Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, for the past year or so, the Jewish community of Russia has been subjected to anti-Semitic threats and violence. And this is not just from marginalized, thuggish elements on the streets; even elected officials in Russia have resorted to anti-Semitic slurs and threats. Amid the latest explosions in Moscow, it is all the more remarkable that no Jewish institutions were attacked in Russia during the Jewish New Year celebration of Rosh Hashanah. Responding to the concerns of the Russian and American Jewish communities, as well as the U.S. Government and Members of Congress, the Russian authorities provided adequate protection for the synagogues, at least in the capital city, Moscow. The federal government of Russia and Moscow's city government deserve credit for this protection of their citizens. Monday's Yom Kippur celebration also passed without incident, and authorities would also be well advised to ensure that future holiday observances are accompanied by a visible and comprehensive police presence. In the past several weeks, a Jewish community leader was violently attacked inside the Moscow Choral Synagogue, and explosives or false bomb threats have been uncovered in synagogues as well. In addition to synagogues, schools and other institutions are also at risk. The school year has now begun, and elderly Jews will again turn to social services institutions with the approach of winter. Russian authorities should be encouraged to continue protecting Jewish facilities, as well as seriously investigating and prosecuting those guilty of crimes against Jews. In addition, Russian officials should speak out frequently and publicly against those who would--either through word or deed--tear at the fabric of tolerance in Russia. To his credit, President Yeltsin has denounced ``disgusting acts of anti-Semitism'' in Russia, and in a telegram to the Chief Rabbi of Russia, His Holiness Patriarch Alexei II condemned the attack in the Moscow Choral Synagogue. Hopefully, these statements against violence and for tolerance will be emulated by responsible Russian leaders throughout Russia. As much as permitting the free exercise of religion is a duty of any government, so is the protection of those exercising that right. As we Americans have unfortunately witnessed in our own country in recent months, our Nation is not immune to anti-Semitic violence. Law enforcement cannot completely guarantee against infringement of these rights, but we have demonstrated what I believe is an appropriate model of community and official response. For instance, when synagogues in California were bombed earlier this year, the California State Legislature condemned the attacks, and the alleged perpetrators are now in custody. The police protection of synagogues throughout Moscow, along with President Boris Yeltsin's strong message of support to the Jewish community on the eve of the Jewish High Holy Days, represent a commendable Russian step in that same direction. Effective security measures should continue as long as the Jewish community is under threat, but we hope that ultimately such measures will no longer be necessary in a stable, democratic Russia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I rise today to highlight a disturbing incident involving governmental harassment of religious believers in Azerbaijan. We have received reports of religious liberty violations perpetrated by governmental authorities. As a participating State of the OSCE, Azerbaijan has committed to insuring the freedom of individuals to profess and practice their religion. These recent governmental actions are a clear violation of Azerbaijan's OSCE commitment to the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. On September 5th, government officials in Baku forced their way into a legally-registered church, Baku Baptist Church, and arrested sixty members of the religious group. The pastors of the church as well as a dozen foreigners were among those arrested and interrogated. The arrested Azeri religious believers were detained and asked to sign a statement affirming that they had attended an ``illegal meeting'' and promising not to attend the religious meetings in the future. Ultimately, two leaders of the church were sentenced to 15 days in prison on charges relating to resisting police. Likewise, then other foreign members of the religious group were charged with ``engaging in religious propaganda'' and ``propagating against the Muslim faith,'' in violation of an Azeri law that forbids such activity. On September 8th, all ten foreigners were deported and more deportations are likely. These events are alarming, Mr. Speaker. While there had been reports of governmental harassment in the past, especially of unregistered religious minority groups, these current events are especially problematic because the target of these actions was a legally registered religious group. Mr. Speaker, these actions are in direct violation to Azerbaijan's OSCE commitments, including section 16 of the 1989 Vienna Concluding Document, which explicitly delineates the wide scope of activities protected, including the right to establish and maintain places of worship and granting them status under law to both profess and practice their faith. In the 1990 Copenhagen Concluding Document Article 9.1, Azerbaijan has reaffirmed ``that everyone will have the right to freedom of expression, including the right to communication. This right will include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.'' The actions by Azerbaijani officials clearly violate these commitments. I truly hope that these government actions are merely an aberration and will be dealt with accordingly and are not the signal of even more repression of religious believers in Azerbaijan. I would like to commend to my colleagues the work of our Embassy in Baku on religious liberty. Embassy personnel have taken this recent incident very seriously and have followed the situation from the start. I urge those of my colleagues who interact with Azerbaijani Government officials to raise religious liberty issues in their discussions, stressing the essential role that religious liberty--and indeed human rights in general--play in maintaining a free, stable, and democratic civil society.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Ukraine's presidential elections will be held in a little over a month, on October 31. These elections will be an important indicator in charting Ukraine's course over the next 4 years. The stakes are high. Will Ukraine continue to move--even if at a slow and inconsistent pace--in the direction of the supremacy of law over politics, a market economy, and integration with the Euro-Atlantic community? Or will Ukraine regress in the direction of the closed economic and political system that existed during Soviet times? Clearly, the outcome of the elections will have significant implications for United States policy toward Ukraine. Despite the many internal and external positive changes that have occurred in Ukraine since its independence in 1991, including progress in creating a democratic, tolerant society and the significant role played in the stability and security of Europe, Ukraine still has a long way to go in building a sustainable democracy underpinned by the rule of law. Specifically, Ukraine needs to improve its judiciary and criminal justice system, reduce bureaucratic arbitrariness and rid itself of the stifling menace of corruption. Indeed, corruption is exacting a huge toll on Ukrainian institutions, eroding confidence in government and support for economic reforms, and discouraging domestic and foreign investment. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about reports of violations in the conduct of the election campaign, including in the signature-gathering process and inappropriate meddling by officials, especially on the local level. I am also troubled by governmental actions against the free media, including the recent seizure of bank accounts of STB independent television and the suspension of four independent television stations in Crimea. The harassment of the print and electronic media is inconsistent with OSCE commitments. It undermines Ukraine's overall positive reputation with respect to human rights and democracy, including its generally positive record in previous elections. The Helsinki Commission, which I chair, was in the forefront of supporting respect for human rights and self-determination in Ukraine during the dark days of Soviet rule. We have viewed--and still view-- Ukraine's independence as a milestone in Europe's history. However, in order to consolidate its independence and reinforce internal cohesion, Ukraine needs to speed its transition to democracy and market economy. It needs to work toward greater compliance with OSCE standards and norms. The OSCE Office for Project Coordination in Ukraine can be a useful tool to assist Ukraine in this regard and I hope that the Ukrainian government will take advantage of and benefit from the OSCE presence. Despite frustrations with certain aspects of Ukraine's reality, it is important for both the Congress and the Executive Branch to continue to support an independent, democratic Ukraine, both in terms of policies designed to strengthen United States-Ukraine relations, as well as with assistance designed to genuinely strengthen democratic and free-market development. The key is to be patient, but persistent, in encouraging progress.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act addresses the future of VA health care in the 21st century. The legislative package which we are considering today is an ambitious and very necessary undertaking. It forces the VA to step up to the challenges posed by the aging of our society. It will also ensure that the VA's long term care services reflect the health needs of America's veterans. It puts important checks and balances in place so that critical VA decisions regarding health care delivery are made with the input of veterans, health care staffers, and Congress. The Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act includes the following key components: it requires the VA to provide long term care to veterans who are either 50% service connected or in need of such care for a service connected condition; it requires the VA to operate and maintain long term care programs including geriatric evaluation, nursing home care, domiciliary care, adult day health care, and respite care; and it restores the ability of Purple Heart recipients to automatically use VA health care facilities. One component of this package is especially important to me: respite care. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 1762, legislation which expands the definition of respite care within the VA's health care system. For the first time, this legislation allows the VA to contract with home care professionals to provide care for our aging veteran population, as well as provide care services through non-VA facilities when appropriate. Currently, veterans and their care givers who are in need of respite care must travel to the closest VA nursing home--even if it is just for temporary relief--when a bed becomes available. By providing respite care in the home, the VA will relieve a veteran's spouse or adult child of such duties as preparing meals, doing laundry, or changing bed linens. The current policy places a tremendous burden on the care giver, be it a spouse, an adult child, family member, or friend. The closest VA nursing home or state facility may be hours away. My legislation instead allows the VA to either send someone to the veterans' home to relieve the caregiver or to make arrangements and pay for other short- term options. H.R. 1762 has been endorsed by the American Legion, the VFW, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Disabled Paralyzed Veterans Association. All of these groups know that if it were not for the loving care being provided by spouses and adult children, the VA long term care system would be in dire straits. I cannot underscore how crucial it is for our veterans that we provide assistance for these caregivers and enable them to continue their good works. Providing caregivers with the occasional day off so that they might attend to their own lives for a few hours or days will significantly improve the lives of our veterans and unquestionably save the VA money in the long run. Most Americans want to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. Expanding the VA's ability to use respite care as well as other long term care services reflects the flexibility that America's seniors demand and have come to expect. A few years ago, I got a first-hand education about the need for respite care when I watched my parents suffer from cancer. My wife, Marie, provided my mother with around the clock care--so our family knows how emotionally consuming it can be. This is why I am a passionate believer in expanding the VA's ability to provide respite care. This provision of the bill is much needed by our Nation's veterans and their care givers. As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Alzheimer's Disease Task Force, I know that unless we begin building the framework for dealing with long- term care issues in our VA system, a demographic tidal wave--the aging of our veterans--will crash into the system and cause serious damage. The VA should lead the way. For example, persons aged 85 and above are the fastest growing age category in the country, and half of those persons will contract Alzheimer's disease. Cases of Alzheimer's are expected to more than quadruple from 4 million to 18 million by the year 2050. We need to take measures to accommodate families caring for Alzheimer's patients, and the respite care provisions in the Millennium Health Care Act are the right policy at the right time. In a California statewide survey taken by the Family Caregiver Alliance, 58% of the caregivers showed signs of clinical depression. When asked, they responded that their two greatest needs were emotional support and respite care. On average, they are providing 10.5 hours of care per day. According to the Caregiver Assistance Network, family and volunteer caregivers provide 85% of all home care given in the United States. These husbands and wives, sons and daughters, are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure that their loved one--who have served our Nation in the Armed Forces--are able to remain at home in their time of need. Besides Alzheimer's, many of our veterans suffer from the aftermath of a stroke, Parkinson's disease, and other adult onset brain-impairing diseases and disorders. By contracting out for respite care services, the VA will make a real difference in the day to day quality of life for a veteran and his or her family member. Another important provision in the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act is that the bill puts in ``speed bumps'' for the VA as it examines its physical facilities and their future use as we enter the next century. Last month, House Veterans' Affairs Committee staff along with my veterans aide traveled to New Jersey to see first hand how our state and the VA network which it is part of, is dealing with the President's budget cuts. They were pleased to find out that there is a strong level of commitment and dedication among the staff in spite of much belt tightening that has resulted under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) formula. And yet, VA officials told Committee staff that future cuts will cut into the bone. As a result, veterans in New Jersey and throughout the Northeast have been concerned about closure of hospitals, nursing homes, and clinics. I know that at the Brick Clinic located within my Congressional district, we have successfully fought to restore specialty services for our veterans. To not do so would force them to travel an hour and a half in the car to the VA's facility in East Orange. This is unacceptable and we were able to successfully persuade the VA to rethink their health care strategy for Central New Jersey. Recognizing veterans' concerns about their facilities, H.R. 2116 puts in place several mechanisms that will prevent the VA from an arbitrary closure or realignment of a facility. For instance, under H.R. 2116, the VA must conduct a study before it can even consider changing a hospital's mission. Any realignment plan put forth must include the participation of federal employees and veterans. Furthermore, VA employees will be given preference in future hiring. Any savings from a mission change must be retained within the local area and reinvested in new services for veterans, insuring improved access to care. Finally, and most importantly, Congress will be given a minimum of 45 days to review any VA recommendations on potential changes. This provision, and the overall Millennium Health Care Act, does come with a price tage--but it is one that our veterans both need and deserve. Enhancing eligibility for veterans on a variety of levels requires that both Congress and the President find the necessary funds for long term care and eligibility expansion. Earlier this month, the House approved a $1.7 billion increase for veteran's health care. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of this bill which is integral to the health and well being of America's veterans.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. R. 2367.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2367) to reauthorize a comprehensive program of support for victims of torture, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to explain the bill. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2367, the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act. Let me point out to my colleagues that on June 29, the Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights held a hearing on U.S. policy toward the victims of torture. The testimony that was presented that day emphasized the continuing and compelling need for this legislation. Those who suffer the unspeakable cruelty of torture at the hands of despotic governments bear physical, emotional and psychological scars for the rest of their lives. Often, the ordeal of torture does not end with the victim's release from a gulag, laogai, or prison. Without professional help and rehabilitation, many torture victims will never get their lives back. United States law, Madam Speaker, regarding torture victims took a giant step forward on October 30, 1998, with the enactment of Public Law 105-320, the Torture Victims Relief Act. I am proud to have been the principal sponsor of that act, which was cosponsored by 30 of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It authorized $12.5 million over 2 years for assistance to torture victim treatment centers in the United States and another $12.5 million for assistance to treatment centers in other countries around the world. It also authorized a U.S. contribution in the amount of $3 million per year to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims. Finally, it required specialized training for State Department personnel in the identification of torture and its long-term effects, techniques for interviewing torture victims, and related subjects. To continue the good work that that law began, I, along with the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), our ranking member on the subcommittee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), introduced H.R. 2367, the Torture Victims Relief Act Reauthorization. It will extend and increase the authorizations of last year's act through fiscal year 2003. For each of the 3 fiscal years it covers, the reauthorization act authorizes $10 million for domestic treatment centers. The Center for Victims of Torture estimates that there are as many as 400,000 victims of foreign governmental torture in the United States. At present there are only 14 domestic treatment centers which are able to serve only a small fraction of the torture victim population here in this country. Because many of their clients do not have health insurance, the centers must bear most of the costs of treatment. Our hope is that the money authorized by H.R. 2367 will support these existing efforts and perhaps even enable the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement to establish much needed new centers. Madam Speaker, the bill also authorizes $10 million per year for international treatment centers. According to the International Rehab Council for Torture Victims, the IRCT, the leading international nongovernmental organization engaged in treating victims of torture, $33 million is needed in 1999 alone for international rehab centers. Currently there are about 175 torture victim treatment centers around the world. The bill also authorizes $5 million per year for a United States contribution to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. I am pleased to note that the administration greatly increased the U.S. contribution to the fund this year to $3 million, the full level authorized by the Torture Victims Relief Act. We should continue this trend, and I believe we should expand our effort for this worthwhile multilateral effort. Finally, the bill requires, as it did before, that the State Department report on its efforts to provide specialized training to foreign service officers, as mandated by the Torture Victims Relief Act. It is important that our personnel who deal with torture victims be able to identify evidence of torture and its long-term effects, and that they learn techniques for interviewing torture victims who may still be suffering trauma from their experiences. At our recent subcommittee hearing, it became apparent that the State Department has not yet implemented the training required by the act. This reporting requirement will serve as a wake-up call to prompt the Department to fulfill its statutory obligations. Madam Speaker, for the Record I am inserting correspondence between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), of the Committee on Commerce, regarding the jurisdictional aspects of this bill, and I greatly appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from Virginia to accede to consideration of this measure on the suspension calendar. I hope all Members will support this legislation. Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 17, 1999. Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives. Dear Tom: I am writing to thank the Committee on Commerce for its willingness to waive consideration of H.R. 2367, the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999. As you correctly note, the Committee on International Relations and the sponsors of the bill believe it is important to bring this legislation before the House as expeditiously as possible. I am writing to confirm our understanding, upon which your agreement to waive Committee consideration of the bill was premised: Although I am hopeful that the Senate will pass the bill as passed by the House, I agree to support the appointment of Commerce Committee conferees, should a conference be convened on this legislation. I will gladly include your September 10, 1999 letter as part of the record during consideration of the bill by the House. Thank you again for your prompt attention to this time- sensitive matter. Do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or suggestions you may have. Sincerely, Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees and just remind Members that I have held hearings in my subcommittee on the U.S. cooperation with the Indonesian military and I find it appalling that we have been training, especially through the JCET program, many of the people, including those who are part of Kopassus, which is an infamous brigade, it is the Red Berets, it is their so-called elite, many of whom have been charged with very serious human rights violations, including the use of torture. We had Pius Lustrilanang, one of those who was tortured by the Indonesian military, appear at one of our hearings, and he gave riveting testimony of the daily beatings that he endured at the hands of those people. Where we come in, or where the United States I think has made a very serious error, is that we have trained in sniper training, urban guerilla warfare, and other kinds of assistance to the very people in Kopassus and in other elements of the Indonesian military. And I asked our U.S. officials both in Jakarta, as well as at our hearings, did we keep track of those we trained. There is no list of those that we have trained. Now there are several of those members who are under indictment. General Prabowo, who was the leader of Kopassus, has been sacked. But there are still very strong remnants of that kind of abusing authority still in place. We are seeing them now operate with impunity in East Timor.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the Congressional Award program and specifically how this program has worked in New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, many involved in the Congressional Award program know that this program's success is the byproduct of the hard work of my former colleague and a member of the New Jersey delegation, Congressman Jim Howard. Jim worked closely with Dr. Frank H. Arlinghaus, Jr., the Chairman of the New Jersey Congressional Award Council, in drafting the legislation that created this program in 1979. Dr. Arlinghaus, as a member of the national board of directors, as well as the driving force behind the program in New Jersey, has been instrumental in the growth of this program, both in New Jersey, as well as across the country. He has advised other state councils on the best way to educate America's youth as to the intent and benefits of participation in the Congressional Award Program. As part of the Congressional Award program, my office has worked closely with teenagers in the 4th Congressional District of New Jersey, as they volunteer the hundreds of hours required for the bronze, silver, and gold medals. Many of them have shared with me how their experiences in the areas of public service, physicial fitness, and personal growth have broadened their world view and fostered a greater appreciation for personal achievement. On average, four students per year from the 4th Congressional District have received one of the three medals. Highlights of their community service has included volunteering at a local hospital where the students have assisted with everything from admitting patients and discharging patients, working in the children's clinic, and helping visitors with a variety of requests. Personal growth has included building physical endurance or improving a skill such as piano playing, which has facilitated their abilities on a variety of sports teams and in musical competitions. Students have also traveled overseas to the Philippines, Western Europe, and the Bahamas, experiencing first hand the challenges of cross cultural communication. Recently, the National Board of Directors has been examining various ways to expand participation through a certificate program. To date, more than 6,500 awards have been presented nationwide. In New Jersey, we are proud that 1300 of those awards, roughly 20 percent, have been given to young people from our state. Clearly, a program that is working so well in my state could offer a lot of ideas to the rest of the country about ways to attract more and more qualified students into the program. In light of the recently proposed changes in the program and the shared goal of attracting more young people, I would suggest that a hearing on the Congressional Award program would be appropriate. The future growth of this program requires that Congress examine its development over the last 20 years as well as its future. I hope my good friend and colleague Chairman Goodling will give full consideration to this request.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Hinchey- Frelinghuysen amendment. I am very proud to be one of the cosponsors of it, which simply calls for a 1-year moratorium on the VA's implementation of the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation formula, and as Members know by now, hearing it so often, VERA. The moratorium will give Congress and the administration the time needed to make adjustments in the VERA formula that was instituted in 1997 so that veterans in certain geographical areas and age groups are no longer shortchanged by this funding mechanism. Quite simply, we simply need to put E, the big E, equity, back into VERA. Regrettably VERA paints veterans services with a broad brush leaving very little, if any, room for significant examination waiting costs associated with health care. VERA is a mathematical formula that essentially calculates how much a VA network will receive based on the raw number of veterans and whether their health care needs are basic or complex. The formula fails, utterly fails, to take into account the age and perhaps most importantly the specific type of illnesses faced by the various veterans populations. For example, in New Jersey, our veterans are the second oldest group of veterans in the Nation, if we quantify it by State. As we all know, with age comes a plethora of health care problems, many of them more costly to treat. In our network alone 52 percent of veterans are over the age of 65 compared to 44 percent on the average, and I heard even earlier that many of these people, and they do, many of our veterans do move south and end up living in Florida. They happen to be the healthier ones, those who have the means as well as the health to go down to Florida, often by driving, and to have either a second home there or to actually up stakes and move there. The sicker ones and the poorer people, the more indigent, stay in New Jersey and New York and they seek to use the services of the VA. They are the ones who cannot move. So it is not just age. It is also their costs, their situation. We have an explosion of things like cancer in our State. Those folks are not moving to Florida. They are seeking to get their health care right at their Veterans Administration, and now they are finding the VA has to do more with less. Mr. Chairman, it is a 1-year moratorium we are asking for. This has only been in place since 1997. It is not working. I happen to be the vice chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. We have looked at this. I have sat with, for hours, with VA officials both in-State as well as down here, and I am totally dissatisfied with their answers, and I think I find it regrettable that some of my friends from Florida are standing up and saying it is okay down here. We are losing, and poor, indigent and very sickly veterans are the ones that are the net losers. We are not going to stand by and allow it, and I hope that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) amendment gets passed. Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of equitable and fairness, and again we are asking for a 1-year moratorium so we can fix it. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, our amendment today calls for a one year moratorium on the VA's implementation of the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation Formula--VERA as it is known for short. The moratorium will give Congress and the Administration the time needed to make adjustments in the VERA formula that was instituted in 1997 so that veterans in certain geographical areas and age groups are no longer shortchanged by this funding mechanism. Quite simply, we need to put the ``e''-- equity--back into VERA. Regrettably, VERA paints veterans services with a broad brush leaving very little--if any--room for significant extenuating costs associated with health care. VERA is a mathematical formula that essentially calculates how much a VA network will receive based on the raw number of veterans and whether their health care needs are basic or complex. The formula fails to take into account the age and perhaps most importantly, the specific types of illnesses faced by the various veterans populations. For instance, in New Jersey, our veterans are the second oldest group of veterans in the nation if you quantify by state. As we all know, with age comes new health care problems, many of them more costly. In the New Jersey part of our network alone, 58% of veterans are over the age of 65. Compare this with a nationwide average of 44%. However, the VERA formula makes no allowance for this disproportionate representation of aging veterans. A veteran's decision to stay in New Jersey or the Northeast for that matter, should not mean that their VA health care network is forced to do more with less. Veterans should not be forced to wait for weeks on end to see a primary care doctor or specialist as has been the case with increasing frequency in my state as a result of VERA. Similarly, VERA fails to specifically weigh the type of medical treatment required in the varying networks. For instance, the VA has mandated treatment of veterans with Hepatitis C. In New Jersey alone, the VA is treating 12 to 15 veterans per month who have tested positive for Hepatitis C, with a treatment cost of $15,000 per patient. Failing to take into account that we have a high rate of Hepatitis C in our network as well as a high rate of AIDS cases, VERA punishes New Jersey and the larger network that we are in, for treating all veterans, not just those who use the VA for an annual physical or for prescription drugs, but those with serious, ongoing chronic illnesses. Our veterans served our country in her time of need; we should not forget them now simply because where they chose to spend their ``Golden Years'' does not nicely mesh with the VA's own bureaucratic formula. While VERA is well intentioned, the fact of the matter is that it pits veterans against each other merely on the basis of their geography. In the 4th Congressional district of New Jersey, which I have the privilege to represent, veterans have felt the effects of VERA first hand. Faced with budget cuts due to the VERA formula, the network administrators who oversee Central and Northern New Jersey first responded with a knee jerk solution: elimination of the specialty services at the VA's clinic in Brick, New Jersey. Needless to say, this decision immediately mobilized the veterans of Ocean and Monmouth Counties, who joined me in fighting these cuts. These specialty services, whether they be rheumatology or podiatry, free our veterans from being forced to spend valuable hours traveling great distances to see a specialist for the care they desperately need. Through my continued efforts to get the VA to ``think outside the box,'' we have managed to restore specialty services to the Brick Clinic. This is a battle however that we should not have had to wage. Our veterans deserve their health care. It should be reasonably accessible, period. They should not be held hostage to VERA as they are now. There is simply no question that the VERA formula brought on the Brick Clinic's ongoing financial challenges. Furthermore, we are faced with at least a $36 million cut in our VA network in the upcoming fiscal year, so it is hard to see how threats to specialty services will not resume over the next several months. I ask my colleagues: where is the equity in a cut to Central and Northern New Jersey's network when our veteran population is aging rapidly and will need more, not less, specialty services? I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, just let me make a quick observation on how we got here in terms of the so-called arrearages. If one looks at the aggregate, the $926 million, a portion of that had to do with legislative policy withholdings. For example, no funds for the implementation for the General Assembly resolution which equated racism equals Zionism; the Kassebaum-Solomon amendment, which withheld 20 percent of U.S. assessed dues to the U.N. and specialized agencies unless those agencies granted voting rights on budgetary matters proportionate to budget contributions by each country. These were important policies, there was nothing frivolous about withholding funds to encourage reform. In 1994, the House & Senate passed, and the President signed, legislation, best described as burden-sharing legislation that said the U.S. is going to reduce its assessed contribution for peacekeeping from 31 percent down to 25. Since 1996, our contribution has dropped from 31 down to 25. That is one reason why we have such an enormous so-called arrearage at the U.N. We lowered our subsidy in a way reminiscent of our efforts to get other NATO nations to share more of the defense burden in Western Europe. We took the bull by the horns and lowered US contributions to UN peacekeeping--assessed peacekeeping--down to 25 percent. This talk about the U.S. being a deadbeat is absurd. We pay more than our fair share. So I must register my very strong opposition to this amendment, offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my very good friend. Let me note that I would like nothing better but to put this dispute behind us. But passage of this amendment today would likely make it harder, not easier, to resolve the dispute over U.N. arrearages and especially to get real and meaningful U.N. reform. The Amendment also seeks to delink the connection between the Mexico City policy and arrears. That would be wrong. We have passed reform legislation in the past. With arguable results. Reform has been spotty at best. So to maximize our reform efforts the appropriations bill before us would effectively advance U.N. reform by making any payment of the disputed arrearages expressly conditional on passage of a separate authorization bill. The Hall amendment would delete this important requirement so that the U.N. would get its money without real reform. Yes, the underlying language in the bill would require reduction of dues, to 22 percent. But most importantly, it says nothing about reducing our share of peacekeeping assessments from 31 to 25 percent. However, the U.S. government has already enacted this reduction--so arrearages may continue to expand unless the U.N. reduces our 25 percent ceiling. The Hall amendment says nothing about U.N. inspectors general or about corruption, about nepotism, overspending, U.N. taxation, infringements on United States sovereignty, or other issues addressed by the U.N. reform package. Mr. Chairman, by providing over $244 million to the U.N. without the careful process of deliberation and negotiation that is necessary for a true dispute resolution, we would seriously undermine and likely defeat the prospects for real reform. We would enable and empower continued bad behavior on the part of the U.N. officials and specialized agencies. Mr. Chairman, again I want to respond to this spurious accusation that the United States has been a deadbeat in its financial support of the United Nations. Rhetoric like that is particularly embarrassing when it comes from the mouths of the U.S. officials whose job it is to defend our interests, and it does violence to the facts about the relationship between the United States and the U.N. It would be far more accurate to say that the United States is by far the U.N.'s largest benefactor. Not deadbeat, benefactor--with a capital B. Consider this in the first 51 years of the U.N.'s existence, the United States paid approximately $35 billion into the U.N. system and somewhere between $6 and $15 billion additional dollars for costs for U.N.-authorized peacekeeping missions. That amount dwarfs the contributions of all other countries in the world. In fiscal year 1997, for example, the U.S. paid roughly three times more into the U.N. system than Germany. The U.K. donates Five percent, that is all. We are 25 percent dues to 31 percent peacekeeping. We give five times more than France, 35 times more than the People's Republic of China. They are under 1 percent. Time for some burden sharings adjustments it would seem to me. Last year, Uncle Sam provided $1.5 billion to the U.N., and $300 million of that was voluntary not assessed. And we get no credit for that. In most cases we are glad to give it, to advance humanitarian goals that feed, clothe and vaccinate children. Still Mr. Chairman, many Americans and their representatives are deeply skeptical of some of the U.N's work. Some, seeing the waste and the fraud and the abuse that is rampant, some feel that drastic cuts in the U.N. funding are in order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Just let me point out to my colleagues, and I think they realize this, that the appropriators certainly have an advantage in that they are bringing to the floor must-pass bills. The authorizers almost by definition are disadvantaged because an administration that may not like this provision or that will just say we will wait for the money to arrive, because it has to arrive to begin the new fiscal year, from the appropriators. So the honest negotiation that we hope would take place between House, Senate, and the executive branch is largely truncated and precluded precisely because the money in some form, usually less because of the inability or the lack of wanting to deal with us in good faith. So the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has led I think a very, very fine effort as chairman of our full committee, but we are disadvantaged, because, again, it is hard to work out the policy language, when they get their money anyway at the end of the day. That has not been the case with arrearages. We have insisted on very strong, very tight, 15 pages of conditions on the United Nations, 15 single-spaced pages that the Hall amendment would vacate. It makes our bargaining position vis-a-vis the Executive Branch very much disadvantaged, and we want strong reform with regard to the U.N., not weak.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, some believe that the U.N. owes the U.S. for billions of dollars we spent in support of U.N. authorized peacekeeping missions that have been paid by our government, an amount many times larger than the amount that the U.N. claims that we owe. As a matter of fact, a 1996 GAO report looked at just a few peacekeeping missions, Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda, and found that, in just 4 years, from 1992 to 1995, the U.S. Government shelled out $6.6 billion. None of that $6.6 billion or any of the other money that has gone for the so-called incremental military costs are reflected anywhere in the computation about what we have donated to the U.N. and has nothing to do with the U.N. arrears debate. We get no credit for it. If we had all U.S. donations on the table, with absolute transparency, the aggregate of funds that American taxpayers give would make this arrearage fight look frivolous. Mr. Chairman, let me also point out that some top U.N. officials, got their jobs, not because of their qualifications, but as a form of patronage for member states. That needs reform. There is no effective inspectors general for the various specialized agencies against waste, fraud, and unethical conduct, no effective protection for whistleblowers, no effective system of personnel evaluation. The U.N. continues to have major difficulties controlling their own spending. When actual spending exceeds the budget adopted by the General Assembly, nothing happens. It just exceeds the amount. The U.N. procurement system is almost as scandalous as the personnel and budget systems. There are no requirements of public announcements, and contracts are awarded under dubious and questionable criteria. All these defects, Mr. Chairman, need to be fixed, and they need to be fixed now. Last year, we made a sincere effort. The foreign relations authorization bill passed by the House and Senate required the U.S. share of dues to be reduced to 20 percent and, importantly, required before we provided this money that it drop from 31 to 25 percent for assessed peacekeeping. Of course this change at the U.N. would comport with U.S. law. Again, remember, we passed the law; it is part of the U.S. Code, that we are not going to pay more than 25. Among other important reforms, the authorization bill we passed last Congress also contained tough conditions against U.N. attempts to violate U.S. sovereignty, to perhaps raise a standing army, or impose a U.N. tax. All of that is ``waived'' in the language that Mr. Hall offers today. Vote ``no'' on the Hall amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, just so my colleagues may know, I chair the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin was incorrect. Last Congress, the 105th Congress, we passed and sent to the President, he said when did we last passed one, we had a conference report, it went down to the President, on State Department, it included reform, it included arrearages, $926 million for arrearages with very strong conditions and a very, very compromised Mexico City policy. Regrettably, the President vetoed that bill. This issue of arrearages would not be before this body except for the appropriations amount that the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman, has put into his bill. We had all of these conditions, but the President chose to veto that bill. That is unfortunate. Our hope is to take another shot at it. We are now going to conference soon, it is already staff-to-staff, to try to work out this arrearage language that has been passed by Senator Helms and Senator Biden working together.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and thank my good friend for offering this amendment. It is modeled after section 408 of my bill, which passed the House two weeks ago, the American Embassy Security Act and State Department bill, H.R. 2415. Section 408 of my bill, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and I proposed as an amendment during the markup, seeks ``to end the intimidation of defense attorneys in Northern Ireland and to secure impartial investigations of the murders of two heroic defense attorneys, Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finnucane.'' To accomplish this, we proposed cutting off U.S.-sponsored exchange and training programs between the FBI and the RUC until the President certifies that the Northern Irish police force, known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), has cleaned up its act. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) deserves credit for his efforts to raise this issue today in a way that hopefully will push the ball forward. Let me just point out to my colleagues, Rosemary Nelson appeared before the Committee on International Operations and Human Resources on September 29, 1998 and gave riveting and chilling testimony as to how the RUC had intimidated her, had roughed her up, and then made death threats against her. She said that in open hearing. All those at the hearing listened to her with rapt attention--both the Members that were there and those interested citizens in attendance. She pointed out that while she feared for her life at the hands of the RUC, she was, nevertheless, totally committed to pursuing her human rights work in the north of Ireland. She was inspiring, courageous and smart. Then, in an act of cowardly terrorism, she was assassinated by a car bomb. Astonishingly, the British Government had the audacity and insensitivity, to put the very people, the RUC, in charge of the investigation. And then they proceeded to use a minimal FBI presence as cover. So we checked into it. It turned out the FBI had a very superficial role--a role used by the RUC for public relations purposes and, thankfully, none of us on either side of the aisle were deceived by it. Secretary Mo Moland met with members of our Committee and immediately launched into how the FBI was on the job. I, for one was underwhelmed and unimpressed. So our amendment seeks to suspend a collaboration used to cover up possible complicity and collusion. And to get serious about honest policies. So until we get a transparent, honest investigation into both Pat Finnucane and Rosemary Nelson and real tangible protections for defense attorneys, it would be unseemingly and unethical for us to continue that collaboration between the RUC and the FBI. I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though I support the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to wage a comprehensive fight against Lyme disease. This proposal represents the next stage of our campaign to reduce and then eradicate Lyme disease. it is a five year, $125 million blueprint for attacking the disease on every front. In addition to authorizing the necessary resources to wage this war, the bill: (1) makes the development of better detection tests for Lyme the highest priority of Lyme disease research; (2) lays out a lost of vital public health goals for agencies to accomplish, including a 33 percent reduction in Lyme disease within five years of enactment in the 10 highest and most endemic states; (3) fosters better coordination between the scattered Lyme disease programs within the Federal Government through a five-year joint-agency plan so that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing; (4) helps protect federal workers and visitors at federally owned lands in endemic areas through a system of periodic, standardized, and publically accessible Lyme disease risk assessments; (5) requires a review of our system of Lyme disease prevention and surveillance of search for areas of improvement; (6) fosters additional research into other related tick-borne illnesses so that the problem of co-infection can be addressed; (7) initiates a plan to boost public and physician understanding about Lyme disease; and (8) creates a Lyme Disease Task Force to provide the public with the opportunity to hold our public health officials accountable as they accomplish these tasks. Mr. Speaker, Lyme disease is one of our nation's fastest growing infectious diseases, and the most common tick-borne disease in America. According to some estimates, Lyme disease costs our nation $1 billion to $2 billion in medical costs annually. The number of confirmed cases of Lyme disease was nearly 16,000 last year, an increase of 24.5 percent from the previous year, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. Many experts believe the official statistics understate the true numbers of Lyme disease cases by as much as ten or twelve-fold. Lyme disease is sometimes called the `Great Pretender' disease because its symptoms so closely mimic other conditions. Thus, it can be easily misdiagnosed. Worse still, our current detection tests are not always reliable and accurate enough to defect the disease in patients. The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999 builds on the accomplishments of the legislation introduced in the previous Congress, H.R. 379. As Members may recall, we were successful in getting a portion of that bill enacted as part of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, as well as part of the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Appropriations bill. The provisions from last year up dedicated up to $3 million in Department of Defense funding dedicated for Lyme and tick-borne disease research, so that our soldiers and their families can be protected when they work and live in areas endemic for Lyme disease. This $3 million in funding was a good start, but there is still so much that remains unknown about Lyme disease. That is where the new proposal comes in. It is the product of countless meetings with patients and families struggling to cope with this terribly debilitating disease. I cannot tell my colleagues how many times I have met with families who have told me heart breaking stories about how they went from doctor to doctor without getting an accurate diagnosis, getting progressively weaker and sicker, while racking up massive medical bills. Sadly, the lack of physician knowledge about Lyme disease, and the inadequacies of existing laboratory detection tests, compound the misery. Consequently, we have consulted extensively with the organizations representing these patients, as well as with the agencies charged with implementing the new program, to ensure that the bill addresses these very real concerns. In short, I believe this is a good plan that affirmatively meets the needs of patients, and one that is worthy of my colleagues' support. The Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999 Section 1. Short Title--Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999 Section 2. Findings Section 3. Five Year Plan of Action, Public Health Goals Establishes a Five-Year plan (authorizing $125 million over five years) to reduce the incidence and prevalence of Lyme disease, and requires Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Defense, Agriculture, and Interior to collaborate in creating this five year plan. Goal No. 1: Direct Direction Tests. The legislation directs federal researchers to make the development of a reliable, reproducible direct detection test for Lyme disease a priority. Without a good detection test, individuals will continue to get misdiagnosed, insurance companies will continue to dispute and deny needed treatments, and patients will not know if they are truly cured of Lyme. Goal No. 2: Improved Surveillance and Reporting System. Requires a review of the existing reporting system for Lyme, including the surveillance criteria used to determine whether or not a case of Lyme is counted in the state statistics reported to CDC. Requires this review to be inclusive, and obtain the input of health providers, Lyme disease patient advocacy groups, and state and local governments. It also considers the use of a `dual reporting' system so that valuable data collected on persons who do not meet the surveillance criteria definition of Lyme--but are still being treated for Lyme by their doctor. Goal No. 3: Lyme Disease Prevention. Requires CDC to establish a baseline rate of Lyme disease in the 10 highest endemic states, and aims for a reduction in this rate of 33 percent within 5 years. Means used to accomplish this goal may include natural and non-pesticidal means to control tick populations, as well as better public education and systematic risk assessments on the risks of Lyme disease on federally owned lands in endemic areas. Goal No. 4: Prevention of Other Tick-Borne Diseases. Authorizes programs to prevent, and expand research on, other tick-borne infectious diseases. Although Lyme disease cases are the overwhelming majority of all tick-borne infections in the U.S., many Lyme patients are co-infected with other tick- borne diseases. Goal No. 5: Improved Public and Physician Education. Establishes a multi-departmental program to improve public and health provider awareness of how to prevent Lyme disease, how to diagnose it, and how to treat it. Section 4. Lyme Disease Task Force Establishes a joint government/public Lyme Disease Task Force to provide advice to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Defense and Interior on achieving the five public health goals. Public members on the task force will include: (1) Lyme disease research scientists, (2) Lyme disease patient advocacy organizations, (3) clinicians with extensive experience in treating Lyme disease, (4) Lyme disease patients, and/or the parents or family members of those who have had Lyme disease. Section 5. Annual Reports Mandates annual progress reports to Congress so the taxpayers will be able to hold agencies accountable for following through on the five year plan. Section 6. Definitions Section 7. Authorization of Appropriations Provides $125 million over five years in new authorization to fund this coordinated, multi-agency war on Lyme disease. $40 million in additional authorization over five years ($8 million/year) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), most of which will be used to develop and improve direct detection tests for Lyme. This new money, if appropriated, will increase existing NIH Lyme research by approximately 41 percent. $40 million in additional authorization over five years ($8 million/year) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This money will be used to review the surveillance criteria, fund tick control and public education initiatives, as well as prevention programs. If enacted and appropriated, CDC resources devoted to Lyme would be doubled under the proposed bill. $30 million in additional authorization over five years ($6 million/year) for the Department of Defense (DoD). This amount was identified by DoD in its Fiscal Year 1999 report to Congress on Lyme disease as the amount necessary to fund current and future research requirements. $7.5 million in additional authorization over five years ($1.5 million/year) for the Department of Agriculture to enhance USDA's research capabilities on Lyme. USDA currently is exploring innovative techniques to remove/manage tick populations with minimal pesticide exposure to humans. $7.5 million in additional authorization over five years ($1.5 million/year) for the Department of Interior. This will be used to improve public awareness and understanding of the risks of Lyme disease at federally owned lands, as well as needed tick control efforts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total number Lyme Annual cases incidence State reported to per 100,000 CDC 1989- persons 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ New York...................................... 39,370 21.6 Connecticut................................... 17,728 54.2 Pennsylvania.................................. 14,870 12.3 New Jersey.................................... 13,428 16.9 Wisconsin..................................... 4,760 9.3 Rhode Island.................................. 3,717 37.5 Maryland...................................... 3,410 6.8 Massachusetts................................. 2,712 4.5 Minnesota..................................... 1,745 3.8 Delaware...................................... 1,003 14.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the innate value of a baby is not diminished in any way simply because the child's mother happens to be an inmate. Children I believe are precious beyond words. The lives of their mothers, likewise, are of infinite value. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize the killing of an incarcerated woman's child makes pro-life Americans accomplices--complicit with violence against children. I do urge a strong ``no'' on the DeGette amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think we have got to face the truth. Abortion methods are violence against children, the death penalty for an innocent little child. Abortion methods dismember children. It is commonplace for the abortionist to literally cut a baby to pieces. The previous speaker suggested that proscribing abortion funding might lead to the slippery slope of a denial of OB/GYN services or perhaps mammograms. That, frankly, is absurd. We are talking about something--abortion--that masquerades as somehow being health care when it actually is destructive. It kills babies. I do think the suggestion of a slippery slope in this case is an insult to those of us who fight for and believe very strongly in the importance of mammograms and expanding OB/GYN services. Again, the DeGette amendment sanctions subside for killing. Nothing healing or curative about that. Earlier in the debate I pointed out that abortion methods often dismember children. So let us focus on a moment on what abortion does. A high-powered suction machine, attached to a tube with a razor blade at the end is inserted into the womb, and the baby is literally hacked to pieces. That is the reality of a suction abortion. The suction device is some 20 to 30 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner. As the baby is cut up, the so-called ``contents of the uterus,'' the baby, are sucked into a bottle. That is outrageous and cruel. That is the killing of a baby. That is abortion. Another method of abortion is saline abortions. Babies slaughtered in this way have saltwater injected into their amniotic sac. The baby swallows the caustic salt. An unborn baby swallows the amniotic fluid daily to develop the organs of respiration. In abortion, saltwater goes into the infant's lungs, and the baby is poisoned. This is a death penalty, and it takes about 2 hours for the child to die--a very slow and agonizing death for the child to die from this type of abortion. Of course the abortionist has all kinds of poisons at his or her disposal to destroy a baby. This is cruel and unusual punishment for a child who has committed no crime. It is especially ironic, Mr. Chairman, at a time when ultrasound is like a window to the womb, and we know so much about a developing unborn child. We can watch a child suck his or her thumb. We can diagnose conditions and take corrective action. But, no, the DeGette amendment would say we have got to pay for a baby's destruction for a child who has done no wrong. Mother Theresa at the National Prayer Breakfast a few years ago, with the President, the First Lady, the Vice President and his wife in attendance and many, diplomats and members of Congress told the gathering ``the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence. That is why it is the greatest destroyer of love and peace.'' Then she said and admonished the President and all the diplomats and the Members of Congress assembled, ``Please do not kill the baby.'' Mr. Chairman, the baby of an inmate is just as important as any other child on earth. Please don't kill the baby. Reject government funding of violence against children. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeGette amendment.