Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004. The bill, as amended, represents a compromise agreement between the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate on these matters. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the committee's ranking member, for his work on this. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for his admirable leadership as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, where most of these measures originated. He has done a tremendous job as chairman. As a 37-year Army veteran, he has put veterans first and has done so in a way that is extraordinary. Again, I want to thank him for his work and his meticulous attention to detail. It has made the difference. This bill, regrettably, went through a lot of difficulties and travail, and yet he persevered. And I want to thank our chairman of that subcommittee for his leadership. It has been extraordinary. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the ranking member of that subcommittee. Again, these bills are bipartisan. We have worked together very closely, and it is a pleasure to bring this before the body today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3936 contains more than 33 measures that would improve the management and the administration of veterans health care programs. I want to highlight just a few of those provisions that are contained in the bill. The VA's homeless grant and per diem program is an economical, flexible, and innovative approach to housing and supportive services for thousands of homeless veterans. The compromise agreement would increase the fiscal year 2005 authorization level for VA's grant and per diem program from $75 million to $99 million. The Department requested this increase because it has received far more requests for funding from meritorious potential grantees than it can support under existing funding limits. Another important provision compromise would direct the Secretary to make payments to assist the 128 State-operated nursing homes in hiring and retaining nursing personnel. These homes provide long-term care to over 38,000 veterans annually in an excellent partnership with the VA, and this provision encourages their efforts to keep highly qualified staff caring for these veterans. Mr. Speaker, today we are at war overseas. We know war can produce terrible physical injuries, and we must do everything possible for wounded servicemembers. This compromise agreement would authorize the VA to establish, in conjunction with the Department of Defense, a limited number of new centers for research, education, and clinical care to improve rehabilitative services for complex traumatic injuries, such as those being suffered by our brave soldiers and Marines in Iraq. These centers will be a Godsend for these wounded war veterans and for their families. This bill provides VA authority to enter into a 75-year lease to acquire a medical facility on the new Fitzsimons Campus of the University of Colorado. It is anticipated this Federal-State health sciences campus would share many high-cost specialized services and provide expanded access for Air Force beneficiaries at the nearby Buckley Air Force Base. I want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) for his leadership on this important provision and the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, who has also done yeoman's work on this as well. Mr. Speaker, our compromise agreement would improve the process for disposing of unneeded VA properties and authorize the proceeds from property transfers to be deposited into a new VA capital asset fund. The new fund would facilitate transfers, leases and adaptive uses of VA properties, including historic properties. This compromise agreement also includes authorization for naming five VA medical centers, including one in Illinois to be named for the distinguished House minority leader, Bob Michel. Having served with Bob and having great respect for him, I am grateful that this provision is in here, and I want to thank my colleagues for their support for it. It also names facilities in Texas and New York for two heroic Marines who gave their lives for freedom in Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Committee on Veterans Affairs has worked hard in this Congress to examine ways to provide the best possible health care to those who have earned the honored title of ``veteran.'' I would like to recognize the staff of the Subcommittee on Health: John Bradley, staff director; Dolores Dunn and Kathleen Greve, professional staff members; Susan Edgerton, Democratic staff director; and VA detailee Rosalind Howard. I would also like to thank our full committee staff, Pat Ryan to my left, chief counsel and staff director; Kingston Smith, deputy chief counsel; Jeannie McNally, legislative coordinator; and Jim Holley, Democratic staff director. I also thank the Senate committee staff director, Bill Tuerk, and Bill Cahill, III, professional staff member. I also thank Kim Lipsky, Alexandra Sardegna and Amanda Krohn of the Democratic professional staff for their contributions. This has been a true collaborative effort. Again, I thank all who have participated in shaping, crafting and making this an extremely valuable bill that will soon be on the desk of President Bush for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3936. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004. H.R. 3936, as amended, represents a compromise agreement between the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House and Senate. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Evans, Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who has helped to shape this particular legislation. Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Simmons, for his outstanding leadership as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, where most of these measures originated. Finally, I thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Rodriguez, the Ranking Member, who has worked in a bipartisan effort to help craft this and numerous other important veterans' health bills during his time in Congress. Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Graham of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee also contributed to the legislation before the House today. Mr. Speaker, VA's homeless grant and per diem program provides competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations that offer transitional housing or comprehensive service centers for homeless veterans. This program is an economical, flexible and innovative approach to housing and supportive services for homeless veterans in all 50 States and in the District. Over 6,000 beds are now available nationally to veterans through this vital community network. In 2003, 66 percent of the veterans discharged from these VA-funded programs went on to either independent living or residential-program housing. The compromise agreement will increase the fiscal year 2005 authorization level for this key program from $75 million to $99 million. The department requested this increase because it has received far more requests for funding from meritorious potential grantees than it can support under existing funding limits. Another important provision in this compromise agreement would direct the Secretary to make payments to assist states in hiring and retaining nursing personnel at State-operated nursing homes for veterans. The 128 State veterans' homes collectively represent the largest institutional provider of long-term care to elderly veterans, now caring for over 38,000 veterans annually in 47 States. I am personally aware of staffing difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans' homes in Vineland, Paramus and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in their efforts to recruit and retain quality nursing staff to those homes. We need this new incentives program all across the country. It would allow State homes currently receiving per diem payments from VA with established employee-incentive programs to apply for assistance to retain and recruit their nurses. This provision encourages their efforts to keep highly-qualified staff caring for veterans. Another provision affecting the State home programs would specify that per diem payments made by VA to States for the care of veterans in these homes may not be used to offset or reduce third party payments made to assist veterans, whether from private, State or other Federal sources. There is well established history of partnership between the Federal and State governments providing care for veterans. This originated with the first Federal law in 1888, providing $100 per year in aid to States to help alleviate the burden of caring for sick and disabled soldiers. This partnership and the first annual payments preceded the advent of the Veterans Administration and the State Home program as we know them today--but Congressional intent has remained constant and clear. Since 1960, Congress has taken an active role in expanding the State home programs to include four levels of care, increased per diem payments and grant funding for construction of facilities. The Congress and its Veterans' Committees are adamant that this partnership and the mutual reliance by VA and the States should not be inadvertently affected by the rules of any other program which is not specifically targeted at caring for aged and infirmed veterans. Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, with Public Law 102-585, it was acknowledged that women who experienced sexual trauma while on active military duty may undergo a variety of psychological and physical health effects requiring special counseling. This law authorized VA to provide mental health counseling for these women veterans. Two years later, eligibility for VA sexual trauma counseling and treatment was broadened in Public Law 103-452 to include veterans of either gender who experience sexual trauma while serving on active duty. H.R. 3936 would make permanent VA's authority to provide sexual trauma counseling to veterans. Mr. Speaker, the shortage of nurses throughout the United States is well documented and VA must position itself to take advantage of all opportunities available to deal with this shortage. H.R. 3936 would establish a pilot program to evaluate the use of proven private sector techniques, such as employer branding, interactive advertising, automated staffing systems and the use of outside recruitment agencies and online technologies to improve VA's program for recruiting nursing personnel. Mr. Speaker, how well we know that we are at war overseas. We know war can produce terrible physical injuries. In previous wars, many soldiers did not survive the very serious injuries of the kind being seen in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The means were not available for quick evacuation to sophisticated medical treatment. Today military medical treatment capabilities have greatly improved for complex traumatic injuries. However, Mr. Speaker, this success creates new challenges for the caregivers who have patients with complex traumatic injuries. The compromise agreement will authorize VA to establish in cooperation with the Department of Defense a limited number of new centers for research, education and clinical activities to improve rehabilitative services for these veterans. I particularly want to thank Senator Bob Graham, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, for his work in helping us reach agreement on this provision. These centers will be a godsend for these wounded war veterans and their families. Mr. Speaker, the delivery of health care in this country and in the VA system has undergone a profound transformation over the last decade. Once a hospital based health care system, today's VA has made a significant shift from inpatient to outpatient services, with tremendous growth in the number of enrolled veterans. Yet, much of VA health care bricks-and-mortar infrastructure was designed and built decades ago--some parts of it over a century ago--in a bygone era of health care delivery when long stays in the hospital were the norm. In 1999, a General Accounting Office report not surprisingly found that VA's cost of operating and maintaining its large inventory of old buildings was a huge and avoidable drain on resources. In the years since that GAO report, VA has undergone a major initiative referred to as the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative, to assess the best use of VA's capital assets for the veteran population to be served, and to use resources more effectively to improve health care delivery to these veterans. While awaiting the CARES recommendations, little was done by the Department to upgrade VA's physical plants. This legislation is consistent with the CARES recommendations and would provide VA the needed authority to execute leases for 16 community-based outpatient clinics at a cost of approximately $24.4 million, in fiscal year 2005, in the States of California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Most of these leases will upgrade existing clinic locations. All of these leases were requested by the VA. Mr. Speaker, this bill also provides VA authority to enter into a 75- year lease to acquire a medical facility on the Fitzsimons Campus of the University of Colorado in Aurora. It is anticipated that a new federal-state health sciences campus would share many high cost and specialized services, and also would provide expanded access to care for Air Force beneficiaries from nearby Buckley Air Force Base. I want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez, for his leadership in developing this good Federal health policy to serve the people of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, our compromise agreement would improve the process for disposing of unneeded VA properties and authorize the proceeds from these property transfers to be deposited into a new VA Capital Asset Fund. The new fund would defray VA's cost of transferring property including demolition, environmental restoration, historic preservation and establishment of new health facilities. This bill would authorize appropriations of $10 million in seed money to launch the fund to support these initiatives. Mr. Speaker, the VA has one of the largest federal inventories of properties with significant historic value. In fact, 24 VA medical center campuses are already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and even more are eligible for this designation. This compromise agreement would allow the Secretary to enter into new partnerships or agreements with entities dedicated to historic preservation, and to use the funds in the Capital Asset Fund to facilitate transfers, leases or adaptive uses of those historic properties that are no longer useful for VA health care. Thus, this compromise agreement would protect history and at the same time the way to new uses of structures that have served their purposes for veterans. Mr. Speaker, this compromise agreement includes authorization to name VA facilities to honor two heroic Marines who gave this country the greatest measure of their personal devotion, giving their lives in combat to save others in Vietnam. Lance Corporals Thomas E. Creek of Texas and Thomas P. Noonan, Jr. of New York were each posthumously awarded the Nation's highest military decoration, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for their selfless deeds. The late James J. Peters of New York, a war hero in Vietnam, and a leader of paralyzed veterans after his service, would also be honored by our naming a VA outpatient clinic in the Bronx in his memory. Further, Mr. Speaker, a VA facility in Illinois will be named in honor of our distinguished former House Minority Leader, Bob Michel, and a facility in Texas will be named in honor of the public service of another former Member of this House, Charles Wilson. Mr. Speaker, under current law, VA must comply with a variety of Federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the collecting, handling and disposing of medical waste. Failure to adhere to these laws and regulations could place patients, VA employees and their communities in hazardous situations, as well as subject VA to civil or criminal penalties. This bill would provide a means for Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of VA's medical waste management policies and determine whether additional procedures are needed to reduce environmental and heath risks. The costs of waste disposal would be assessed as well. The bill would require VA to establish and maintain an inventory of medical waste management activities in VA facilities and report to Congress on its inventory, regulatory compliance, and violations of record, along with plans for management improvements. Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has worked hard in this Congress to examine ways of providing the best possible health care for those who have earned the honored title of ``veteran.'' I would like to recognize the staff of the Subcommittee on Health: John Bradley, Staff Director, Dolores Dunn and Kathleen Greve, professional staff members; Susan Edgerton, Democratic Staff Director, and VA detailee Rosalind Howard. I'd also like to thank our full Committee staff: Patrick Ryan, Chief Counsel and Staff Director; Kingston Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel; Jeannie McNally, our Legislative Coordinator; and Jim Holley, Democratic Staff Director. Finally, I want to compliment the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee staff: Bill Tuerk, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; and Bill Cahill III, professional staff member. I also want to recognize Kim Lipsky, Alexandra Sardegna and Amanda Krohn, of the Democratic professional staff, for their contributions to this bill. For the benefit of my colleagues, I include at this point in the record a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on H.R. 3936, as amended. Mr. Speaker, one final word on homeless veterans: these veterans who need services and a place to lay their heads have difficult problems. VA's programs and the hundreds of community and faith-based programs that serve in partnership with VA work miracles with many of them. The continuation and expansion of these programs with the goal of eradicating chronic homelessness in the veteran population has been one of my top goals as Chairman of this Committee. I intend to further address this program in the next Congress, so that those who once wore the nation's military uniform and who are now homeless. These veterans need a hand up to turn their lives around, and we should provide that hand. I urge my colleagues to support this measure to enhance health care for veterans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3936) to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the principal office of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be at any location in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, rather than only in the District of Columbia, and expressing the sense of Congress that a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center should be provided for that Court and those it serves and should be located, if feasible, at a site owned by the United States that is part of or proximate to the Pentagon Reservation, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say once again that this is a good bill. As a matter of fact, it is a very, very important bill. And I do want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), our distinguished subcommittee chairman, who has done yeoman's work on this, and also the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), who is the ranking member on that subcommittee. This has been a true bipartisan product. I think when President Bush signs this piece of legislation we can all be very, very proud. I also want to join my friend from Texas in thanking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for his outstanding and exemplary work in the Congress for the past 8 years, and he certainly has put veterans first. So again I want to thank him for his work as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) as well.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2486, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004. This solid compromise package incorporates 14 benefit bills that have been referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, this Congress and contains more than 40 substantive provisions. S. 2468 would enhance a wide range of veterans' benefits, including protections for mobilized servicemembers. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to Title I of this comprehensive bill, which is derived from H.R. 1716, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act. This is a bill that I introduced last year along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and others. The Veterans Earn and Learn Act represents the fifth in a series of employment and business opportunities bills that our Subcommittee on Benefits has offered over the last 3 and a half years. The Veterans Earn and Learn Act would significantly update the Montgomery GI Bill on-job training and apprenticeship programs to reflect learning opportunities in American business and industry today. This legislation is Congress's first major rewrite of the on-job training, or OJT, and apprentice policies for veterans since World War II. Additionally, effective October 1, 2005, Title I includes a 10 percent increase in the monthly educational assistance allowance the VA furnishes to veterans and others pursuing this particular type of training. The Veterans Earn and Learn Act is timely because almost 200,000 servicemembers and Reservists separate each year, and they would now all be eligible to use these Earn and Learn initiatives to continue to build transferrable skills. VA's OJT and apprenticeship program is a valuable program for employers as well. Tapping into veterans as a rich resource of skilled and qualified employees is a shrewd business strategy for employers of all sizes. Veterans bring a unique combination of skill, discipline, character and talent to the workplace. Title II of the compromise focuses on protecting the civilian job benefits of activated Reservists. In light of longer active duty tours, the major provision here would increase from 18 to 24 months the maximum period of employer-sponsored health care coverage that a Reservist-employee may elect to continue to receive. Title III, Mr. Speaker, focuses on veterans' benefits matters. The key provision of this title is a $250 monthly increase in dependency and indemnity payments for a surviving spouse with children under the age of 18. This increase would be payable for 2 years following the service-connected death of a servicemember or veteran. Title IV enhances housing benefits for veterans. Among its important provisions is an increase of the maximum VA home loan to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan amount for a single family residence. The increase raises from $240,000 to $333,700 the maximum VA home loan guaranty. I am also pleased that this title makes some needed changes to provide flexibility in VA's administration of Transitional Housing program for homeless veterans. The very first loan under this program should close this month, I would point out to my colleagues, and I am looking forward to several more projects getting under way in the next 6 months. Title V focuses on protecting some of our most vulnerable veterans and dependents when it is necessary to pay the VA benefits on their behalf to a third party. This bill also makes improvements to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I am pleased it includes provisions that I had authored, including one to furnish additional protections to servicemembers and their spouses with respect to residential and motor vehicle leases when the servicemember is mobilized or sent to a new duty assignment, sometimes with little advance notice. Finally, I am especially pleased that one of the sections of Title VIII would allow the principal office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be located at any location in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, if that location would allow greater cost efficiencies or a permanent building for the court. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2486, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004. I appreciate the opportunity to work with Arlen Specter and Bob Graham, the distinguished chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in writing this comprehensive legislation. I thank them both for their leadership. The Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 incorporates 14 benefits bills that have been referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs this Congress. S. 2486 contains more than 40 substantive provisions which would enhance programs affecting veterans' education, training, employment, reemployment, compensation and pension, housing, fiduciary, protections for mobilized servicemembers, and other benefits. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to title one of this comprehensive bill, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act, which is derived from H.R. 1716, introduced by Ranking Member Lane Evans and me and many others. This section represents the fifth of six measures in a Veterans' Jobs and Business Opportunities package that our Subcommittee on Benefits has authored over the last 3\1/2\ years. I appreciate the vision and bipartisan leadership of Jack Quinn and Bob Filner, followed by J.D. Hayworth and Bob Filner, then Mike Simpson and Silvestre Reyes, and now Henry Brown and Michael Michaud on this package. Title one of the bill would significantly update the on-job training and apprenticeship programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs to reflect learning opportunities in American business and industry today. Indeed, this legislation is Congress' first major rewrite of on-job training, OJT, and apprenticeship policies for veterans since World War II. Plus, effective October 1 of 2005, the bill would increase by 10 percent the monthly educational assistance allowance that the Department of Veterans Affairs furnishes eligible veterans, dependent widows and children, and Reservists. The Veterans Earn and Learn title of the bill is timely because 419 military occupational specialties are currently transferable to the civilian economy. Almost 200,000 separating servicemembers per year, including Reservists, would be eligible to use these Earn and Learn initiatives to continue to build transferable skills. This measure represents a unique opportunity for veterans, Reservists, and dependent widows and children to use their VA educational assistance benefits to augment the entry-level wage the employer pays them as they train on the job. As the training wage increases over time, the monthly VA educational assistance allowance decreases. VA's OJT and apprenticeship program is a valuable program for employers, too. For example, in a 3-year apprenticeship, VA education benefits under this measure would augment the veteran's training wage furnished by the employer by $17,891. In fact, Missouri has documented that VA's on-job training and apprenticeship programs improve employee retention and bring significant federal training dollars to Missouri communities to the tune of $38 million annually. Tapping into veterans as a rich source of skilled and qualified employees is a shrewd business strategy for employers of all sizes, as veterans bring a unique combination of skill, discipline, character, and talent to the workplace. The monthly OJT/apprenticeship rates vary based on eligibility. But here are some brief examples of the amount of VA educational program allowances beneficiaries would receive in 1- and 2-year on-job training programs and 3- and 4-year apprenticeships under the Montgomery GI Bill: A Reservist participating in a 1-year on-job training program as a management trainee in a retail establishment would receive $2,471 over 12 monthly payments. A widow or dependent child who participates in a 2-year training program as a financial adviser with an investment firm would receive $9,643 over 24 monthly payments. A veteran who participates in a 3-year apprenticeship program in plumbing would receive $17,891 over 36 monthly payments. A veteran who participates in a 4-year apprenticeship program as an electrician would receive $22,529 over 48 monthly payments. Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that on-job training and apprenticeships are excellent, practical ways for veterans to use their VA education benefits, especially for those who are married with families to support. VA education benefits are not limited to classroom training. Let me now highlight other titles in this comprehensive bill. Title two focuses on employment matters. A major aspect of this title is a provision to increase from 18 to 24 months the maximum period of employer-sponsored health coverage that an employee covered by the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 may elect to continue to receive. This extension of coverage is essential given the longer active-duty tours of our reservists. I commend Representatives Henry Brown and Michael Michaud for their leadership on this issue. Title three focuses on veterans' benefits matters. A key part of this title is the provision that provides a $250 monthly increase in dependency and indemnity payments for a surviving spouse with children under age 18. These payments are authorized during the 2-year period following the service-connected death of the servicemember or veteran. I commend Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Graham for their leadership on this provision. Title four enhances housing matters. Among other important provisions, this section of the bill increases the maximum VA home loan to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan amount for a single- family residence. It also annually indexes the maximum amount of VA's home loan guaranty for construction or purchase of a home to that Freddie Mac limit. In effect, the increase raises from 240,000 to $333,700 the maximum home loan purchase amount on a VA-guaranteed purchase. I am also very pleased this section makes some small needed changes the Department of Veterans Affairs has asked for to provide greater flexibility in its administration of the Transitional Housing program. I was pleased to work with VA in this regard so as to make the Transitional Housing program as effective as possible. Title five focuses on fiduciary matters to protect our more vulnerable veterans and dependents when they require a third party payee to receive VA benefits on their behalf. These provisions are the result of 2 hearings held by the Subcommittee on Benefits, and I commend Representatives Henry Brown and Susan Davis for their work on this section of the bill. Title six addresses various memorial affairs issues, including designating a monument constructed at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, CA, as a Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial. Title seven makes various improvements to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I am very pleased this section of the bill includes the provision I authored to furnish additional protections to servicemembers and their spouses with respect to residential and motor vehicle leases. This provision modifies section 305 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to address the reality of servicemembers having to terminate leases due to longer-term mobilization or deployment. This provision clarifies that if a servicemember terminates a lease entered into jointly with a dependent--usually the spouse--the obligations of both the servicemember and the dependent are terminated. This affords military families the additional protections they need when the servicemember is mobilized to a new duty assignment--sometimes with little advance notice--and the family, too, must relocate. Lastly, title eight addresses other important matters. I am pleased this section authorizes that the principal office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be located at any location in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Another location may furnish greater cost efficiencies for the court. In closing, I thank Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Michaud for their leadership and continued bipartisan cooperation. I'd also like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs for their diligent work in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 2486. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, the following is a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body and a letter from the Committee on the Judiciary concerning S. 2486 and our committee's response. Explanatory Statement on Senate Amendments to S. 2486 S. 2486, as amended, the ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004,'' reflects a Compromise Agreement reached by the Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs (the Committees) on the following bills reported during the 108th Congress: S. 2485, as amended; S. 2486, as amended; and S. 1132, as introduced (Senate Bills); H.R. 1716, as amended; H.R. 3936; H.R. 4175, as amended; H.R. 4345; and H.R. 4658, as amended (House Bills). The Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs have prepared the following explanation of S. 2486, as amended (Compromise Agreement). Differences between the provisions contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related provisions of S. 2485, as amended; S. 2486, as amended; S. 1132, as introduced; H.R. 1716, as amended; H.R. 3936; H.R. 4175, as amended; H.R. 4345; and H.R. 4658, as amended; are noted in this document, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes made necessary by the Compromise Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and clarifying changes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2486) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and extend housing, education, and other benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), my good friend and colleague, to allocate as he would like.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), who has been a great workhorse on this committee. As I indicated earlier, this bill alone has some 40 disparate provisions. It encompasses over 14 bills. The gentleman, as the subcommittee chairman, has walked point on all of this; and I want to thank the distinguished chairman for his very able and very effective leadership as subcommittee chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, there is reason to fear for the fate of rule of law in Russia. I want to present one relevant example. Mikhail Trepashkin, an attorney and former Federal Security Service, FSB, officer was arrested on October 24, 2003, a week before he was scheduled to represent in legal proceedings the relatives of one of the victims of a terrorist attack in Moscow. Mr. Trepashkin's American client is Tatyana Morozova of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In September 1999, Ms. Morozova's mother was killed and her sister barely survived the bombing of an apartment house in Moscow. Officially, the crime was blamed on Chechen separatists, but Mr. Trepashkin was expected to present the findings of his investigation which suggested involvement of elements of the FSB in the 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow as well as an aborted attempted bombing in the city of Ryazan. Mr. Trepashkin had been a consultant to the public commission set up by prominent human rights activist and former Duma Deputy Sergei Kovalev to investigate the 1999 bombings. The Kovalev commission asked many unpleasant questions but got precious few answers from the authorities. Meanwhile, in the course of his investigation Trepashkin discovered evidence that didn't track with the official version of the bombing incidents. This included events in Ryazan, where a bomb in an apartment basement was discovered by local police and safely detonated hours before it was due to explode. The two suspects in that case were released after presenting FSB identification documents. The whole incident was later declared a ``readiness exercise'' by Russian authorities. Several months later, the co-chairman of the Kovalev Commission, Duma Deputy Sergei Yushenkov, was assassinated in front of his home. Four persons were convicted of the murder. Another member of the Commission died of food poisoning in a hospital, another was severely beaten by thugs, and two members lost their seats in the Duma. The activities of the decimated commission came to an abrupt halt. A week before the October 24, 2003 trial opened, the police just happened to pull Trepashkin over on the highway, and just happened to find a revolver in his car. Trepashkin claims the gun was planted. Three weeks later, he was put on trial and sentenced to 4 years labor camp by a closed court for allegedly divulging state secrets to a foreign journalist. Mr. Speaker, I don't know all the details of this case, but it looks very much like Mr. Trepashkin was prosecuted in order to prevent him from releasing potentially damaging information regarding the activities of the FSB. The U.S. State Department has commented diplomatically: ``The arrest and trial of Mikhail Trepashkin raised concerns about the undue influence of the FSB and arbitrary use of the judicial system.'' Today Mr. Trepashkin is held in a Volokolamsk city jail in a 130- square foot, lice-infested cell, which he shares with six other prisoners. He suffers from asthma but reportedly has been denied health care or even medicine. These arduous conditions may be retaliation for Mr. Trepashkin's filing a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It is difficult to believe that President Putin, given his KGB and FSB background, is unaware of the controversy surrounding the bombing investigations and the possibility that elements of the security services were involved. He must realize that corruption and personal vendettas within the FSB are dangerous commodities not only for the people of Russia, but for an entire civilized world that relies on the combined efforts of the intelligence community in the war against terrorism. I urge President Putin to order a thorough and honest investigation of Mikhail Trepashkin's jailing and full cooperation with the Kovalev Commission. While the jury is still out on the 1999 bombings, persecution of those who want to find out the truth does not add to Mr. Putin's credibility among those in the West who so far have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the death of journalist Paul Klebnikov, who was murdered on July 9 of this year outside his Moscow office. An American citizen of Russian lineage, Mr. Klebnikov was editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, he was the 11th journalist killed in Russia in a contract- style murder in the past four and a half years. Mr. Klebnikov had achieved prominence as a result of his investigative journalism which often focused on the connections between business, politics and crime in Russia. Mr. Klebnikov's investigations resulted in his writing two books, both devoted to exposing corruption within Russia's business and political sectors. Clearly, he made powerful enemies. There has been speculation that his murder was connected to a Forbes article that focused on Moscow's 100 wealthiest people. Someone, goes the theory, did not care for the publicity. Another suggestion is that Mr. Klebnikov's book Conversation with a Barbarian: Interview with a Chechen Field Commander on Banditry and Islam may have sparked a motive for the murder. It was Mr. Klebnikov's love of Russia and his belief that reforms were advancing the nation toward a greater transparency in business and politics that motivated him to launch the Russian edition of Forbes magazine in April 2004. Mr. Klebnikov was committed to exposing and confronting corruption in the hope that such work would contribute to a brighter future for the people of Russia. He believed that accountability was an essential element to achieve lasting reforms. Unfortunately, this hope for a better future in Russia has been dealt a serious blow by the murder of Paul Klebnikov. As I and ten other Members of the Helsinki Commission wrote to President Putin on October 5th of this year, much more is at stake than determining who killed Paul Klebnikov. The fear and self-censorship arising from the murders of journalists in Russia only serves to add to the corruption of government officials and businessmen. A cowed press cannot be the effective instrument for building the free and prosperous society that Mr. Putin purports to seek. Mr. Speaker, according to the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS, on the occasion of ``Militia Day,'' November 10, President Vladimir Putin told police officials that protecting the economy from crime and fighting corruption is a priority task in Russia. I would urge Mr. Putin to back up these words with action. Russian authorities should investigate to the fullest extent possible the murder of Mr. Klebnikov, no matter where the trail leads. Only through rule of law and accountability can Russia achieve the safe, free and comfortable future that Mr. Klebnikov believed was possible.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight on what is happening to recently-separated veterans who seek benefits and services from the Department of Veterans Affairs. There has been significant progress made in the last 3 years; some of that progress was reported correctly in a Washington Times article this past Sunday, but the headline in a piece from the Washington Post that appeared on the same day and was quoted by one of my colleagues on Monday made it seem that VA is totally unprepared to provide disability, compensation, rehabilitation and other benefit to America's veterans. It is inaccurate to describe the current inventory of 323,000 claims for VA benefits as a ``backlog,'' if by that term you mean to imply that veterans are waiting unnecessarily for an answer from VA. The truth is that at any given time, the VA is actively processing more than 250,000 claims while receiving more than 70,000 new and reopened claims each month. It's normal for the VA to have a working inventory of at least 250,000 claims. In fact, Mr. Speaker, at the request of this President, Congress provided additional funding to increase the number of VA claims processors by more than 1,300 since he took office. When we authorized these new employees, we effectively overstaffed the VA so that experienced employees would be available to train these new employees without an adverse effect on the timeliness of claims processing. These new employees are now fully trained and productive, and there should be no reduction in services to veterans. With respect to meeting veterans' benefits needs, the Washington Post article cited recently one of my colleagues failed to mention any of the documented improvements in VA claims processing. In the past four years, the VA has reduced the average time to decide disability claims from a high of 233 days to 160 days, reduced the percentage of pending claims for over six months from 48% in 2002 to 21% now, reduced rating- related claims from 432,000 in 2002 to 323,000 currently and is on track to meet the VA goal of 250,000. Most importantly, VA has increased the number of claims decisions from an average of 40,000 per month in 2001 to nearly 70,000 in 2004. These are significant accomplishments by the Bush Administration on behalf of veterans, and all of us should be proud to have supported the increased funding which the Administration requested to make this possible. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post article lead readers to believe that there was some delay in providing benefits to a soldier on active duty, and that the VA is unresponsive to America's veterans. In fact, I am advised that VA has already evaluated this particular soldier's disabilities and will begin awarding benefits on the first the day he is discharged from the Army. As all of my colleagues should know, VA cannot provide veterans benefits to a soldier until he or she is discharged from active duty. The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense are working hard to ensure that military members have a ``seamless transition'' from active duty; this means prompt decisions on claims for disability benefits and quality health care when needed. Even before servicemembers are discharged, VA provides transition services at 136 military bases so that servicemembers can ask questions and be briefed about their VA benefits and how to file for those benefits as they approach discharge. The VA has even assigned its own professional staff to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and the Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany to ensure our wounded American heroes will be aware of their VA health care and benefits long before they are discharged. Mr. Speaker it is often said that you shouldn't argue with an entity that buys ink by the barrel, but the Washington Post has its facts wrong in this case. This is not that surprising since the Post has not reported on any of the hearings--and we've had many--on these issues held by either the House Committee on Veterans Affairs which I chair and the House Armed Service Committee during the past year. Had they done so, their readers could have learned about the problems which have faced separating service members in the past and what is being done today to prevent those problems from occurring in the future. Both the Armed Forces and VA are working more closely together than in any previous conflict to ensure that the benefits which service members earned by their faithful service are delivered in a timely and compassionate manner. Members who attended those hearings learned that while mistakes have occurred, no one is more dedicated to ensuring that these deserving veterans than the current VA Secretary Anthony Principi and his able staff. The VA, the Congress and the President are all working together to make sure that our newest generation of combat veterans are taken care of. They deserve nothing less.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in the debate last night, Senator Kerry stumbled badly when asked a question on the stem cell research debate. He suggested that the only choice was between continuing cryogenically freezing those embryos or their destruction. That is not the only option. Those embryos can be and are being adopted. A couple of weeks ago, right nearby, in the Capitol here, I met with more than a dozen little children who were once cryogenically frozen embryos who were adopted. Their parents, in their love and compassion, those who had made the contribution and had created these new embryos, allowed those individuals to be adopted; and those kids had names like Michael and Katie. They are not throwaways. No human being is a throwaway. I hope we will disabuse ourselves, Mr. Speaker, of this false idea that there is such a thing as a ``spare'' embryo. Every embryo that is not wanted, that is not going to be implanted in the donor mother-- these mothers, ought to allow that embyro to be adopted.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is the vice chairman of the Helsinki Commission, on which I serve as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, because I have so many requests for time and will not get to all of them, I ask unanimous consent to extend this debate by 5 minutes equally divided between the proponent and opponent.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, section 3007 would make sweeping changes, again, to our asylum law that the drafters erroneously contend would stop terrorists from being granted asylum. I think Members should remember that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, terrorists are ineligible for asylum. Worse than being unnecessary, Mr. Chairman, this section would erect a number of brand-new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the United States, and they will result in bona fide refugees being returned to their persecutors. This stacks the deck against refugees. Let me just point out to my colleagues that in section 3007, asylum officers and immigration judges would be encouraged to deny an asylum claim simply because the applicant was unable to recall or recount information later in the process that she did not mention when she initially encountered an immigration officer. Asylum applicants, particularly survivors of torture, rape, forced abortion or sterilization may not be comfortable telling this information to a uniformed male inspection officer at an airport. Asylum applicants in that setting may not be provided with appropriate interpreters and may be understandably fearful of discussing their problems about their home countries in detail. They are frightened people, especially trafficking victims. In section 3007 there is also, amazingly, a demeanor standard which flies in the face of our American standards. If somebody looks down during the asylum interview and does not somehow convey honesty, when one has been tortured, when they have been a victim of trafficking, when they have been hurt emotionally, psychologically, and physically, they could be denied asylum. Sometimes, talking to somebody who is a uniformed member of our service, they may be intimidated. Also, and this is the central problem with this language, Mr. Chairman, it changes what is in the Refugee convention. There are five reasons why people can get asylum: race, nationality, religion, the Members know what they are. This changes it so that the applicant must prove it is the central reason. Asking asylum seekers to read the minds of their persecutors is absurd on its face. This will mean many people who are true asylum seekers, that should get it, will not get it.