Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge passage of H. Con. Res. 304, expressing the sense of Congress that the Government of the People's Republic of China should cease its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in the United States and in China. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, I commend you for introducing this legislation and for speaking out against human rights abuses throughout the world. Members of Congress need to be aware of the brutal suppression of human rights and religious freedoms being carried out by the People's Republic of China. From forced abortion and labor camps, to the imprisonment and sometimes even execution of brave Chinese who dare to stand up for their faith or political beliefs, Hu Jintao's regime, like that of Jiang Zemin before, is one of the worst violators of human rights in the world. While Christians, Tibetan Buddhists, and Muslim Uighurs are all being persecuted for the faith, the suffering of peaceful Falun Gong practitioners has been especially intense. In 1999, China's dictators launched a brutal campaign to completely eradicate Falun Gong from their country through whatever means necessary, claiming that Falun Gong was a threat to ``social order'' in China. The reason behind this campaign of brutality is clear: by the mid to late 1990s, the number of Falun Gong practitioners began to exceed the number of members of the Communist Party. Like all dictators and totalitarian terror systems, the PRC fears and hates what it cannot control. So it sought to destroy and intimidate those who practice Falun Gong. I would also note that the regime has labeled as ``cults'' and is now oppressing other groups with followings comparable to that of the Falun Gong, such as the Xiang Gong, Guo Gong, and Zhong Gong qigong groups. Falun Gong is not a religion, per se, but rather more like a philosophy. Based on the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion, and Tolerance, Falun Gong uses a series of five physical and mental exercises to assist its members to purify themselves spiritually and peacefully resolve conflicts. Whatever one may say about the merits of their beliefs, the evidence is very clear that Falun Gong practitioners are peaceful individuals who want to be left alone to practice their beliefs as they see fit. To carry out the task of smashing those who practice Falun Gong, the Beijing dictatorship created ``610'' offices throughout China to oversee and direct the persecution of Falun Gong through brainwashing, torture, and murder. The State Department Human Rights Report for 2003 has several pages documenting the plight of the Falun Gong. We know at least 250 Falun Gong members have died as a result of torture thus far. For instance, in only a three-month period from June to August last year, more than 50 Falun Gong died in custody, many from torture in detention camps. Other estimates place the total body count higher. Bodies of the tortured victims are often cremated immediately to conceal evidence of torture. The report indicated that Falun Gong adherents sent to mental health institutions have been administered psychiatric drugs and electric shock treatments by Chinese authorities. Several thousand Falun Gong practitioners--estimated at 125,000 or higher--are held in labor camps, prisons, and mental hospitals, where they are forced to endure torture brainwashing sessions. For example, in December 2003, Liu Chengjun, sentenced to 19 years in prison in March 2002 for involvement in illegal Falun Gong television broadcasts, was reportedly beaten to death by police in Jilin City Prison. The government continues to find new ways to crack down on Falun Gong. Over the past year, the Government initiated a comprehensive effort to round up practitioners not already in custody and sanctioned the use of high-pressure tactics and mandatory anti-Falun Gong study sessions to force practitioners to renounce Falun Gong. Even practitioners who had not protested or made other public demonstrations of belief reportedly were forced to attend anti-Falun Gong classes or were sent directly to reeducation-through-labor camps, where in some cases, beatings and torture reportedly were used to force them to recant. These tactics reportedly resulted in large number of practitioners signing pledges to renounce the movement. At the National People's Congress session in March, Premier Wen Jiabao's Government Work Report emphasized that the Government would ``expand and deepen its battle against cults,'' including Falun Gong. Thousands of individuals were still undergoing criminal, administrative, and extrajudicial punishment for engaging in Falun Gong practices, admitting that they adhered to the teachings of Falun Gong, or refusing to criticize the organization or its founder. During April to June 2003, the Government launched fresh accusations that Falun Gong practitioners were disrupting SARS-prevention efforts. State-run media claimed that, beginning in April, Falun Gong followers ``incited public panic'' and otherwise ``sabotaged'' anti-SARS efforts in many provinces by preaching that belief in Falun Gong will prevent persons from contracting SARS. Authorities detained hundreds of Falun Gong adherents on such charges, including 69 in Jiangsu Province during May and 180 in Hebei Province during June. But Beijing is not confining its disgusting torture and brainwashing campaign to its own people. Chinese-American citizens and permanent residents are also victims. One American citizen, Dr. Charles Li, was arrested January 22, 2003 in China upon his arrival at an airport. A Falun Gong practitioner, the Chinese government alleges he attempted to sabotage television and radio equipment, even though he had just arrived in the country. Dr. Li has gone on continual hunger strikes to protest his arrest but been subject to forced feedings. There are reports that he is being subjected to brainwashing and anti-Falun Gong propaganda. At least 37 other Falun Gong practitioners who have family members that are residing in the U.S. are also in prison in China. Authorities also detained foreign Falun Gong practitioners from other countries. For example, in January 2003, two Australian citizens were deported for engaging in Falun Gong activities in Sichuan Province. As my colleagues know, a sizeable number of Falun Gong practitioners reside here in the United States. They attempt to raise awareness about the horrors their fellow believers are subject to through meeting with government officials and through holding peaceful protests. Just this past August, Falun Gong members gathered on the Mall to pass out literature and inform Americans of the great suffering those in their faith are enduring. When Hu Jintao and other state leaders responsible for this purge are visiting foreign countries, Falun Gong members travel overseas to protest and raise awareness of the brutal persecution. In response, China's persecution against the Falun Gong has moved outside of China's own borders. Large numbers of Falun Gong in the United States have reported to have been harassed. The FBI is currently investigating beatings of Falun Gong practitioners in Atlanta and Chicago. On June 23, 2003, Falun Gong practitioners in New York were harassed and physically violated by Chinese nationals associated with the consulate. Charges have been filed with the authorities. Li Li and some of her friends were involved with this incident. Persecution of Falun Gong in China is horrific enough itself. The fact that China is now exporting its repression to weaker foreign nations under the guise of ``safety'' and ``public order'' is even worse. The cancer of China's repression is spreading all over the world. The PRC is not content to beat and torture and silence those inside its own borders. Now it is seeking to bully other nations into doing its bidding. When will this country wake up and stand up to this kind of nonsense? I call upon all members of this body to support H. Con. Res. 304. I call on the administration to step up its efforts to speak up for the Falun Gong and out against the actions of the Chinese government immediately.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to rise and really pay tribute to the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) in bringing this legislation not just to the floor today, but to what will be its ultimate enactment into law. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on human rights in North Korea, as well as human rights in the Asian Pacific region. The gentleman has been a stalwart and a real leader, and this is just another important product of that work; and I, and I know many others, are very grateful for his leadership. This bill is the culmination of a concerted bipartisan effort to act against the unspeakable cruelties occurring under the Kim Jong Il regime. In this regard, I want to commend the efforts as well of the North Korean Freedom Coalition which sponsored, as many Members know, the historic North Korea Freedom Day rally in Washington on April 28, as well as the Korean-American Church Coalition, which built strong support for this bill out in the grass-roots. Madam Speaker, since the mid-1990s, as many as 2 million North Koreans have died because of failed North Korean economic policies. Despite the loss of nearly 10 percent of the country's population to a man-made famine, Kim Jong Il's regime uses food as a weapon to control its population by rewarding loyalty and withholding food from enemies of the regime. In North Korean society the entire population is divided into three class labels assigned on the basis of loyalty to the regime: ``core,'' ``wavering,'' and ``hostile.'' These labels continue to be used to prioritize access to jobs, region of residence, and entitlement to items distributed through the Public Distribution System. Humanitarian relief organizations such as the U.N. World Food Program are prohibited by North Korea from distributing food and relief supplies directly to starving victims. Instead, the brutal dictatorship siphons off food aid and gives it to the Communist leadership and to the Army. H.R. 4011 authorizes increased funding for assistance for North Korean refugees, orphans, and trafficking victims outside of North Korea and conditions additional humanitarian assistance inside North Korea upon significant improvements in transparency and monitoring. It is the sense of Congress that future assistance to North Korea should be prohibited unless the government ensures that internationally recognized human rights standards are met and Pyongyang makes substantial progress towards respecting basic human rights such as decriminalizing political expression, providing for family reunification, and reform of its prison camp system. Madam Speaker, North Korea's human rights abuses, as we now know, are a nightmare of epic proportions. Its regime restricts every basic freedom of its people. It attempts to control all information, brainwashes citizens into following a cult of personality, and threatens international security through the reckless use of its nuclear weapons program. President Bush was clearly correct in labeling North Korea as a nation as part of the ``axis of evil.'' An estimated 150,000 to 200,000 political prisoners in North Korea are held in camps where they are subjected to torture, forced labor, starvation, and execution. Prisoners in these camps include thousands who attempted to flee the country to avoid starvation, but were returned to North Korea, regrettably, by the Chinese. Eye witnesses from these camps have testified before a hearing that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) held on the subcommittee and told us horrific stories of savage torture, forced abortions, and persecution of Christians. Mothers have seen their newborn children killed right in front of their very eyes by North Korean prison guards. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4011 also provides additional support and protection for the courageous North Koreans who have been able to escape by clarifying that North Koreans are eligible to apply for U.S. refugee and asylum consideration, and designating North Koreans who have been persecuted or mistreated by the North Koreans as a priority 2 group of special humanitarian concern to the United States. H.R. 4011 also underscores China's obligation to provide UNHCR with access to North Koreans in China and urges the UNHCR to assert its right to arbitration with China in an effort to secure access to North Koreans in China. This is a very, very important human rights bill. Again, I want to commend the chairman for his extraordinary leadership in bringing it to the body today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the prime sponsor of the Millennium Health Care Act referenced earlier in the debate.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we likewise yield back the balance of our time, and ask for a ``yea'' vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who was instrumental and really took the lead on this Fitzsimons Hospital. I congratulate him on his leadership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and delight to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the prime sponsor of this bill and the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support and urge colleagues to support and embrace H.R. 4768, the Veterans Health Programs and Facilities Enhancement Act of 2004. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), ranking member, who has been a very strong partner in helping shape this legislation. And I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), chairman of the Health Subcommittee, who is the prime sponsor of this legislation, for his leadership. It has been extraordinary, and I do want to acknowledge that. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), who likewise has worked as a good partner in a bipartisan effort to craft this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help address the need to modernize aging veterans health-care facilities, make better use of existing properties and dispose of unneeded VA properties over the next several years. The Veterans Health Care, Capital Asset, and Business Improvement Act of 2003 gave the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wide latitude to spend funds to improve, restore, or replace those VA health-care facilities most in need of such work. Congress instructed the Secretary to approve individual products based on recommendations of an independent capital investments board, and we placed a premium on projects to protect patient safety as well as privacy, improve seismic protection, and provide barrier-free accommodations. Moreover, we also put an emphasis on improving specialized-care facilities. Thus, even though the VA's budget request of $400 million for fiscal year 2005 to carry out approved modernization projects, the necessary authorization legislation is already enacted. For the benefit of the many Members who are interested in the plans to improve VA health-care facilities, I will insert a summary of the capital projects which the Secretary listed as the VA's highest priorities when he announced his CARES decision in June of this year. The cost of the projects for fiscal year 2004 totals $623 million, while the projects listed for fiscal year 2005 total $401 million. Mr. Speaker, after a multi-year drought in available funds to improve VA's extensive hospital and outpatient network, this long list of OMB- approved projects marks the beginning of a multi-year effort to modernize those facilities that will be needed to serve veterans in the first half of the 21st Century. VA Secretary Principi anticipates that the just-completed CARES process will require additional investment of approximately $1 billion per year for the next 5 years in order to bring the VA's infrastructure up to contemporary standards and meet veterans' expectations of accessible care. In addition, it should be noted that the CARES process is not complete, and there will undoubtedly be further fiscal consequences when the VA has fully assessed its current and future obligation to veterans who need long-term care as well as mental health care. Honoring these commitments may well mean additional investments in the VA facilities which are not included in the Secretary's $5 billion figure. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, authorizes major medical facility leases at 16 locations for community-based clinics at a cost of approximately $24.4 million in fiscal year 2005. Most of these leases are for replacement facilities, although some expansion into new locations is also proposed and approved by this bill. This bill would also provide the Department authority to enter into a unique long-term lease for up to 75 years for the land to construct a new medical facility on the Fitzsimons Campus at the University of Colorado in Aurora, Colorado. It is anticipated that this new VA facility will share many services with the university and also provide services to Air Force beneficiaries. I want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) for helping to identify the need to provide this authority to support the Fitzsimons project as well as the close attention he has given it as we have worked on this in the 108th Congress. And I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) so much for that. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will also facilitate the Secretary's authority to transfer unneeded real property currently in the VA's portfolio. The bill would require fair-market value for disposals, except when a property would be transferred to a provider of homeless veterans' services under a grant under section 2011 of title 38, U.S. Code. This bill would also establish a new fund to be known as the Capital Asset Fund. The purpose of the new fund would be to defray VA's cost of transferring real property, including demolition, environmental restoration, maintenance, repair, historic preservation, and administrative expenses. This bill would authorize appropriations of $10 million in seed money to launch the fund and support the capital planning initiatives developed through the VA's capital planning process. Mr. Speaker, VA controls the fourth largest inventory of owned, leased and operated federal real property. It is estimated that more than half of the VA's facilities are over 50 years old. Many structures date from the 19th Century, and many more were constructed in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Portions of the 24 VA medical center campuses are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Another 61 sites have been determined eligible or potentiality eligible for this designation. Given this array of heritage assets, H.R. 4768 would also allow the Secretary to enter into partnerships or agreements with public or private entities dedicated to historic preservation and to use resources from the Capital Asset Fund to facilitate the transfer, leasing or adaptive uses of these historic properties that no longer serve useful purposes as health-care facilities. The bill would also require an inventory and series of reports on the status of each historic property. The bill would also require the Department's annual budget submission to include information on each proposed and completed transfer of VA real property, including historic property, using this authority, as well to report deposits and expenditures from the new fund. Mr. Speaker, the Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act requires the VA to maintain long-term care programs, sustain a defined number of nursing home beds, and enhance other long-term programs, such as geriatric evaluation, domiciliary, and adult day health care, and respite, palliative and hospice programs, in both institutional and noninstitutional settings. The Congress' interest in these programs is strong and ongoing, as evidenced by our decision last year to extend many of the provisions of the 1999 Millennium Health Care Act for another 5 years. Since VA has struggled to meet many of these requirements of the Act, this bill would make the new property transfer authority contingent on the Secretary's certification that the VA is maintaining the long-term-care facility required in that Act. The bill also includes additional provisions endorsed by the administration, including one to clarify that the Veterans' Canteen Service can serve all enrolled veterans, not just hospitalized veterans. Congress established the Canteen Service in the late 1940s at a time when the VA health-care system was hospital-based and many patients were hospitalized for months at a time at facilities that were far from commercial centers. This restatement of the Canteen's mission is consistent with the shift of VA care over the past 10 years from hospital-based care to an outpatient-based health-care system. Veterans enrolled in the VA health care ought to be able to obtain the products and services available in VA canteens without any restrictions in law. Below are the FY 2004 and 2005 projects for which VA is requesting authorization and appropriation approval from Congress to proceed.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4768) to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into certain major medical facility leases, to authorize that Secretary to transfer real property subject to certain limitations, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of our time be controlled by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and just say how grateful I am for his sponsorship of this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4231, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2004. I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, my friend and colleague, for introducing this legislation, and for his astute judgment and perseverance that was essential in bringing this bill before the House today. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), as well the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), because, again, that partnership is so important in bringing these veterans bills to the floor; and I want to thank them for their leadership as well. As amended, H.R. 4231 would authorize several new and innovative approaches to help the VA maintain the quality of its workforce in all VA health care facilities. The bill would establish a pilot program to use outside recruitment agencies with interactive and online technologies to improve VA recruitment of vital nursing personnel. It would also allow the VA to offer three alternative work schedules for nurses so that employment in VA can be more sensitive to family and personal needs for scheduling flexibility and career development. It also contains a provision to aid State veterans homes which care for thousands of veterans in need of nursing home care each and every year. One measure in the bill as reported deserves a moment of discussion, because it caused some concern for members of the committee and organizations whose members might be affected. As reported, the bill would have prohibited VA from denying employment to a State-licensed registered nurse whose educational preparation was other than a baccalaureate degree. There is a well-documented shortage, Mr. Speaker, of trained, registered nurses in the United States. Community colleges in every State have stepped forward to offer professional nursing careers through associate degree preparation. Their success in preparing their students is reflected in the rate at which associate degreed nurses pass required State registered nurse examinations. Associate degree nurses are systematically and vigorously recruited in almost every health care institution in the United States. In the VA, there is a preference in hiring baccalaureate graduates and a policy of excluding associate degree nurses from internal VA promotions. At a time when nurses are in short supply and when community colleges are the primary source of new nursing graduates, should the VA be emphasizing baccalaureate degrees to the exclusion of others who are fully qualified as professional nurses? We think not. The committee is concerned that these current VA hiring practices and the variation in these practices noted in the recent report of the VA's National Commission on VA Nursing discouraged nurses with associate degrees from even seeking VA employment. VA's practice of exclusion in the face of high demand and scarcity of nursing personnel discourages qualified nurses from seeking VA employment. This practice also adversely affects VA's ability to retain current nurses. Following extensive discussions after this bill was ordered reported, the bill before the House today does not include section 4 of the bill as ordered reported. Section 4 was designed to keep the VA competitive with the private sector and to clarify that the lack of a baccalaureate degree could not be the basis to deny nurse employment in a VA facility. However, the aim of the provision was misread by some who believe that the best qualified nurses are those who have a bachelor's degree or some advanced degree in nursing. Most of us who seek health care look to providers who are competent, compassionate, critical thinkers, good communicators, and who are dedicated to expanding their knowledge of human susceptibility to disease. None of those qualities are guaranteed to be present in a particular graduate of any health care profession from any school. In the case of nurses, competence is tested by State licensing exams, and only those who pass the exam are licensed to practice in a State or in the VA. The other qualities I mentioned are acquired from associating with and learning from other professionals who possess them. There is no guarantee that any particular licensed professional possesses all of them. Mr. Speaker, VA's own hiring policy requires that persons with associate degrees in nursing be considered at entry-level positions. The committee supports the underlying premise of this policy, and there should be no discrimination based against persons who demonstrate competence by passing a State examination. Unfortunately, the committee has gathered irrefutable evidence that some VA medical centers did violate VA's hiring policy and discriminated against prospective employees who possessed an associate degree in nursing. The committee has recently received assurances, however, from the acting Under Secretary for Health that the VA will correct these improper practices. He has pledged that the VA will continue to adhere to its policy of considering appointment of licensed, registered nurses to entry-level positions without regard to the institution that granted them their nursing degree. In addition, the Under Secretary promised to undertake a number of significant steps to address any lingering effects from the improper recruiting practices which the committee discovered. In light of this commitment and the VA's concern about the potential inadvertent effect of this language, the bill before us today does not contain the nursing qualification provision as ordered by the committee. The committee looks forward to full reports on the execution of the several commitments made in a letter signed by Under Secretary on September 21 of this year, and I will include the letter at this point in the Record. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, September 21, 2004. Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter provides the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) position regarding H.R. 4231, Section 4--Appointment of nurses who do not have Baccalaureate Degrees. VHA is committed to hiring all levels of licensed nurses including Bachelors prepared and registered nurses who have associate degrees or diplomas. In calendar year 2000, VHA appointed 815 associate degree nurses; in calendar year 2004 to date, VHA has appointed 1,337 associate degree nurses. Given the national nursing shortage, VHA cannot afford to overlook associate degree nurses. We recognize and value their contributions. In order to further enhance recruitment of associate degree nurses, VHA is taking the following actions: 1. Instruct Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility managers and human resources staff to no longer include in vacancy announcements language limiting applicants to those who hold a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree or convey a preference for a BSN for ``Nurse I'' positions. 2. Continue working with the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) to augment our marketing and recruiting efforts to associate degree nursing graduates. The Office of Nursing Services in Washington, D.C., will meet with the AACC on a quarterly basis and will present a marketing and recruiting strategy to them. An acceptable plan, including a commitment of VA resources, shall be in place by June 30, 2005. 3. The Health Care Staff Development and Retention Office will visit at least one community college nursing program affiliated with the AACC in each Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) in the coming year, and VA will ensure local facilities conduct outreach to community college programs. VA will provide information regarding employment opportunities, promotion policies, and scholarship and loan repayment programs available from VA. The first cycle of visits will be completed by December 31, 2005. In addition, to accomplish this goal, VISN staff will conduct many of the visits in coordination with the Health Care Staff Development and Retention Office. I hope this information is of assistance to you. Should you need additional information, a member of your staff may contact Nevin Weaver, Director, Management Support Office at 202-273-5805. Sincerely, Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, MSHA, FACP, Acting Under Secretary for Health. The last provision in the amended bill I want to mention incorporates the provisions of a bill that I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4020. That bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make increased grants to assist States in hiring and retaining their own nursing personnel at State-owned operating nursing homes for veterans. State homes that currently receive per diem payments from the VA and have established employee incentive programs would be eligible to apply for incentive assistance and could receive up to 50 percent of the annual cost of the incentive program. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Civil War, State veterans homes began caring for veterans and are now the largest provider of long-term care to our Nation's veterans. Today, over 16,000 veterans are being cared for in 128 State veterans homes in 47 States in the key partnership between the States and the VA. The Department of Health and Human Services in 2002 surveyed the 50 States and Puerto Rico to learn how States are responding to the needs of health care workers. Ninety percent reported a shortage of nursing staff as a major concern in their responses. In efforts to respond to these nursing and other health care worker shortages, 44 of the 50 States reporting established task forces and commissions to study and seek solutions. The focus of the task forces or commissions in 25 States was to study shortages in the long-term health care force. I am aware of difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans homes in Vineland, Paramus, and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in recruiting and retaining nursing staff. We can address this effort with new Federal incentives that supplement and assist State initiatives in providing long-term care to veterans. I think this legislation provides a sound blending of authorities to help maintain quality nursing personnel for veterans cared for in both the VA and State-run facilities. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4231, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2004. I want to thank the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, my friend the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Simmons, for introducing this legislation and for his astute judgment and perseverance that was essential to bringing this bill before the House today. I also want to thank Mr. Evans, the ranking member of the full committee, and Mr. Rodriguez, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee for their leadership on this measure. As amended, H.R. 4231 would authorize several new and innovative approaches to help the VA maintain the quality of its workforce in all VA health care facilities. The bill would establish a pilot program to use outside recruitment agencies, with interactive and online technologies, to improve VA recruitment of vital nursing personnel. It would also allow VA to offer three new alternative work schedules for nurses so that employment in VA can be more sensitive to family and personal needs for scheduling flexibility and career development. It also contains a provision to aid State veterans homes which care for thousands of veterans in need of nursing home care each year. One measure in the bill as reported deserves a moment of discussion because it caused some concern by Members of the Committee and organizations whose members might be affected. As reported, the bill would have prohibited VA from denying employment to a State-licensed registered nurse whose educational preparation was other than a baccalaureate degree. There is a well-ducumented shortage of trained registered nurses in the United States. Community colleges in every state have stepped forward to offer professional nursing careers through associate degree preparation. Their success in preparing their students is reflected in the rate at which associate degree nurses pass required state registered nurse examinations. Associate degree nurses are systematically and vigorously recruited in almost every health care institution in the United States. In the VA there is a preference in hiring for baccalaureate graduates, and a policy of excluding associate degree nurses from internal VA promotions. At a time when nurses are in short supply and when community colleges are the primary source of new nursing graduates, should VA be emphasizing baccalaureate graduates to the exclusion of others who are fully qualified as professional nurses? We think not. The Committee is concerned that these current VA hiring practices, and the variation in these practices noted in the recent report of VA's National Commission on VA Nursing, discourage nurses with associate degrees from even seeking VA employment. VA's practice of exclusion in the face of high demand and scarcity of nursing personnel discourages qualified nurses from seeking VA employment. This practice also adversely affects VA's ability to retain current nurses. Following extensive discussions after this bill was ordered reported, the bill before the House today does not include section 4 of the bill as ordered reported. Section 4 was designed to keep VA competitive with the private sector, and to clarify that the lack of a baccalaureate degree could not be the basis to deny that nurse employment in a VA facility. However, the aim of the provision was misread by some who believe that the best-qualified nurses are those who have a bachelor's degree or some advanced degree in nursing. Most of us who seek health care look for providers who are competent, compassionate, critical thinkers, good communicators, and who are dedicated to expanding their knowledge of human susceptibility to disease. None of those qualities are guaranteed to be present in a particular graduate of any health professions school. In the case of nursing, competence is tested by State licensing exams, and only those who pass that exam are licensed to practice in a State or in the VA. The other qualities I mentioned are acquired from associating with and learning from other professionals who possess them. There is no guarantee that any particular licensed professional possesses all of them. VA's own hiring policy requires that persons with associate degrees in nursing be considered for entry-level positions. The Committee supports the underlying premise of this policy--that there should be no discrimination against person who demonstrate competence by passing a State examination. Unfortunately, the Committee has gathered irrefutable evidence that some VA medical centers did violate VA's hiring policy and discriminated against prospective employees who possessed an associate degree in nursing. The Committee has recently received assurance from the Acting Undersecretary for Health that VA will correct these improper practices; he has pledged that VA will continue to adhere to its policy of considering appointment of licensed registered nurses to entry-level positions without regard to the institution that granted them their nursing degree. In addition, the Under Secretary promised to undertake a number of significant steps to address any lingering effects from the improper recruiting practices which the Committee discovered. In light of this commitment, and the VA's concerns about the potential inadvertent effects of this language, the bill before the House today does not contain the nursing qualification provision as ordered reported by the Committee. The Committee looks forward to full reports on the execution of the several commitments it made in a letter signed by the Under Secretary on September 21, 2004. I ask unanimous consent to insert a copy of that letter in the Record at this point. The last provision in the amended bill I want to mention incorporates the provisions of a bill I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4020. That bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make increased grants to assist States in hiring and retaining their own nursing personnel at State-operated nursing homes for veterans. State homes that currently receive per diem payments from VA and have established employee incentive programs would be eligible to apply for incentive assistance and could receive up to 50 percent of the annual cost of the incentive program. In the wake of the Civil War, State veterans' homes began caring for veterans and are now the largest provider of long-term care to our Nation's veterans. Today, over 16,000 veterans are being cared for in 128 State veterans' homes in 47 States in a key partnership between the States and the VA. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2002 surveyed the 50 States and Puerto Rico to learn how States are responding to needs for health care workers. Ninety percent reported a shortage of nursing staff as a major concern in their responses. In efforts to respond to these nursing and other health workforce shortages, 44 of 50 States reported establishing task forces and commissions to study and seek solutions. The focus of the task forces or commissions in 25 States was to study shortages in the long-term care work force. While the HHS study documented the extent of the problems nationally, I am aware of difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans' homes in Vineland, Paramus and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in recruiting and retaining quality nursing staff. We can address this effort with new Federal incentives that supplement and assist State initiatives. State homes are important partners in providing long-term care to veterans. I think this legislation provides a sound blending of authorities to help maintain quality nursing personnel for veterans cared for in both VA and State-run facilities. Finally, H.R. 4231 would reform the qualification requirements for candidates for the position of Under Secretary for Health. Current law requires the Under Secretary for Health to be a doctor of medicine, limiting the pool of candidates that VA may consider for this vital executive position. Executives in the American health care industry who present exceptional credentials and experience, but did not receive a medical degree as a part of their preparation, are excluded by law from consideration. In fact, of the 62 top hospital, health insurance and managed care organizations in the United States, only five CEOs hold the doctor of medicine degree. H.R. 4231 would repeal the requirement for VA's Under Secretary for health to be a doctor of medicine. This change would allow a future Administration to consider candidates from the widest spectrum of executive talents, including doctors of medicine, nurses, dentists, health academics, health economists, insurance executives and other qualified candidates with the demonstrated abilities to fill such a key leadership role in veterans' affairs. Mr. Speaker, this is a carefully crafted bill that will advance measures that are important to providing our veterans with quality health care services. 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4231) to provide for a pilot program in the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve recruitment and retention of nurses, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission I am concerned about Kazakhstan's draft law on combating extremist activity, as the legislation could violate Kazakhstan's OSCE commitments on religious freedom and damage the country's positive reputation on religious tolerance and liberty. In President Nursultan Nazarbaev's address to the parliament on September 1, he urged deputies to pass the bill while dismissing concerns about the further regulation of religion. Nevertheless, the text is problematic in several respects and would benefit from further refinement. Considering that Kazakhstan wishes to be the OSCE Chair-in- Office in 2009, I urge Kazakhstan to seek the advice of the OSCE Panel of Experts on Religious Freedom or Belief, as President Nazarbaev wisely did two years ago regarding a proposed draft law on religion. Intended to combat terrorism, the draft law would criminalize membership in certain groups or the holding of certain beliefs, rather than combating actual criminal deeds. A critical portion of the law is also vague, as the text fails to define clearly the term ``extremism.'' The omission is glaring and will very likely lead to its misapplication. In addition, the draft uses the word ``religious'' ten times and links religion with an ill-defined understanding of ``extremism.'' In the context of an anti-terrorism law, such a connection gives rise to concern, as these types of statutes can easily be misused against unpopular religious communities. The draft law would strengthen state control over religious activity by giving the State Agency for Work with Religious Associations the ability to monitor groups. From its observations, the State Agency can recommend the banning of a group for ``extremist activity,'' but again the text does not spell out what activities would qualify. Another problematic provision included in the draft concerns the foreign classification of a group as ``extremist,'' as the law will honor the classification by another country and ban their activity in Kazakhstan. This clause would in effect allow the long arm of a repressive government to outlaw a group in Kazakhstan, as well. I remember when a Moscow court labeled the Salvation Army as a ``paramilitary'' organization; under this draft bill, Kazakhstan could follow this erroneous assertion and ban this well-respected humanitarian organization. Existing Kazakh law fully provides for the prosecution of criminal acts, so these new provisions are not only unnecessary but harmful. In fact, some articles of current law are too restrictive. For example, Article 375 of the Administrative Code, which requires the registration of religious groups, should be removed. I have received consistent reports since the promulgation of Article 375 of unregistered groups being penalized for legitimate activities and their facing civil and criminal sanctions. Considering the recurring misuse of civil regulations, I fear further abuse under the draft law. I understand that President Nazarbaev is concerned about the spread of extremism in his country, especially from ``radical'' Islamic groups. The President may be tempted to follow the actions of his neighbors, especially Uzbekistan, but I would advise him otherwise. The Uzbek Government has for years ruthlessly clamped down on pious Muslims suspected of being associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir. This reactionary and heavy-handed policy has proven counterproductive, antagonizing the devout Muslim population and leaving it receptive to other, radical voices. Instead of defeating terrorists, demanding legal requirements for religious practice and Uzbekistan's harsh responses have restricted the religious freedoms of the many peaceful Muslims and Christians wanting to practice their faith. Obviously, individuals involved in criminal activity in Kazakhstan should be punished. But, by banning entire groups, particularly independent mosques outside the control of the state-backed Muslim Spiritual Association, entire communities will be penalized. The result will be the inappropriate limiting of a fundamental freedom, while doing little to prevent criminal acts. In closing, the Congress of World and Traditional Religions convened by President Nazarbaev himself was successful in bringing together Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu leaders to discuss tolerance and understanding. I fear that the draft law on extremism, if not amended, will sully Kazakhstan's reputation on religious tolerance by unduly limiting religious freedoms through the criminalization of certain memberships and beliefs as opposed to addressing real criminal activity.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) control the remaining time on our side.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 137) calling for the suspension of Sudan's membership on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In April of 2004, Mr. Speaker, at the same time as world leaders were gathered in Kigali, Rwanda, to remember the Rwandan genocide of 10 years earlier, a humanitarian cease-fire was signed between the government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, and the Sudan Justice and Equality Movement to end the atrocities and reverse the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The agreement was facilitated by the U.S., European Union, the African Union and the United Nations. All parties agreed to take immediate steps to stop the violence and atrocities being perpetrated by the Janjaweed militias. Sadly, the agreement was not worth the paper it was written on, and the violence continued. The U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan later said, ``The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved.'' President Bush confirmed this conclusion on September 9 by declaring ``The United States is appalled by the violence in Darfur, Sudan. The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than 1 million people.'' Mr. Speaker, despite the best efforts of the U.S. Government, including the extraordinary efforts of Ambassador Williamson at the U.N. Conference in Geneva, and I was there and I saw it up close and personal, he did an extraordinary job; Sudan was given nothing more than a half-hearted slap on the wrist during the sixtieth session of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights which concluded its work in May. Like I said, I was there in Geneva, and I was appalled when Sudan was reelected to serve on the commission for another 2 years. The hypocrisy of the election of Sudan, one of the worst violators of human rights on the planet, to serve on the U.N. Commission For Human Rights should not be lost on anyone. It is utterly outrageous. Sudan now, as it has in the past, uses its clout on the Human Rights Panel to thwart scrutiny of its policies and to water down resolutions of condemnation. Sudan uses its seat on the committee to network and to collude with other rogue nations to run interference for the dictatorships. And again, I saw that firsthand as they were walking the halls in Geneva and working the room to try to water down resolutions. Finally, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, the atrocities committed in Darfur have all been well documented. An estimated 50,000 people have been killed and another 300,000 face imminent death in the coming months. Over a million have been displaced, and some 200,000 others have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. This atrocity must come to an end. This resolution again puts us on record in trying to mitigate and, hopefully, end this crisis. Mr. Speaker, in April 2004, at the same time as world leaders were gathered in Kigali, Rwanda to remember the Rwandan genocide of 10 years earlier, a humanitarian cease-fire was signed between the government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, and the Sudan Justice and Equality Movement to end the atrocities and reverse the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The agreement was facilitated by the United States Government, the European Union, the African Union, and the United Nations. All parties agreed to take immediate steps to stop the violence and atrocities being perpetrated by the Janjaweed militias. Sadly, the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on and the violence continued. The U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan later said, ``The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved.'' President Bush affirmed this conclusion on September 9 by declaring, ``The United States is appalled by the violence in Darfur, Sudan . . . The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than one million people.'' Despite the best efforts by the United States Government, including the extraordinary efforts of Ambassador Williamson, Sudan was given nothing more than a half-hearted slap on the wrist during the 60th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which concluded its work in May. I was there in Geneva and was appalled when Sudan was reelected to serve on the Commission for another two years. The hyprocacy of the election of Sudan--one of the worst violators of human rights on the planet--to serve on the U.N. Commission for Human Rights should not been lost on anyone. It is utterly outrageous. Sudan uses its clout on the Human Rights Panel to thwart scrutiny of its policies and to water down resolutions of condemnation. Sudan uses its seat on the Committee to network and collude with other rogue nations to run interference for dictatorships. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in the past 4 months that this House has considered resolutions which have shed light on the crisis in the Darfur region. The first resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 403, condemned the Government of Sudan for its attacks against civilians in Darfur. The second, House Concurrent Resolution 467, declared that the atrocities taking place in Darfur constitute genocide. This declaration of genocide was affirmed by President Bush and Secretary of State Powell. Senate Concurrent Resolution 137, which lies before you now, represents a logical next step. Senate Concurrent Resolution 137 endorses the Secretary of State's call for an investigation into violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law that have occurred in Darfur, and calls for Sudan's suspension from the Commission on Human Rights until that investigation has been completed. Should the investigation lead to a determination by the United Nations that genocide has occurred or is occurring in Darfur, the resolution calls for the removal of Sudan from the Human Rights Commission. Finally, the resolution calls upon the Member States of the Human Rights commission to convene an immediate special session to consider suspension of Sudan's membership. The atrocities committed in Darfur have been well documented. An estimated 50,000 people have been killed, another 300,000 face certain death in the coming months, over a million have been internally displaced and some 200,000 others have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. Attacks show a systematic pattern and include murder, rape, gender-based violence, and other scorched earth tactics. Despite the existence of a cease-fire, African Union monitors have confirmed government support for and participation in attacks against civilians in Darfur as recently as August 26, 2004. Human Rights Watch reports that the Sudanese Government has allowed the Janjaweed to maintain military camps in all Darfur states--several of which they share with the Sudanese Army--and that many Janjaweed have been incorporated into the army or police. On July 22, 2004 the House voted unanimously to declare that the atrocities in Sudan constituted genocide. On September 9, 2004, the State Department followed suit, releasing a report which outlines these atrocities and concludes that the Sudanese Government has ``promoted systematic killings based on race and ethnic origin,'' and that these acts constitute genocide. It is unconscionable that a government which has perpetrated genocide would be welcome to sit on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights--the very body charged with the protection of human rights around the globe. Sudan should be in the dock--being held accountable for crimes against humanity. Sudan's flagrant disregard for the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes a mockery of the Human Rights Commission's work, and tangibly undermines that work. Its continued presence on that Commission degrades the United Nations system as a whole. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights places great importance on each member country having a common understanding of human rights and freedoms. One must wonder if the Government of Sudan, which has demonstrated such a flagrant disregard for these principles, has ever read that document. If they have, surely they have not taken it to heart. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the recent adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1565, which establishes the International Commission of Inquiry called for by both this body and by President Bush. But in light of the evidence already before us, I believe it would be extraordinarily difficult to make an argument against suspending Sudan's membership from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. This resolution is timely, it is logical, and I urge your support.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, less than 5 minutes ago, I was in a room here in the Capitol filled with children who were frozen embryos, several months--even years ago--who went on to be adopted. The stories of these adopted embryos, with names like Kate and Mike, are compelling. We know of at least 60 children who were once cryogenically frozen but have now gone on to be adopted. An adoption program called Snowflakes adoption agency that has been promoting this loving adoption option and underscores why we need to protect these newly created human beings and not steal their stem cells for use in research. Let me also point out to my colleagues that we often hear the term ``spare embryos'' in connection with embryonic stem cell research. I hope that we will cease employing that very false term. There is no such thing as a spare embryo. These individuals can be adopted, they are being adopted; and they are just like any other little boy or girl. We should put our emphasis, and our research dollars, Mr. Speaker, on adult stem cell research and cord blood stem cell research. This research has no ethical downside. And it has worked. That is where the real breakthroughs are occurring each and every day. Heart repair and myriad other advances are occurring not from embryonic, but from adult--and cord blood stem cells.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in very strong opposition to the Davis amendment and the other four amendments being offered on Cuba today. Under the current U.S. laws, we all know, travel to Cuba is allowed for 13 licensed categories. Last year, under these licenses, approximately 100,000 U.S. citizens traveled to Cuba, the vast majority of whom were family members. However, these new regulations promulgated by the administration would further refine this travel to deny at least some of the $96 million in hard currency that has been gotten and gleaned by this rogue regime, through the manipulation of those family visits in 2003, the number from that year. Custom duties and excess baggage fees have added $20 million more in revenue to this gross dictatorship. To my colleagues, I want to say that I just held a hearing, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), on the issue of human trafficking. Cuba is a Tier III country, an egregious violator when it comes to human trafficking. Approval of this amendment would prop up a regime that not only traffics in human persons, but allows for the exploitation of young children, who are reduced to this horrible thing called child prostitution. When we allow trafficking and child prostitution for the amusement of those who travel there, many of whom bring that hard currency that is now permitted by this administration, I think we are seriously erring and making a grave mistake. We are also enobling and enabling a human rights violator. Let me also say to my good friend and colleague who spoke a moment ago about the political prisoner, Dr. Biscet, and so many others who are subjected to unspeakable cruelty. A couple of years ago, I offered an amendment that said we will lift the travel ban if and only if the prisoners are let go. Fidel Castro has said one big no to that. And not only has he continued to incarcerate and torture hundreds of political prisoners, the best and the brightest and the bravest of Cuba, he now has arrested another 75 to 80 more and meted out sentences of 25 to 27 years. That is unconscionable. We do not want to directly or indirectly enable that kind of dictatorship, that kind of repressive regime. If my colleagues or myself were sitting in one of Cuba's gulags, we would hope that someone would say human rights do matter; that we are not going to provide the hard currency to prop up his regime so that his thugs can so mistreat those prisoners. I have tried, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), to get into the prisons of Cuba and I have been denied. I can get into Cuba and meet with Fidel Castro and have a jawfest for 4 or 5 hours, as some of my colleagues have, but to get into the prisons to say these people should be allowed to go, no, we cannot do that. The ICRC, the Red Cross, has tried repeatedly to get into those prisons and has been refused. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is all about human rights and enabling a dictatorship. Say no to the Davis amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my friend and colleague, those kinds of words have no place in a reasonable and dignified debate. That is beyond the pale. I would hope the gentleman would retract them.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1318) to name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Sunnyside, Queens, New York, as the ``Thomas P. Noonan, Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4836 would name the VA Medical Center in the City of Amarillo, Texas, for Lance Corporal Thomas E. Creek. This heroic Marine gave his life on February 13, 1969, to save fellow Marines by falling on a grenade near Cam Lo, Vietnam. He was awarded our Nation's highest military declaration, the Congressional Medal of Honor. Lance Corporal Creek was only 18 years old when he went above and beyond the call of duty while serving as rifleman with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines. He was one of three Medal of Honor recipients who served with the 9th Marines during the Vietnam War. I commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), for introducing H.R. 4836 to honor one of our Nation's heroes, and I will momentarily yield to him. The VA medical center in Amarillo, Texas, Mr. Speaker, opened in 1940 and played an important role during and after World War II in caring for and rehabilitating U.S. servicemembers. The medical center today provides general medical and surgical treatment and alcohol rehabilitation and vocational rehab services for veterans. Expansion and renovation projects have kept the facility modern, and it currently has some 69 inpatient beds and 120 nursing care beds. I think it is entirely fitting and appropriate to remember the ultimate sacrifice of this young brave Marine by naming the Amarillo VA Medical Center for him. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the prime author of this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4836) to name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Amarillo, Texas, as the ``Thomas E. Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank and commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Royce) for his authorship of this very important and necessary resolution, and I am very pleased to join as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 760; and I join in the chorus of the Americans who stand in solidarity with the Russian people in their grief for those who have been murdered by terrorist actions. No words can adequately express the shock and sorrow that we feel at the events in Beslan. Our hearts go out to the people of Beslan as they bury their children and their neighbors. They have our deepest sympathy, and they have our prayers. Our hearts go out to the wounded and disabled, especially the young, who will bear the scars of terrorism for the rest of their lives. This resolution properly deplores the terrorist attacks against Russia and expresses condolences to the families of the victims. Their grief is our grief. Their anger is our anger. Their loss is our loss. Mr. Speaker, there is ample reason to criticize Russia's military operations in Chechnya. I continue to believe that Moscow's strategy in that tortured region has been brutal, ill-advised, and self-defeating. As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have met numerous times with Russian leaders to protest their policy in Chechnya and have held a number of hearings, including with people like Elena Bonner, to protest what is going on there. But let me make it very clear that there is no justification, no justification whatsoever, for the bloody violence that was perpetrated by cowardly terrorists who use innocent children to achieve political ends. If the terrorists thought they were helping the people of Chechnya by killing innocent people in North Ossetia, they were tragically in error. The people of Chechnya seek a respite from war. They and many in Russia want a just peace, not more carnage. Slaughtering children and traumatizing many more betrays the cause of peace. Mr. Speaker, I trust this resolution reflects not only the sentiments of this House but also of millions of Americans that we represent. We mourn the tragic loss, the wanton loss of innocent lives. And again I want to commend my colleagues, especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), ranking member, for their leadership on this important resolution.