Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 37) expressing the sense of the Congress that Little League Baseball Incorporated was established to support and develop Little League baseball worldwide and that its international character and activities should be recognized.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes. First of all, I want to call attention to the language, Mr. Speaker, that deals with incorporation of the U.S. Information Agency into the State Department. Mr. Speaker, the conference committee on H.R. 1757 carefully structured the merger of the U.S. Information Agency into the State Department so as to preserve the integrity of the pro-freedom, pro- democracy public diplomacy activities now carried out by USIA. This bill should not be interpreted as an authorization for the State Department to take the money and run by converting USIA resources into a massive domestic State Department public relations operation. Accordingly, the programs to which the Smith-Mundt and Zorinsky amendments apply must be construed broadly in accordance with the purpose of the legislation to ensure that these important protections continue to apply to the activities now conducted by USIA once they have been incorporated into the State Department. This is a matter on which a number of House conferees on both sides of the aisle felt very strongly. We should never have agreed to incorporate USIA into the State Department except on the understanding that the integrity of all USIA functions will be preserved. ``Programs'' means not just the materials that USA produces and disseminates, but also the resources, including personnel and support services, that are necessary to conduct our public diplomacy abroad. I would ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) to comment on this very important provision.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for those kind remarks. My sentiments are the same for him. He has always been a champion for human rights in China and in other captive nations. I applaud and deeply respect him for that work. I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his support for the rule and the bill, H.R. 1757, and for pointing out that there are a large number of very important human rights provisions in this bill that Members should be aware of, that will advance the goals that we care about so deeply with regard to human rights around the globe. First, let me just make this point to all of my colleagues that this is not, per se, a foreign aid bill. It is a State Department bill. It contains important restrictions on foreign aid but authorizes no appropriations for these purposes except for a $38 million package of humanitarian assistance for the anti-Saddam Hussein, pro-democracy movement in Iraq. The bill contains a compromise version of the pro-life Mexico City, cutting off funds to foreign organizations that promote abortion--lobby for abortion or attempt to influence legislation or policy as it relates to abortion. The compromise would allow the President to waive the prohibition on assistance to abortion providers. This was very hard for our side to concede, but in the legislative tug of war this is half a loaf, and our hope is that the administration will take note of that. There needs to be some give and take. This bill also conditions funding to the U.N. Population Fund on an end to the UNFPA activities in cooperation with the coercive population control program in China. Wei Jing Sheng testified before our subcommittee a few weeks ago and was absolutely aghast and appalled and outraged that the UNFPA worked side by side with the oppressors of women in the People's Republic of China, and said so in very, very clear and unambiguous language at the subcommittee. Wei asked how the U.N. could join and support the oppressors of women, babies--the family. H.R. 1757 also contains U.N. reform and arrearages packages which, unlike some proposals, is not a blank check to the U.N. The U.N. arrearage money is delivered, in 3 tranches. Each payment is contingent on U.N. implementation of specific reforms, including reduction of U.S. dues from its current 25 percent to ultimately 20 percent but 22 percent on the near term, and a reduction of U.S. peacekeeping assessments from 31 percent down to 25 percent. The bill reduces the number of Federal agencies by two. It merges the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and USIA, U.S. Information Agency, into the State Department to achieve savings through efficiency and resource sharing. But it structures this merger very carefully to preserve the integrity of arms control process and especially of the pro-freedom and pro-democracy functions of USIA's public diplomacy programs like the radios. This legislation enhances Radio Free Asia to provide a 24-hour pro- freedom broadcasting to China. It also contains provisions designed to force deadbeat diplomats at the U.N. to pay child support judgments and to ensure that diplomats who commit crimes in the U.S. will be prosecuted for those crimes. It reforms the State Department personnel law to restore the Secretary's power to fire convicted felons from the Foreign Service and to eliminate duplicative pension and salary provisions that allow double dipping at taxpayers' expense. It contains provisions that will ensure vigorous enforcements of the Helms-Burton law which is designed to bring freedom and democracy to the Cuban people. It sets aside $100 million of the State Department budget for implementation of the congressional directive that the U.S. Embassy in Israel be moved to Jerusalem, and it incorporates the McBride principles designed to end employment discrimination against Catholics in northern Ireland as a condition of U.S. foreign aid. H.R. 1757 also includes a number of important provisions relating to human rights and refugees from Tibet, Burma, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa and elsewhere. These provisions have been endorsed by leading organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish Federations, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the U.S. Committee for Refugees. Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes on the rule, and I hope the Members will also vote yes on the conference report.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make very clear, when we talk about legislative process, the Mexico City policy was offered on this floor, it mustered a clear majority vote when it was considered. The House even went on record and instructed conferees to retain the policy in conference. So it was a very real and legitimate part of the House/Senate conference that occurred. The flip side of it is that, on the issue of arrearages, that measure did not pass here but passed on the Senate, but we acceded to the Senate to move that ball forward. Let me also make a point, when Members suggest that my friends on the other side of the aisle were locked out of the price, let me just note that I chaired the subcommittee that wrote the major product that emerged as the State Department authorization bill. We had five hearings that preceded the markup of the bill that is now before us. My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the Democrats were absolutely free to ask any question, to be part of that process, as they so engaged themselves. We had a markup in subcommittee. Twenty one amendments were offered. That markup went very well and the bill passed onto the full committee. We went to the full committee. During several days of markup we considered 22 amendments to the State portion of the bill. The bill came over to the floor. We spent 4 days on the floor of the House of Representatives. Members who wanted to offer amendments on the other side of the aisle were free to do so provided they were germane. A total of 34 amendments were offered, fully debated, recorded votes occurred. We then went to conference. On issue after issue, our staffs, as well as Members, met, talked about language and sections of the bill. There were some things that we came to an impasse on. The major issue upon which deadlocked the conference was the Mexico City policy. This House instructed the conferees to stay with that the pro-life position. We did so on the State Department bill as well. So this is a clear manifestation of House sentiment. That is part of this bill. I would argue that this has been a give-and-take. We have provided a compromise Mexico City policy. We also provide the arrearages, which is an anathema to many Members of this side of the aisle, and many on that side of the aisle as well, but there are some reform provisions that make it very meaningful. So there is give-and-take in the legislative process. The President regrettably or some on the other side want it to be all give from us and all take by them. That's unacceptable. Let me again say very clearly 77 amendments were offered to this legislation in subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor. The gentleman's side of the aisle had every effort to participate.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and for his work on this very important legislation before us. I just want to remind Members that during the course of the process of consideration of this bill we had 77 amendments that were offered in subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor from both sides of the aisle, 4 days on the floor for consideration and a number of very important and productive meetings of the conference committee. The issue that it all came down to, frankly and in all candor, was the Mexico City policy. It was the right-to-life issue. Let me just say a couple of things on that this afternoon. I think it is important to clear up some of this information about the compromise language in the conference report that would impose some restrictions on U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform and promote abortions overseas. During the last 3 years, the House has voted 10 separate times for the pro-life Mexico City policy, which prohibits U.S. population assistance to foreign organizations that perform abortions, violate the abortion laws of foreign countries, or engage in activities that change these laws. We have also voted to restrict aid to the United Nations Population Fund unless the UNPF ended its participation in the forced abortion program. The People's Republic of China and the Mexico City policy was enforced throughout the Reagan and Bush administrations. It did not reduce family planning money by one dime. Rather, it protected genuine family planning programs by erecting a wall of separation between family planning and abortion. President Clinton repealed that policy. We in the House, thankfully, again and again have gone on record saying that wall of separation needs to be reerected. Mr. Speaker, I and other pro-life Members were reluctant to agree to the compromise, and I want to say that very candidly and up front. We do give on this. Regrettably, we give but thus far there has been no give by the other side on this issue. We have done so because we believe this compromise is necessary to save some babies lives. We believe it will protect some unborn children by prohibiting a particularly ugly form of cultural imperialism in which U.S. taxpayers support entities that are actively engaged in bullying smaller nations into rejecting the traditions and moral values of their people. Many of my colleagues have received some talking points sent out by population control organizations. These talking points are misleading and in many cases flatly untrue. First, the population control groups tell us over and over again that they are using what they call their own money to perform and promote abortions. This is a red herring. It is designed to divert attention from the undeniable fact that millions of our foreign aid dollars can and did finance some of the biggest abortion providers in the world. Similarly, some of the biggest international population control grantees are actively engaged in efforts to overturn pro-life laws in countries around the world. This is because existing laws require only that the organization keep a set of books that shows that it did not use our money to pay for the actual abortions or for proabortion lobbying. This bookkeeping trick ignores the fact that money is fungible. When we subsidize an organization, we unavoidably enrich and empower all activities of that organization. The Mexico City policy recognizes that money is fungible. Every million U.S. tax dollars that go to an abortion provider frees up another million dollars to pay for abortions and more proabortion lobbying. The Mexico City policy also recognizes that our family planning grantees are seen as representatives in the countries within which we operate as extensions, as surrogates for U.S. foreign policies. When organizations prominently associated with the United States family planning programs perform and promote abortions, people in these countries logically associate these activities with the United States. Opponents of the Mexico City policy also claim that if we require our family planning grantees to pledge not to perform or promote abortion, they will not participate in our programs. Yet when the Mexico City policy was in force, hundreds of population grantees agreed not to perform or promote abortions. Only two, let me repeat that, only two organizations decided not to agree to that and therefore were deprived of that money. More than 350 grantees took the money, and that wall of separation between destroying an unborn child and promoting violence against children and family planning was erected. Some of the talking points that my colleagues have seen in their office claim that the compromise language would punish grantees for merely attending conferences at which somebody else discusses abortion. This too is demonstrably false. The Clinton administration knows it is false and the population control groups know it is false as well. The bill prohibits assistance of foreign organizations that, and I quote, engage in any activity or effort to change the laws of foreign countries with respect to abortion. Every legislative provision has to be interpreted by the rule of reason. It is unreasonable to claim that activities that change laws includes merely attending a conference. As the conference report makes crystal clear, there is a world of difference between mere attendance and a situation in which an organization finances, sponsors and conducts a conference that is clearly designed to bring about the repeal of laws against abortion, as the International Planned Parenthood Federation recently did in the Francophone countries of West Africa and has done in other countries around the world. Such sponsorship, financing and organizing should fairly be construed as an activity to change the abortion laws. But nobody on our side of this issue has suggested that such activities include mere attendance at a conference. Finally, when pro-abortionists run out of arguments, they fall back on slogans that this is somehow a global gag rule because it says to organizations they have to choose, either be international abortion lobbyists or they can be representatives and surrogates of the United States in family planning programs. The administration says that the purpose of our family planning program is to prevent abortions. If we want to prevent alcoholism, would we hire the liquor industry to do it for us? If we wanted to stop gambling, would we do it by giving grants to casino owners? If we wanted to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an international anti-drug campaign, would we give the money to organizations that use their own money to lobby for the legalization of drugs? Of course not. If Congress stands behind the position that there must be a wall of separation between abortion lobbying and U.S. family planning programs, we can save innocent lives. That is what this is all about. Nothing could be more important. I urge a yes vote on the conference report.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for Title XVI of H.R. 1757, ``The European Security Act,'' particularly those sections relating to NATO enlargement. The language contained in this section is designed first and foremost to preserve the effectiveness and flexibility of NATO as a defensive alliance. For nearly five decades, the North Atlantic Alliance has served and advanced the interests of the United States in Europe by preserving peace, promoting economic prosperity, and advancing our shared principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. As a long-standing advocate of NATO enlargement, and Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have consistently emphasized the importance of Helsinki principles, including human rights, in the expansion process. Today's consideration of the European Security Act language comes at a critical time, Mr. Speaker, as the United States Senate will soon vote on ratification of the necessary instruments for the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as full members of NATO. Despite the fact that the NATO leaders committed themselves to a robust `open door' policy concerning further accession, some seem determined to slam the door shut to other candidates. Instead of spurning those countries aspiring to future NATO membership, we should embrace those states that have demonstrated--in word and in deed--their commitment to the shared values enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty. The language designates Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria as eligible to receive assistance under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. Each of these countries has made important strides in political and economic reforms. With respect to the Baltic States, it is worth noting the Charter of Partnership, signed in Washington on January 16, 1998, acknowledges the fact that the United States has a ``real, profound and enduring interest in the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and security of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.'' In this historic document, the U.S. welcomes the aspirations and supports efforts of the Baltic States to join NATO, reiterating that enlargement of NATO is an on-going process. Mr. Speaker, European Security Act provisions will advance U.S. interests by supporting the efforts of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to provide for their legitimate defense needs, including the development of appropriate and interoperable military forces. It would be an injustice of historic proportions, Mr. Speaker, if we did not take advantage of the unique opportunity we have today to embrace those countries of Central and Eastern Europe demonstrably committed to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Having persevered for 50 years and overcome the odds by regaining their independence, the Baltic countries deserve to be fully integrated into the West, including NATO, without further delay. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Gilman's willingness to incorporate several of my suggestions into the text of Title XVI. The first concern stems from the fact that Russia has not agreed to the demarcation of its international borders with several neighboring countries, including Estonia and Latvia. In addition, while a Framework Treaty has been concluded between Russia and Ukraine and signed by Presidents Kuchma and Yeltsin, the Russia's State Duma has yet to ratify this key accord which would among other things demarcate the Ukrainian-Russian border, including in the Sea of Azov. Moscow has purposefully dragged its feet on this important issue with the aim of intimidating a number of the countries concerned and erecting a potential obstacle to those aspiring to NATO membership. The second issue concerns the deployment of Russian forces on the territory of other states. The language I introduced calls for the immediate and complete withdrawal of any armed forces and military equipment under the control of Russia that are deployed on the territories of the independent states of the former Soviet Union without the full and complete agreement of those states. Today, there are thousands of Russian troops deployed in and around the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol. Meanwhile, an estimated 3,010 Russian troops continue to be stationed in Moldova along with a considerable supply of military equipment and munitions which could prove particularly destabilizing in the Trans-Dniester region. Finally, the Title XVI calls for a commitment by the Russians to take steps to reduce nuclear and conventional forces in Kaliningrad, where Moscow has amassed a considerable arsenal that poses a potential threat to the Baltic States and Poland. Mr. Speaker, progress in resolving these outstanding security concerns would go a long way to advance peace and stability throughout Europe, a region of critical importance to the security, economic, and political interests of the United States. I am pleased that the language of the European Security Act is included in the bill. We have an obligation to maintain the effectiveness and flexibility of NATO as a defensive alliance open to the inclusion of new members committed to the shared principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law, and able and willing to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise Members that one provision in this legislation deals with the United Nations Population Fund, and it says very clearly and unambiguously that unless the UNFPA gets out of China, they lose the $25 million that they are slated to get. I want to remind colleagues that in China, it is illegal to have more than one child. Brothers and sisters are illegal. The Government is aggressively antibaby. Wei Jing Sheng, the great human rights activist who appeared before my subcommittee just a few weeks ago, said he could not believe, he said he was outraged that the U.N. Population Fund and U.N. personnel were working side by side with those family planning cadres, those oppressors of women, who enforce the one-child-per-couple policy in China with forced abortion. Forced abortion was construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. It is no less a crime against humanity today. Our conference report says that we are serious in dealing with those crimes against humanity and any organization like the U.N. Population Fund will lose its funding unless they get out of China. Earlier the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) said that for 30 years we have been the leaders in family planning. That was no less true during the Reagan and Bush years when the Mexico City policy was in effect. We provided 40 percent--40 percent of all the population control aid during the Reagan and Bush years. That is a fact, that is not an opinion, with the Mexico City policy in full effect. It is a red herring when Members on the other side stand up and say that we are holding hostage family planning. Monies flowed; people were given the opportunity to take that money and give out condoms and do all kinds of family planning, but a wall was erected between performing child abuse, killing unborn children, the promotion of violence against children and preventive means. One hundred countries around the world protect their unborn children from the violence of abortion on demand. The main engine trying to topple those laws are these so-called family planning organizations. Some see it as their mission to nullify pro-life laws in other lands. Planned Parenthood, in their ``Vision 2000'' statement adopted in 1992, lays out an action plan to vanquish legal protection for unborn children in other nations. Here is what it says in part. It declares that family planning organizations around the world, and I quote this, must bring ``pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against abortion.'' We provide the money to these organizations that ``campaign'' and ``pressure'' governments to topple their pro-life laws. That is what this is all about. That is why my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not sign the conference report. The pro- life safeguards in a compromise version were in there. I think we have a moral obligation to say, if we are going to pour hundreds of millions into groups that advertise as family planners, let us have a truth in advertising. Let us separate abortion out of it, because abortion takes a life, a life of a child--it is not family planning. Finally, just let me say, Mr. Speaker, this conference report and the work that went into it was a bipartisan process, 77 amendments in subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor of the House, and many, many conference meetings We went through a give and take. We had Democratic staff and Republican staff studying and working on the provisions of this conference report. It is another red herring to say that they were not part of it. Yes, maybe in the end, when it came to signing it, but that is because the pro-life Mexico City policy was in there. Again I say, if we are going to send out roughly $400 million to abortion providers or family planning providers, and they wear the same hat as abortion providers, those of us who do not want to see any more babies die or any more women exploited or any more forced abortion in China must stand up and say, well, on this bill or any other bill that comes down the pike, we will be offering this language. It is absolutely not going to go away. We have compromised as far as we can go. We have half of Mexico City in here. It is a significant half, but it is only half. It is about time the President and those on the abortion rights side met us halfway, and then those other issues could go forward unencumbered. Fail to meet us halfway--and we will fight and unceasingly raise this issue on every vehicle imaginable.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (FY 1998-99). I would like to call attention to several important features of the bill: First, this legislation is not a foreign aid bill. It contains several important restrictions on foreign aid, but authorizes no appropriations for these purposes--except for a $38 million package of humanitarian assistance to the anti-Saddam Hussein pro-democracy movement in Iraq. This bill contains a compromise version of the pro-life ``Mexico City Policy'', cutting off funds to foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion. It enacts this policy as permanent law--not just for this year but forever. The compromise would allow the President to waive the prohibition on assistance to abortion providers--but not promoters--in exchange for a reduction in total population assistance. This bill also conditions funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on an end to UNFPA activities in co-operation with the coercive population control program of the government of China, or on an end to forced abortions in that program. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1757 contains a U.N. reform and arrearages package which, unlike some other proposals, is not a blank check to the U.N. The U.N. arrearage money is delivered in three ``tranches''; each payment is contingent on U.S. implementation of specific reforms, including reduction of U.S. dues from 25% to 22%, reduction of U.S. peacekeeping assessments from 31% to 25%, and an end to UN ``global conferences'' after 1999. The bill reduces the number of federal agencies by two. It merges the Arms Control Agency and the US Information Agency into the State Department, to achieve savings through efficiency and resource-sharing. But its structures this merger carefully, to preserve the integrity of the arms control process and especially of the pro-freedom and pro- democracy functions of USIA's ``public diplomacy'' programs. This legislation enhances Radio Free Asia to provide 24-hour pro- freedom broadcasting to China. It also contains provisions designed to force ``deadbeat diplomats'' at the U.N. to pay U.S. child support judgments, and to ensure that diplomats who commit crimes in the United States will be prosecuted for these crimes. It reforms State Department personnel law to restore the Secretary's power to fire convicted felons from the Foreign Service, and to eliminate duplicative pension and salary provisions that allow ``double-dipping'' at taxpayer expense. It contains provisions that will ensure vigorous enforcement of the Helms-Burton law, which is designed to bring freedom and democracy to the Cuban people. It sets aside $100 million of the State Department's budget for implementation of the Congressional directive and that U.S. embassy in Israel be moved to Jerusalem. It incorporates the ``McBride Principles'', designed to end employment discrimination against Catholics In Northern Ireland, as a condition of U.S. foreign aid. H.R. 1757 also includes a number of important provisions relating to human rights and refugees from Tibet, Burma, Viet Nam, Cuba, Africa, and elsewhere. These provisions have been endorsed by organizations including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish Federations, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the U.S. Committee for Refugees. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the conference report.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with my good friend and colleague, Rep. Mike Pappas, in introducing legislation to restore fairness and equity to the Health Care Finance Administration's (HCFA's) new Medicare reimbursement program for home health care. This new Medicare reimbursement program, known as the ``Interim Payment System'' (IPS), is based on an incomplete and inequitable funding formula which directly jeopardizes home health care agencies and the elderly they serve in my state. The value of home health care is obvious. All of us intuitively know that enabling our seniors to receive quality, skilled nursing care in their own homes is preferable to other, more costly, sometimes isolated, settings. Senior citizens receive the peace of mind from familiar settings and their loved ones close at hand. And the cost savings to Medicare from proper use of home health care are considerable. The legislation we have introduced today corrects several flaws contained in the IPS formula and assures fair and reasonable Medicare reimbursement for quality home health care. This bill is a good complement to another legislative effort (H.R. 3108) I am supporting with fellow New Jersey Representative Jim Saxton. The Pappas-Smith bill is more targeted and limited in scope, focusing on equity issues between home health care agencies, while H.R. 3108 is broader in application and primarily deals with providing more resources to all home health agencies. One thing that both bills address, however, is the need to reform the IPS. If left unchanged, the IPS will cut Medicare reimbursement for home health care in New Jersey by $25 million in fiscal year 1998 alone. Several agencies in New Jersey could lose $2 million or more in anticipated reimbursement for homebound Medicare patients. One of the most unfair aspects of the IPS is that it seeks to treat efficient and inefficient home health agencies alike, despite the fact that average utilization rates in New Jersey's agencies--43 visits per beneficiary served in 1996--are far lower than the national average of 74 visits that year. Because the IPS reimbursement rates for each home health care agency are linked to earlier utilization rates and costs, agencies that were efficient and honest all along still find themselves struggling to squeeze another 12 to 15 percent reduction in aggregate reimbursement rates from already lean operations--a very tall order indeed. Meanwhile, agencies in other parts of the country with abnormally high home health costs and utilization rates are permitted to use base year utilization rates that were badly inflated in the first place. Thus, they will continue to receive high reimbursement rates because they had inflated costs in the past. The IPS, therefore, effectively punishes efficient operations and does not comprehensively address the problem in areas with inordinately high home health utilization statistics. For example, home health agencies serving senior citizens in NJ will only receive enough funding to provide as few as 30 to 35 visits per patient. Meanwhile, agencies in other parts of the country--such as Tennessee and Louisiana--may continue providing their patients with almost triple that number of visits at twice the cost per visit. Disparities of this magnitude are inherently unreasonable and unfair, and must be corrected. There is no reason whatsoever why the senior citizens of New Jersey should receive less quality care than senior citizens of any other state. While I understand that special circumstances in other states and counties will always generate some variation in home health car usage, the disparities that are enshrined in the IPS are simply absurd. Are Louisianans and Tennesseans that much sicker or that much more frail that they need to receive 100 or more visits per person? And how can the costs of treating these patients in other states be significantly higher than New Jersey? The wage rates and cost of living indexes in many of these high utilization states are among the lowest in the entire nation. Senator John Breaux stated that in Louisiana, there are more home health car agencies than there are McDonalds restaurants. Clearly, something is amiss. In response, our bill--which we have strived to craft in a budget neutral manner--restores fairness and equity to the Interim Payment System in the following ways: First, our bill will protect efficient home health agencies from drastic cuts in Medicare home health reimbursement through the IPS. Under our legislation, we provide relief from the Interim Payment System for those home health care agencies whose average cost per patient served, as swell as their average number of visits per patient, are below the national average. In this manner, agencies that have been doing a good job in keeping their cost structures under control will not be punished for their own best efforts. The second provision contained in our bill restores the per visit cost limits for home health agencies to their September 1997 levels. The reason for this change is based on an assessment that unless this change is made, it will be virtually impossible for home health agencies to reduce their average number of visits per patient, and still live within their cost limits. The provision is a matter of basic math: if an agency is to reduce its average number of visits per patient--as HCFA demands--it must do more with each visit. However, if an agency fits more activities and services into each visit, then by definition its costs per visit are going to rise significantly. So while the number of visits per patient will fall, its costs per patient will rise to some extent, because more services are being performed in an attempt to make the most out of each home health visit. Under our bill, home health agencies will reduce their visits per patient and still operate within realistic per visit cost limits. HCFA's per visit cost targets, upon close examination, are unrealistic and will not allow home health agencies to accomplish the goal of more efficient home care. Lastly, our legislation will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the flexibility to make special exceptions for home health agencies treating unusually expensive patients. Among the problems with the IPS is that as initially implemented, the IPS gives providers a perverse incentive to avoid treating critically ill, chronic, or more expensive patients. Unlike a fully implemented prospective payment system (PPS), the Interim Payment System (IPS) makes no attempt to distinguish between agencies that are simply inefficient and agencies that are treating a disproportionately sicker patient population. Our legislation creates a mechanism for financially pressed home health care agencies to address and care for unusually expensive patients. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is balanced and carefully crafted to make improvements to the Medicare Interim Payment System. It is designed to be budget neutral. It will enable our senior citizens to continue to receive high quality, medically necessary home health care services. It also will appropriately target federal efforts to reduce waste and fraud in the Medicare program. I urge all of my colleagues to consider this legislation and support our efforts to protect the homebound Medicare patients who are now at risk.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 227, directing the President to remove US Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina within 60 days unless Congress enacts a declaration of war of specifically authorizes the use of Armed Forces in Bosnia. At the outset, let me state that I agree fully that Congress should play a role in critical foreign policy decision-making, especially when the utilization of our Armed Forces is under consideration. As a matter of record, let me clearly note that I also had serious questions regarding those U.S. policies toward Bosnia- Herzegovina which led to the Dayton Agreement and the subsequent deployment of U.S. troops there. This was an issue I followed closely from my position as the Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and as Chairman of the International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. Though skeptical of the original context and mandate of the post Dayton deployment, Mr. Speaker, the United States has committed to help secure and ensure an environment for the effective implementation of the Dayton Agreement. As a matter of policy, I believe the continued presence of the troops remains a prerequisite for that objective, and now is not the time to raise any doubt about the United States' support for the mission. With respect to the well-intentioned resolution before the House today--introduced and defended by my good friends Congressman Campbell and Congressman Hyde--I must oppose the measure for the following reasons: 1. Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, the troops are there. The possibility of their withdrawal by June of this year has hung like a think fog over Bosnia-Herzegovina, compounding the international community's tenuous resolve and halting progress as a result. The question of a post-SFOR renewal of fighting and even a division of Bosnia-Herzegovina has loomed large. The President's March 3rd notification of the U.S. intention to stay--this time without setting a date certain for their withdrawal--has made a stable peace much more likely. U.S. policy has become much more assertive, as the creation of a more stable and lasting peace is a prerequisite for departure of the forces. Persons indicted for war crimes are being captured and are even surrendering themselves. More displaced men, women and families have sought to return to their original homes. The Bosnian Serbs are beginning to envision a brighter future with political moderates instead of nationalists. Unfortunately, the pace of progress remains slow--too slow--but if the troops were withdrawn during this critical period or if doubt of our commitment to the Mission were interjected, I am convinced progress would cease. 2. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that passage of this resolution at this time would, without a doubt, send the wrong signal. Despite the other objectives of the proponents of the measure, threatening withdrawal before the situation is stable would be seen by those on the ground as a sign of weakness. As made clear in the Helsinki Commission's hearing on the repression and violence in Kosovo conducted earlier today, the deadly assaults in Kosovo in recent weeks are a stark reminder of Slobodan Milosevic's inclination to violence and the volatility of the region. 3. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration this afternoon is more than a statement on the need for congressional authorization for troop deployments abroad. I believe that is why the International Relations Committee last week ordered the resolution reported unfavorably. Advocates of the measure have indicated that they are really seeking to withdraw the troops from Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, if so, we need to seriously consider the consequences of a premature withdrawal. Regardless of the extent to which we had reservations about Dayton or even opposed the Administration's decision to deploy in the first place, the reality is that the Congress would--as it should-- hold responsibility for the consequences of a premature withdrawal. The United States, in my view, has a national interest at stake in Bosnia's future and the success of the Dayton Agreement. In Bosnia, a few political leaders who desire more political power seek to convince the world that division of the country is inevitable. If we let them succeed, there will be consequences in the region and there will be a definite impact on the viability of a NATO which is now successfully reshaping itself for the post-Cold War era. Finally, premature withdrawal of the forces in Bosnia whittles away even further the moral content of our foreign policy--the promotion of human rights and representative government. In conclusion, the Clinton Administration--and the Bush Administration before--has made major blunders in responding to the aggression and genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Unfortunately, I feel the passage of this resolution would only make the situation worse at a time when the possibility of a success is finally on the horizon.

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 yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, H. Con. Res. 235, calling for an end to the violent repression of the legitimate rights of the people of Kosovo. In recent weeks we have seen yet another outbreak of deadly violence in the Balkans, with the Serbian police and the military units striking certain regions in Kosovo and killing as many as 80 Kosovar Albanians. I am an original cosponsor of the resolution, and I appreciate very much the work done by my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the full committee, to bring this measure to the floor. The measure was considered in committee last week, at which time a number of amendments that I offered were adopted, including one asking that the OSCE mission be allowed back into Kosovo as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, we must all recognize that, despite the complexity of the Balkans, primary responsibility for nearly a decade of conflict in the former Yugoslavia lies squarely on the shoulders of Milosevic and his regime in Belgrade. Since 1989, when Milosevic unilaterally revoked Kosovo's autonomy, he has established as official policy discrimination against ethnic Albanians, who constitute 90 percent of the population of Kosovo, especially in terms of employment. Milosevic's police force in Kosovo is, in reality, more of an army, which has arbitrarily harassed, detained, tortured and even murdered innocent Albanians on a regular basis. Tomorrow, in fact, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I co-chair, will be conducting a hearing on the issue of the repression and the violence in Kosovo. As the Commission has followed closely this situation in Kosovo, it has become clear that Mr. Milosevic responds to criticism only when there is a clear resolve that his aggression, violence, and abuse of human rights will invoke serious consequences. I would note that the language of the resolution states that no independent national or United States sanctions currently in force against the Government of Serbia or Montenegro should be terminated at this time unless a judgment is made that such termination would help encourage a peaceful resolution to the repression in Kosovo. In this resolution, we call on the authorities of Serbia-Montenegro to fully cooperate with efforts and initiatives of the OSCE, including the immediate and unconditional return of a mission of long duration. The mission mandate should focus on all of Serbia and Montenegro and should be held by a person of prominence. Belgrade expelled the mission, you might recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1993 and has made its return contingent on the lifting of Yugoslavia's suspension in the OSCE. Both Kosovar Albanians and Kosovar Serbs have told us that the return of the mission is desirable. The mission would monitor the situation both in Kosovo and in Serbia and Montenegro and would facilitate local dialogue in order to help deter an escalation of conflict and the violation of human rights. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should enthusiastically support the investigation and prosecution of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of crimes against humanity committed in Kosovo. The events in Kosovo in recent days are reminiscent of what took place at the beginning of the Bosnian conflict in 1992, and they could similarly escalate into massive and violent ethnic cleansing. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 364.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 152) expressing the sense of the Congress that all parties to the multiparty peace talks regarding Northern Ireland should condemn violence and fully integrate internationally recognized human rights standards and adequately address outstanding human rights violations as part of the peace process, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, this resolution is a bipartisan resolution. I am very pleased and honored to have the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, as one of the principal cosponsors of this bill; also, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy); the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne); the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews); and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) to name just some of the cosponsors of this H. Con. Res. 1252. Mr. Speaker, we are expressing a sense of the Congress that all parties to the multiparty peace talks regarding Northern Ireland should condemn violence and fully integrate internationally recognized human rights standards and address the outstanding human rights violations as part of the peace process. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the British Irish Watch, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and many, many others have urged that this House pass this resolution. As a matter of fact, just to read some of their statements, Human Rights Watch said, ``Human Rights Watch fully supports the resolution now being considered for passage by the Congress regarding human rights in the Northern Ireland peace process. The resolution rightly recognizes the gravity of past violations and the role that such abuses have played in perpetuating the conflict. The resolution is a signal that Congress is eager to prevent the same kind of lack of attention to human rights issues which has doomed other peace processes and may threaten the success of the Northern Ireland peace process if action is not taken now.'' Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Administration of Justice and I recently traveled to the north of Ireland, met with all of the parties, like other Members of this House have and other Members of the Senate, but I found that the Committee on the Administration of Justice tries to evenhandedly promote human rights. Whether they be Protestant or Catholic, a person's value and dignity must be respected. Well, of the committee, Martin O'Brien stated, and I quote, ``Any effort by Congress to raise these issues is particularly welcomed and deserves widespread support. In that regard, the initiative is to be supported, and it would be helpful if the concerns of the Congress on human rights be raised with the British and the Irish Governments,'' and it goes on, and I would put the full statement into the Record at the appropriate time. Mr. Speaker, there is a great opportunity, a window of opportunity right now, especially on St. Patrick's Day, but in the coming weeks as part of these multiparty talks to come to a conclusion. We need to express in a bipartisan way, Democrats, Republicans, moderates, liberals and conservatives, that we are foursquare, fully behind this effort to bring peace to the north of Ireland where some 3,000 people have been killed by paramilitaries on both sides, as well as by agents of the British Government. It is time to say no to violence; that no matter what dips may be in the road ahead, that violence is not a solution. Knee-capping and terrorism is not a means to an end, no matter how justified one may think they are. Whether it be the IRA on the Catholic side or perhaps on the Protestant side, some of the terrorist groups, all of those acts of violence are to be condemned, and we ought to be promoting peace, and that is, indeed, what we are doing. Thankfully, the United States is playing a very real and significant role. Former Senator Mitchell is the chairman of these multiparty talks and has done an exemplary job in bringing the disparate factions together to try to come to a peaceful resolution. Again, this window of opportunity is right now before them. The discussions begin in earnest again on March 23, and we expect, hopefully before Easter, that there will be a framework, there will be a final document produced; maybe that is a bit premature, but that is part of the expectation, and that a referendum could be held sometime in the latter part of May, perhaps in June, to begin or to further this process. I found on that trip, and I have also had two lengthy human rights hearings in my subcommittee in which we heard from all parties, that the time for peace is at hand, and I think by going on the record today, we send a clear, unmistakable message that we, too, are watching and hoping and praying that peace will come to the north of Ireland and that human rights will be at its core. It cannot be an ancillary issue; it cannot be a P.S., a postscript at the end of the statement. They need to be integral in this peace agreement, and all parties, I think, need to recognize the value and the dignity of each and every human life, and that is what I think will lead to justice, and justice to a sustainable peace. So I would hope that everyone could get behind H. Con. Res. 152 and we could make a unanimous statement here on the floor today that we are for this peace process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to vote for this resolution. Again it puts us on record supporting not only the peace process, but the all important inclusiveness of the human rights dimension. We do not want it to be a sub or a sidebar issue. It ought to be a mainstream issue. There is not evidence enough that it has been. Let me also just say, as I have done in meeting with Mo Mowlam, and I know many of my colleagues have done this in the past, we have all raised specific questions and issues. I raised Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons when I met with her. Our hope is that these two gentlemen and others who find themselves in a similar circumstance or who have been incarcerated because of the common purpose laws, were not convicted of committing a crime but were in proximity to a crime and therefore found themselves getting life sentences for their unfortunate proximity to a heinous act. I met with those two individuals in the Maze prison last year. I was very much impressed. The human rights organizations with whom I have had contact with believe that they are innocent and our hope is that in the spirit of reconciliation and, above all, in the spirit of justice these individuals will find their way to freedom. We had Sean Kelly's father testify at our hearing and he gave a very persuasive account as to what happened. Again, the human rights organizations have looked at these cases very carefully and have concluded that this has been a miscarriage of justice if ever there was one. So our plea to the government of the United Kingdom would be to let these individuals out. It is a positive step towards reconciliation, but above all it would be a step in the right direction towards peace.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)