic role of the Solidarity movement itself and the people who comprised it. Indeed, there are many well known heroes of this movement, in addition to Lech Walesa: Bronislaw Geremek, Adam Michnik, Wladislaw Frasyniuk, Bogdan Lis, Jacek Kuron, Anna Walentynowicz, Janusz Onyszkiewicz, to name but a few of the legions of Solidarity's activists. There were also martyrs, including Father Jerzy Popieluszko, and the miners and others who died when martial law was imposed in 1981. Millions of other Poles, in small ways and large, contributed to world freedom through their support of freedom in Poland. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we support today seeks to honor them and their movement.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the fall of the Soviet Union saw the emergence of open anti-Semitism in Russia. While the government was abandoning its official policy of discrimination against Jews, anti-Semitism was being resurrected by certain political and social elements within Russian society, or ``privatized,'' as one observer put it. Not that anti-Semitism is a distinctly Russian phenomenon. Our own history has shown that at times of economic difficulties or societal challenge extremist figures and groups peddling anti-Semitic or other hate philosophies may arise within our midst. Nevertheless, I was surprised and disturbed when the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews called my attention to a recent article in the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta entitled ``Strategy of `Globallization Leadership' For Russia. First Priority Indirect Strategic Actions To Ensure National Security.'' This article was penned by a Mr. Alexandr Ignatov, the director of a think tank under the jurisdiction of the Presidential Administration of Russia. In his lengthy opus, the author asserts that the activities of a ``world government'' are a key influence on globalization processes, and that a ``Hasidic-paramasonic group'' has usurped power within this world government. Moreover, this ``Hasidic-paramasonic group'' has allegedly decided that Russia should be excluded from leadership in the globalization process and be viewed exclusively as a source of raw materials for the ``New World Order.'' This ``usurpation of power in the world government by the Hasidic- paramasonic group requires immediate correction,'' says Mr. Ignatov, which should include such initiatives as establishing Orthodox and Islam as state religions and imposing a departure tax on persons of childbearing age and ``trained specialists.'' Mr. Speaker, what can we say? Do Mr. Putin and others in the Russian Government take seriously the advice of people who prattle on about ``Hasidic-paramasonic'' groups usurping power in a so-called ``world government''? The Ignatov article is, at best, a vacuous ramble about the ``New World Order and world government, and, at worst, a vicious piece of anti-Semitism reflecting the mind set of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. To wrap fish in it would be to insult fish. For the record, the Russian Orthodox Church, for all its claims as the historic Christian faith in Russia, has rejected the idea of becoming the state church. Even the Soviet government backed down from the departure tax idea back in the early 1980s. In my opinion, this article is unworthy of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, a widely read newspaper of a generally ``centrist'' orientation. I don't deny their right to print whatever they want, but I find it hard to believe that the editors of Nezavisimaya Gazeta want their publication to resemble some of the many anti-Semitic rags that have emerged in post-Soviet Russia. In any event, I would certainly hope that the leadership of the Russian Government disavows the article, the author and certainly the policy prescriptions suggested.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me adamantly disagree with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the previous speaker. Everyone does not agree on protecting newborns. We all know of cases where newborns have been killed or left to die. There was a piece done by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, called ``The Dreaded Complication.'' It talked about live births that resulted from failed or botched abortion attempts. Dr. Willard Cates is quoted extensively in that report. He was at the time the Chief of Abortion Surveillance for the CDC. He made the point that reporting that failed abortions resulted in live births is like turning yourself into the IRS for an audit. What is there to gain? The article talks about repeatedly, case after case, where abortionists tried to kill an unborn child, failed to do so, only to have someone else step into the gap, scoop up that child, and bring that child to some kind of life saving situation. The report notes that the common thread in all of the incidents, and they go through one instance after another, is that it was not the doctor but someone else who intervened to administer care to the child. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding three decades of distraction, distortion, and deceit by the abortion lobby, I am happy to say a majority of Americans believe, and according to a recent nationwide L.A. Times poll, 61 percent of all American women regard abortion as murder. The violence of abortion should be self-evident: Chemical poisoning, dismemberment, brain sucking procedures. But the bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) seeks to protect newborns, kids that are already born. They, too, are now at risk under this slippery slope. If one looks and reads the Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion, it should be a wake-up call. Partially born kids are not protected. Kids who survive late-term abortions are not protected. This legislation is absolutely vital to protect kids who survive and are born after a failed abortion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. You are imputing the dignity of the chairman by suggesting his motive is dishonest. We have better comity in this place than that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership on this very important issue, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who has been indefatigable for many years on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) is right in pointing out that this is a bipartisan effort, and we are trying to send a clear non-ambiguous message to the British Government that we are looking at their policing bill, that we looked at it very carefully, and it falls far, far short. Last Friday, as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I held my sixth hearing in a series of hearings which have delved into the status of human rights in the North of Ireland and the deplorable human rights record of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the RUC, Northern Ireland's police force. Our panel of experts were emphatic about the gap that exists between the recommendations of the Patten Commission on policing reform and the bill that the British Government has now put forth in their attempt to comply with the Good Friday Agreement's instructions to ``craft a new beginning to policing.'' Professor Brendan O'Leary, one of our witnesses from the London School of Economics and Political Science, testified that the pending police bill is, quote, ``a poorly disguised facade'' that does not implement the Patten report. He said it was, and I quote again, ``mendaciously misleading'' for Northern Ireland's Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, to suggest that his government's bill implements the Patten report. Professor O'Leary reported that the bill improved at the Commons stage, yet he testified that the British government's bill is still very ``insufficient.'' He called it a ``bloodless ghost'' of Patten and referred to it as ``Patten light.'' Similarly, Martin O'Brien, the great human rights activist and the Director of the Committee on Administration of Justice, an independent human rights organization in Belfast, expressed his organization's, quote, ``profound disappointment at the developments since the publication of the Patten report.'' He said that ``only a third or less of Patten's recommendations resulted in proposals for legislative change.'' Mr. O'Brien reported that ``a study of the draft seems to confirm the view that the British government is unwilling,'' his words, ``to put Patten's agenda into practical effect.'' He called it ``a very far cry from the Patten report'' and said ``despite much lobbying and extensive changes in the course of the parliamentary process to date, there is still a very long way to go.'' Elisa Massimino, from the Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights, testified that the bill ``falls far short of the Patten recommendations'' and she pointed to many discrepancies to illustrate this. And Dr. Gerald Lynch, the President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and an American appointee to the Patten Commission, restated the Commission's unanimous support for full implementation and warned, in his words, ``that the recommendations should not be cherry picked but must be implemented in a cohesive and constructive manner.'' Mr. Speaker, the witnesses at last week's hearings, as well as witnesses at previous hearings, as well as in correspondences that we have all received and in the meetings that we have had throughout this Capitol and in Belfast and elsewhere, policing has been the issue. In fact last year we had Chris Patten himself and the U.N. Special Rapporteur to Northern Ireland, Param Cumaraswamy, speak to our subcommittee. They too pointed to police reform as the essence of real reform in Northern Ireland. It is critical to note, then, that despite the progress to date, the British government is at a critical crossroads on the path to peace in Northern Ireland. The British government has the sole opportunity and responsibility for making police reform either the linchpin or the Achilles heel of the Good Friday Agreement. Accordingly, our legislation today calls upon the British government to fully and faithfully implement the recommendations contained in the Patten Commission report. The bill is the culmination of years of work in terms of trying to get everyone to the point where they have a transparent police force that is not wedded to secrecy and cover-up of human rights abuses. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 547 does get specific. It points out that the police bill in parliament limits the powers of inquiry and investigation envisioned by the Patten report for the Policing Board and the police ombudsman. Remarkably, the police bill gives the Secretary of the State of Ireland a veto authority to prevent a Policing Board inquiry if the inquiry ``would serve no useful purpose.'' That just turns the bill into a farce, Mr. Speaker. The British government also prohibits the Policing Board from looking into any acts that occurred before the bill was enacted. The British government's bill also denies the ombudsman the authority to investigate police policies and practices and restricts her ability to look at past complaints against police officers. And the bill restricts the new oversight commissioner to assessing only those changes the British government agrees to, rather than overseeing the implementation of the full range of the Patten recommendations. Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Patten met with our committee, I and many others expressed our disappointment that his report contained no procedure whatsoever for vetting RUC officers who committed human rights abuses in the past. That said, we took some comfort that the Commission at least recommended that existing police officers should affirmingly state a willingness to uphold human rights. Now we learn that the British government's bill guts even this minimalist recommendation. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude, and I ask that my full statement be made a part of the Record. Two years ago this week, human rights defense attorney Rosemary Nelson testified before my subcommittee expressing her deepest-held fear that the RUC, which had made numerous death threats against her and her family through her clients, would one day succeed and assassinate her. The U.N. Special Rapporteur testified at the hearing that he was satisfied that there was truth to those allegations that defense attorneys were harassed and intimidated by members of the RUC. As we sadly all know today, Rosemary Nelson was killed, the victim of an assassin's car bomb just 6 months after she asked us to take action to protect defense attorneys in Northern Ireland. Her murder is now being investigated in part by the RUC, the police force that she so feared. If the British government's police bill continues to reject mechanisms for real accountability, we may never know who killed Rosemary Nelson or defense attorney Patrick Finucane. And sadly the police force may never be rid of those who may have condoned, perhaps helped cover up, or even took part in some of the most egregious human rights abuses in Northern Ireland. Mr. Speaker, let us have a unanimous vote for this resolution and send a clear message to our friends on the other side of the pond that we want real reform and that real police reform is the linchpin to the Good Friday Agreement. Last Friday, as Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights subcommittee and as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I held my sixth hearing in a series of hearings which have delved into the status of human rights in the north of Ireland and the deplorable human rights record of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Northern Ireland's police force. Our panel of experts was emphatic about the gap that exists between the recommendations of the Patten Commission on policing reform and the bill that the British government has now put forth in their attempt to comply with the Good Friday Agreement's instruction to craft ``a new beginning to policing.'' Professor Brendan O'Leary from the London School of Economics and Political Science testified that the pending Policing Bill is ``a poorly disguised facade'' that does not implement the Patten report. He said it was ``mendaciously misleading'' for Northern Ireland's Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, to suggest that this government's bill implements the Pattern report. Professor O'Leary reported that the bill was improved at the Commons stage, yet he testified that the British government's bill is still ``insufficient''. He called it a ``bloodless ghost'' of Patten and referred to it as ``Patten light.'' Similarly, Martin O'Brien, Director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, an independent human rights organization in Belfast, expressed his organization's ``profound disappointment at the developments since the publication of the Patten report.'' He said that ``only a third or less of Patten's recommendations resulted in proposal for legislative change.'' Mr. O'Brien reported that ``a study of the draft to confirm the view that government is unwilling to put Patten's agenda into practical effect.'' He called the bill ``a very far cry from the Patten report'' and said ``despite much lobbying and extensive changes in the course of the parliamentary process to date, there is still a long way to go.'' Elisa Massimino, from the Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights, testified that the bill ``falls far short'' of the Patten recommendations. And Dr. Gerald Lynch, the President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and an American appointee to the Patten Commission, restated the Commissions unanimous support for full implementation and warned that ``the recommendations not be cherry picked but be implemented in a cohesive and constructive manner.'' Mr. Speaker, the witnesses at last week's hearing, as well as witnesses at previous hearings--including Patten himself and U.N. Special Rapporteur to Northern Ireland, Param Cumaraswamy--have all pointed to police reform as the essence of real reform in Northern Ireland. It is critical to note, then, that despite the progress to date, the British government is at a critical crossroads on the path to peace in Northern Ireland. The British government has the sole opportunity--and responsibility--for making police reform either the lynchpin--or the Achilles' heel--of the Good Friday Agreement. Accordingly, our legislation today calls upon the British Government to fully and faithfully implement the recommendations contained in the Patten Commission report on policing. Our bill is the culmination of our years of work and it is our urging of an ally to do what is right for peace in Northern Ireland. H. Res. 547 does get specific. It now contains language which I offered at the Committee stage to highlight a few of the most egregious examples where the proposed Police Bill does not live up to either the letter or the spirit of the Patten report. For instance, the Police Bill, as currently drafted, limits the powers of inquiry and investigation envisioned by the Patten report for the Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman. Remarkably, the Police Bill gives the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a veto authority to prevent a Policing Board inquiry if the inquiry would ``serve no useful purpose.'' The bill completely prohibits the Policing Board from looking into any acts that occurred before the bill is enacted. The British Government's Police Bill also denies the Ombudsman authority to investigate police policies and practices and restricts her ability to look at past complaints against police officers. And the bill restricts the new oversight commissioner to assessing only those changes the British Government agrees to rather than overseeing the implementation of the full range of Patten's recommendations. When Mr. Patten himself met without subcommittee, I and many others expressed our disappointment that his report contained no procedure for vetting RUC officers who committed human rights abuses in the past. That said, we took some comfort that the Commission at least recommended that the existing police officers should affirmatively state a willingness to uphold human rights. Now we learn that the British Government's bill guts even this minimalist recommendation. Many of the reforms that the Patten Commission recommended, such as those addressing police accountability or the incorporation of international human rights standards into police practices and training, are not issues that divide the nationalist and unionist communities in Northern Ireland. One must ask then, who it is that the Northern Ireland Secretary of State is trying to protect or pacify by failing to implement these recommendations. Our witnesses concluded that the British Government is hiding behind the division between unionist and nationalists on other issues--such as what the police service's name and symbols will be--to avoid making changes in accountability structures and human rights standards for the police. According to Mr. O'Brien, ``these constraints are there apparently to satisfy the concerns of people already in the policing establishment who don't want change and don't want the spotlight shown on their past activities or future activities.'' In other words, the future of Northern Ireland is being held captive to the interests of the very police service and other British Government security services that the Good Friday Agreement sought to reform with the creation of the Patten Commission. Mr. Speaker, there should be no doubt about the importance of policing reform in Northern Ireland as it relates to the broader peace process. Mr. O'Brien testified that ``the issue of resolution of policing and the transformation of the criminal justice system are at the heart of establishing a lasting peace.'' Dr. Gerald Lynch restated Chris Patten's oft-repeated statement that ``the Good Friday Agreement would come down to the policing issue.'' Professor O'Leary's comments were even more somber. He said: In the absence of progress on Patten . . . we are likely to see a stalling on possible progress in decommissioning, minimally, and maximally, if one wanted to think of a provocation to send hard line republicans back into full scale conflict, one could think of no better choice of policy than to fail to implement the Patten report . . . I think disaster can follow . . . and may well follow from the failure to implement Patten fully. Both the nationalist and unionist communities supported the Good Friday Agreement and all that it entailed--including police reform. The people of Northern Ireland deserve no less than a police service that they can trust, that is representative of the community it serves, and that is accountable for its actions. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleagues that it was two years ago this week that human rights defense attorney Rosemary Nelson testified before my subcommittee expressing her deepest held fear that the RUC, which had made death threats to her and her family through her clients, would one day succeed and kill her. The U.N. Special Rapporteur, Para Cumaraswamy testified at the same hearing that after his investigation in Northern Ireland, he was ``satisfied that there was truth in the allegations that defense attorneys were harassed and intimidated'' by members of the RUC. As many people know, Rosemary Nelson was killed--the victim of an assassin's car bomb just six months after she asked us to take action to protect defense attorneys in Northern Ireland. Her murder is now being investigated, in part, by the RUC--the police force she so feared. If the British government's Police Bill continues to reject mechanisms for real accountability, we may never know who killed Rosemary Nelson, and defense attorney Patrick Finucane. And sadly the police force may never be rid of those who may have condoned, helped cover-up, or even took part in some of the most egregious human rights abuses in Northern Ireland. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure before us today in order to express in the strongest terms possible to the British government our support for implementation of the full Patten report and its very modest recommendations for a ``new beginning in policing.'' Statement of Gerald W. Lynch, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, Before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (The Helsinki Commission), September 22, 2000 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the work of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, commonly known as the Patten Commission. I would like to discuss the Policing Bill which is before the British Parliament. When I was introduced to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, she said to me: ``How did you get Ted Kennedy and Ronnie Flanagan to agree on you? (Sir Ronnie Flanagan is the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.) I told the Secretary that I believed they agree on me because John Jay College has provided training around the world emphasizing human rights and human dignity. Moreover, John Jay has had an exchange of police and faculty for 30 years with the British police, and for more than 20 years with the Garda--as well as an exchange with the R.U.C. for over 20 years. Over that time there had been hundreds of meetings and interactions among British, Irish and American police and criminal-justice experts. The continuing dialogue had generated an exchange of ideas and technology that was totally professional--and totally non-partisan. Many of John Jay's exchange scholars have risen to high ranks in Britain, Ireland and America. The current Commissioner of the police of New Scotland Yard, Sir John Stevens, was the exchange scholar at John Jay for the Fall of 1984. I am honored to have been selected to be a member of the Patten Commission. The Patten Report states that: ``the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole . . . cannot be achieved unless the reality that part of the community feels unable to identify with the present name and symbols associated with the police is addressed. . . . our proposals seek to achieve a situation in which people can be British, Irish or Northern Irish, as they wish, and all regard the police service as their own. We therefore recommend: The Royal Ulster Constabulary should henceforth be named the Northern Ireland Police Service. That the Northern Ireland Police Service adopt a new badge and symbols which are entirely free from any association with either the British or Irish states (We not that the Assembly adopted a crest acceptable to all parties, namely, the symbol of the flax) That the union flag should not longer be flown from police buildings That, on those occasions on which it is appropriate to fly a flag on police buildings, the flag should be that of Northern Ireland Police Service, and it, too, should be free from association with the British or Irish states''. The Patten Commission worked for 15 months. We sought the best professional models and practices for policing a divided society in a democracy. We held meetings not only in Belfast, Dublin, and London but in New York. Washington, California, Canada, Belgium, Spain and South Africa. From the beginning, we met with the police, clergy, politicians, civil- libertarians and community groups. We went to police headquarters. We visited every police sub-station in Northern Ireland. We literally talked to thousands of police officers. We held 40 hearings throughout Northern Ireland--the first and only time such a commission went directly to the public. These hearings were extremely tense. More than 10,000 people attended. More than 1,000 spoke. Emotions ran high as they described past cruelties and allegations of murder, torture and brutality on both sides. We listened. We heard the pain. We felt the suffering. We understood the need to move on to a solution to help forge a future in Northern Ireland that involved more than endless re-creations of the terrible past. We realized early in our deliberations that whatever we recommended would need to pass muster not just in Britain and Ireland but with police organizations worldwide. Chris Patten said of his work on the Commission: ``It was the most difficult, painful, and emotionally draining thing I have ever done or would ever wish to do.'' I concur completely. The Patten report provides a framework on which a police service built on a foundation of human rights can be achieved. Again I quote, ``We recommended a comprehensive program of action to focus policing in Northern Ireland on a human rights-based approach. Training will be one of the keys to instilling a human rights-based approach into both new recruits and experienced police personnel. We recommend that all police officers, and police civilians, should be trained . . . in the fundamental principles and standards of human rights and the practical implications for policing. . . . We recommend the human rights dimension should be integrated into every module of police training''. Another core issue which has not received the attention of the media is the Patten Commission's recommendation that a new police college be established in Northern Ireland. Central to any organizations ability to imbue its members with a focus on human rights is a facility at which to conduct the necessary work and an appropriate curriculum. An educated police officer is a better police officer. The Patten Report stated: ``as a matter of priority, . . . all members of the police service should be instructed in the implications for policing of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the wider context of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human dignity training, along the lines of that offered by John Jay College in New York to the New York Police Department and police services from some fifty countries, should also be provided. Like community awareness training, human rights and human dignity should not be seen as an add-on to training, but as a consideration affecting all aspects of training.'' (Chapter 16.21) The recommendations of the Patten Commission were unanimous. It is crucial that the recommendations not be cherry picked but be implemented in a cohesive and constructive manner. The people of Northern Ireland deserve no less than this new beginning for policing. Any significant modifications will deprive them of this long awaited police service capable of sustaining support from the community as a whole.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me give a special thanks to Bob Hand, who is a specialist on the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslavia and Albania, at the Helsinki Commission. As my colleagues know just a few moments ago, we passed H.R. 1064 by voice vote, legislation that I had introduced early last year. We went through many drafts and redrafts, and I would like to just thank Bob for the excellent work he and Dorothy Taft, the Commission's Chief of Staff, did on that legislation. H.R. 1064 would not have been brought to the floor in a form we know the Senate will pass quickly and then forward for signature, without their tremendous work on this piece of legislation, and their organization of a whole series of hearings that the Helsinki Commission has held on the Balkans. We have had former Bosnian Prime Minister Silajdzic, for example, testify at several hearings. The Congress itself has had so much input into this diplomatic process which we know as the ``Helsinki process,'' and they have done yeoman's work on that. Mr. Speaker, I rise and ask my colleagues to support passage of H.J. Res. 100, recognizing the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act. I am pleased that we have more than 40 cosponsors on this resolution, and that includes all of our colleagues on the Helsinki Commission. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), is the ranking Democratic Member, and my good friend and colleague. Mr. Speaker, the Helsinki Final Act was a watershed event in European history, which set in motion what has become known as the Helsinki process. With its language on human rights, this agreement granted human rights the status of a fundamental principle regulating relations between the signatory countries. Yes, there were other provisions that dealt with economic issues as well as security concerns, but this country rightfully chose to focus attention on the human rights issues especially during the Cold War years and the dark days of the Soviet Union. The Helsinki process, I would respectfully submit to my colleagues, was very helpful, in fact instrumental, in relegating the Communist Soviet empire to the dust bin of history. The standards of Helsinki constitute a valuable lever in pressing human rights issues. The West, and especially the United States, used Helsinki to help people in Czechoslovakia, in East Germany and in all the countries that made up the OSCE, which today comprises 54 nations with the breakup of the Soviet Union and other States along with the addition of some new States. Let me just read to my colleagues a statement that was made by President Gerald Ford, who actually signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975. He stated, and I quote, ``the Helsinki Final Act was the final nail in the coffin of Marxism and Communism in many, many countries and helped bring about the change to a more democratic political system and a change to a more market oriented economic system.'' The current Secretary General of the OSCE, Jan Kubis, a Slovak, has stated, and I quote him, ``As we remember together the signature of the Helsinki Final Act, we commemorate the beginning of our liberation, not by armies, not by methods of force or intervention, but as a result of the impact and inspiration of the norms and values of an open civilized society, enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and of the encouragement it provided to strive for democratic change and of openings it created to that end.'' Mr. Speaker, the Helsinki Final Act is a living document. We regularly hold follow-up conferences and meetings emphasizing various aspects of the accords, pressing for compliance by all signatory states. I urge Members to support this resolution, and I am very proud, as I stated earlier, to be Chairman of the Helsinki Commission. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement made by the U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE, David T. Johnson, at the Commemorative meeting on the 25th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act Statement at the 25th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act (By Ambassador David T. Johnson to the Commemorative Meeting of the Permanent Council of the OSCE) Madame Chairperson, as we look with fresh eyes today at the document our predecessors signed on August 1, 1975, we are struck by the breadth of their vision. They agreed to work together on an amazing range of issues, some of which we are only now beginning to address. The States participating in the meeting affirmed the objective of ``ensuring conditions in which their people can live in true and lasting peace free from any threat to or attempt against their security;'' they recognized the ``indivisibility of security in Europe'' and a ``common interest in the development of cooperation throughout Europe.'' One of the primary strengths of the Helsinki process is its comprehensive nature and membership. Human rights, military security, and trade and economic issues can be pursued in the one political organization that unites all the countries of Europe including the former Soviet republics, the United States and Canada, to face today's challenges. Over the past twenty-five years we have added pieces to fit the new realities--just last November in Istanbul we agreed on a new Charter for European Security and an adapted Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. But the most significant provision of the Helsinki Agreement may have been the so-called Basket III on Human Rights. As Henry Kissinger pointed out in a speech three weeks after the Final Act was signed, ``At Helsinki, for the first time in the postwar period, human rights and fundamental freedoms became recognized subjects of East-West discourse and negotiations. The conference put forward . . . standards of humane conduct, which have been--and still are--a beacon of hope to millions.'' In resolutions introduced to our Congress this summer, members noted that the standards of Helsinki provided encouragement and sustenance to courageous individuals who dared to challenge repressive regimes. Many paid a high price with the loss of their freedom or even their lives. Today we have heard from you, the representatives of the many who have struggled in the cause of human rights throughout the years since Helsinki. We are in awe of you, of the difficult and dangerous circumstances of your lives, and of what you have and are accomplishing. Many of us here cannot comprehend the conditions of life in a divided Europe. And those who lived under repressive regimes could not have imagined how quickly life changed after 1989. Political analysts both East and West were astounded at the rapidity with which the citizens of the former Iron Curtain countries demanded their basic rights as citizens of democratic societies. What we have heard time and again is that the Helsinki Final Act did matter. Leaders and ordinary citizens took heart from its assertions. The implementation review meetings kept a focus fixed on its provisions. Even before the Wall came down, a new generation of leaders like Nemeth in Hungary and Gorbachev in the Soviet Union made decisions to move in new directions, away from bloodshed and repression. In the summer of 1989, the Hungarians and Austrian cooperated with the West Germans to allow Romanians and East Germans to migrate to the West. Looking at what was happening in Europe, the young State Department analyst Francis Fukuyama, wrote an article which captured the world's attention. In ``The End of History,'' he claimed that what was happening was not just the end of the Cold War but the end of the debate over political systems. A consensus had formed that democracy, coupled with a market economy, was the best system for fostering the most freedom possible. And then in the night of November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall opened unexpectedly. Citizens emerging from repressive regimes knew about democracy and told the world that what they wanted more than anything else was to vote in free and fair elections. Only a year after the fall of the Wall, a reunited Germany held elections at the state and national level. Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states carried out amazing transformations beginning with elections which brought in democratic systems. When Albania descended into chaos in 1997, groups across the country shared a common desire for fair elections. We have seen Croatia and the Slovak Republic re-direct their courses in the past several years, not by violence but through the ballot box. Just a few weeks ago, citizens of Montenegro voted in two cities with two different results--in both instances there was no violence and the new governments are moving forward with reforms to benefit their citizens. OSCE has time and again stepped up to assist with elections and give citizens an extra measure of reassurance that the rest of the world supports them in the exercise of their democratic rights. We are all aware that in the decades since Helsinki, we have seen conflict, torture, and ethnic violence within the OSCE area. Unfortunately, not all areas in the OSCE region made a peaceful transition to the Euro-Atlantic community of democratic prosperity. Some OSCE countries remain one-party states or suffer under regimes which suppress political opposition. Perhaps the most troubled region is the former Yugoslavia. As Laura Silber has written in the text to the BBC series ``The Death of Yugoslavia,'' ``Yugoslavia did not die a natural death. Rather, it was deliberately and systematically killed off by men who had nothing to gain and everything to lose from a peaceful transition from state socialism and one-party rule to free-market democracy.'' We need only look at the devastation of Chechnya and the continuing ethnic strife in parts of the former Yugoslavia to realize there is much still to be done in the OSCE region. We must continue our work together to minimize conflict and bring contending sides together, foster economic reforms through enhanced transparency, promote environmental responsibility, and or fight against organized crime and corruption. Human rights remain very much on our agenda as we seek to eradicate torture, and find new solutions for the integration of immigrants, minorities and vulnerable peoples into our political life. ``Without a vision,'' wrote the prophet Isaiah so long ago, ``the people will perish.'' We here today have a vision of collective security for all the citizens of the OSCE region. After twenty-five years, the goals embodied in the Helsinki final act remain a benchmark toward which we must continue to work. The Panelists have reminded us today that the Helsinki Final Act has incalculable symbolic meaning to the citizens of our region; we must continue to take on new challenges as we strive to keep this meaning alive.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time and for his work in helping to bring this legislation to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, as we wait to see if opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica will be allowed to secure the election, which by all accounts he seems to have secured and won, it is important for this Congress to support those seeking democratic change in Serbia as well as those undertaking democratic change in Montenegro. This bill does just that. Introduced by myself and several other cosponsors in February of 1999, and updated in light of events since that time, the bill before us today includes language to which the Senate has already agreed by unanimous consent. The State Department has been thoroughly consulted, and its requested changes as well have been incorporated into the text. Throughout there has been a bipartisan effort to craft this legislation. In short, the bill authorizes the provision of democratic assistance to those in Serbia who are struggling for change. It also calls for maintaining sanctions on Serbia until such time that democratic change is indeed underway, allowing at the same time the flexibility to respond quickly to positive developments if and when they occur. Reflective of another resolution, H. Con. Res. 118, which I introduced last year, the bill supports the efforts of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to bring those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including Slobodan Milosevic, to justice. The reasons for this bill are clear, Mr. Speaker. In addition to news accounts and presentations in other committees and other venues, the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, has held numerous hearings on the efforts of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic to stomp out democracy and to stay in power. The Commission has held three hearings specifically on this issue and one additional hearing specifically on the threat Milosevic presents to Montenegro. Of course, in the many, many hearings the commission has held on Bosnia and Kosovo over the years, witnesses testify to the role of Milosevic in instigating, if not orchestrating, conflict and war. Mr. Speaker, the regime of Milosevic has resorted to increasingly repressive measures, as we all know, to stay in power in light of the elections that were held yesterday in the Yugoslav Federation, of which Serbia and Montenegro are a part. Journalist Miroslav Filipovic received, for example, a 7-year sentence for reporting the truth about Yugoslav and Serbian atrocities in Kosovo. The very courageous Natasa Kandic, of the Humanitarian Law Fund, faces similar charges for documenting these atrocities. Ivan Stambolic, an early mentor but now a leading and credible critic of Slobodon Milosevic, was literally abducted from the streets of Belgrade. Authorities have raided the headquarters of the Center For Free Elections and Democracy, a civic, domestic monitoring organization; and members of the student movement Otpor regularly face arrest, detention and physical harassment. Political opposition candidates have been similarly threatened, harassed, and physically attacked. As news reports regularly indicate, Milosevic may also be considering violent action to bring Montenegro, which has embarked on a democratic path and distanced itself from Belgrade, back under his control. Signs that he is instigating trouble there are certainly evident. It is too early for the results of the elections to be known fully. However, this bill allows us the flexibility to react to those results. Assistance for transition is authorized, allowing a quick reaction to positive developments. Sanctions can also be eased, if needed. On the other hand, few hold hope that Milosevic will simply relinquish power. A struggle for democracy may only now just be starting and not ending. The human rights violations I have highlighted, Mr. Speaker, are also mere examples of deeply rooted institutionalized repression. Universities and the media are restricted by Draconian laws from encouraging the free debate of ideas upon which societies thrive. National laws and the federal constitution have been drafted and redrafted to orchestrate the continued power of Slobodan Milosevic. The military has been purged, as we all know, of many high-ranking professionals unwilling to do Milosevic's dirty work, and the place is a virtual military force of its own designed to tackle internal enemies who are in fact trying to save Serbia from this tyrant. Paramilitary groups merge with criminal gangs in the pervasive corruption which now exists. Sophisticated and constant propaganda has been designed over the last decade to warp the minds of the people into believing this regime has defended the interests of Serbs in Serbia and throughout former Yugoslavia. As a result, even if a democratic change were to begin in Serbia, which we all hope and pray for, the assistance authorized in this bill is needed to overcome the legacy of Milosevic. His influence over the decade has been so strong that it will take considerable effort to bring Serbia back to where it should be. Bringing democratic change to Serbia and supporting the change already taking place in Montenegro is without question in the U.S. national interest. We may differ in our positions regarding the decision to use American forces in the Balkans either for peacekeeping or peacemaking. Nothing, however, could better create the conditions for regional stability which would allow our forces to come home with their mission accomplished than a Serbia on the road to democratic recovery. There is, however, an even stronger interest. Indeed, there is a fundamental right of the people of Serbia themselves to democratic governance. They deserve to have the same rights and freedoms, as well as the opportunity for a prosperous future, that is enjoyed by so many other Europeans and by our fellow Americans. The people of America, of Europe, the people of Serbia all have a strong mutual interest in ending Milosevic's reign of hatred and thuggery. This bill advances that cause.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 5109, a bill affecting very positively health care personnel and formulating a pilot system for coordination of services between the VA and non-VA health care facilities. I would like to thank at the outset the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the good and very able and very distinguished chairman of the full committee, for his leadership on this. He is indefatigable in his efforts to help and enhance veterans benefits. I have been on this committee for 20 years, and it has always been a real joy to watch him in action; and I want to thank him for his leadership. Also I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done yeoman's work on this legislation and the Millennium Act and other important bills; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), my good friend, for his good bipartisanship and very strong commitment to our veterans and for his work on this bill as well. In summary, the bill not only updates pay to nurses, but adjusts the mechanism for making nurses' pay more responsive to today's market realities, increases rates of special pay to dentists, increases the salary rates to our pharmacists, and designates a physician's assistant to serve as a consultant to the Undersecretary of Veterans' Administration. As a cutting edge initiative, it establishes pilot programs to allow veterans dependent upon medical services to be seen in facilities in much greater proximity to the veteran's home. We all know, as my good friend just said a moment ago, very often, the very long trips that members of our veterans' communities have to make to get to a hospital, I hear about it over and over again in my own district, and then there is always that legendary wait once you get there to get that service sometimes becomes a disincentive for our veterans to utilize the system. So, it is very important that we see if this experiment works and if it does, then perhaps roll it out even more. Again, I want to congratulate my colleagues on an excellent, outstanding bill that should get the unanimous support of my colleagues. I rise today in support of H.R. 5109 a veterans bill affecting Healthcare Personel formulating a pilot system for coordination of services between VA and Non-VA Healthcare facilities. In summary, this bill not only updates pay to nurses but adjusts the mechanism for making nurses pay more responsive to today's market realities, increases rate of special pay to dentists, increases salary rates to pharmacist, and designates a physicians assistant to serve as a consultant to the Under Secretary of Veterans Administration. As a cutting edge initiative, it establishes pilot programs to allow veterans dependant upon medical services to be seen in facilities of much greater proximity to the veteran's home. There is a general agreement that there is a nation-wide nursing shortage. In addition, the VA has experienced significant nurse retention problems. Appropriate and timely pay increases must be provided as part of a satisfactory work environment. This bill addresses this concern in several ways. First, it authorizes national comparability pay raise for VA nurses on par with that of other federal employees. Second, it makes optional annual locality survey process for VA nurse pay. Third, it eliminates facility directors as the sole discretionary authority to make pay increases and introduces an automatic mechanism. This will stimulate more timely raises for nurses at VA hospitals. These provisions added together, are designed to make the VA more responsive to the economic needs of nurses and will increase their retention. pay for dentists and pharmacists The bill revises and increases the rates of special pay which is provided to dentists employed by the Veterans Health Administration and is long over due. It eliminates the salary cap on pharmacists. physician assistant as consultant The VA employs some 1,200 PA's as the nation's largest employer of PA's in the past 30 years. But amazingly the VA does not have a PA representative to advise the Administration on the optimal usage of PA's. This bill designates a Physician's Assistant to serve as a consultant to the Under Secretary which will greatly improve understanding and utilization of the PA's by the Veterans Administration. pilot program on coordinating benefits There appear to be many veterans in all areas of the country who while in need of medical services, must travel a good distance for care. In some cases this is 100 miles or more round trip. This is accomplished often at considerable inconvenience to the patient and to the family of the loved one who must provide transportation to and from VA hospitals. Add that to the legendary wait. This bill sets up a 4 site pilot program coordinating healthcare benefits between VA and non- VA health care facilities. Following up on a previously successful program in Florida, this pilot program will see if coordinated and contracted care would be satisfactory to the veteran and a cost saving gain to the Veterans Administration. Let me emphasize that this is a program which is totally voluntary. No veteran who feels uncomfortable participating in the program is forced to do so. This is not intended to replace the parent program which has served veterans so well in the past.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Members to support the Coburn motion to instruct conferees, to accept the Senate-passed amendment to protect young girls from being given powerful abortion drugs at school. I say again, we are talking about a school setting, and that is no place. It is bad enough that this kind of action takes place in abortion mills. To think that we would sanction in any way or shape or form the prescribing of this kind of death to an unborn child at school is outrageous. It should be noted that these abortion drugs not only destroy a newly created life, but they do indeed carry significant risks for the young student. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said a moment ago, with Preven, if we look at the conditions, what the manufacturer itself says, and I quote, ``These conditions can cause serious disability or even death.'' We are talking about this being given out in a high school or junior high or elementary school setting. Our elementary and secondary schools should be the last place, Mr. Speaker, the last place where legitimate parental rights are trampled and usurped, especially when the health or the life of their daughter is at risk. Our elementary and secondary schools should be the place where life is affirmed and respect for life is affirmed; again, the last place where abortion drugs are used. Years ago, many of us warned that school-based clinics would be misused to facilitate abortions for minors, especially by way of referrals to abortion mills. We know that is going on. Planned Parenthood alone does over 200,000 abortions in its own clinics each and every year, many of them by referrals from schools. But now we know that at least 180 schools across the country offer abortion drugs at their school-based clinics. That is outrageous for parents and for their daughters. Mr. Speaker, we need to speak up loud and clear. Support the gentleman's very, very smart and wise motion.