Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the author of this legislation 5 years ago, a very hard-working chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies but, from my point of view, even more importantly, a leader in the area of human rights, and has been for the last 23 years as a Member of Congress. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in support of this resolution which clearly is important to recognize the fifth anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 because that was an historic landmark piece of legislation. And we today renew our commitment, rededicate ourselves to promoting the tolerance that was embodied in that legislation, that anyone's faith or lack of faith needs to be respected. Certainly, at a time when there is a growing intolerance, particularly in the Middle East and in places like the People's Republic of China, where we have actually seen a worsening of religious oppression, we need to speak out boldly and clearly and unambiguously for religious freedom. This legislation, the law and, the heartfelt sentiments behind it are going to be carried forward robustly to bring freedom to those persecuted for their faith. Let me also point out that there are a number of countries that are off many people's radar screens. China, yes, we know it is bad and getting worse there, particularly as it relates to the Uygurs--the Muslims--the Buddhists, and the Falon Gong--who are being tortured and mistreated in growing numbers, even followed by Chinese agents into this country and harassed, which, is amazing to me--as well as the underground Catholic Church and the underground Evangelical and Christian Church. If you are not part of the officially recognized Chinese Government-controlled Church, watch out. You will be severely dealt with, particularly if you step over a very ambiguous line they have made in the sand. Let me say that this legislation was landmark. There are countries like Turkmenistan, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam that have seen a deterioration, as well as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kirkastan, Bellarus and even Russia. I would point out to my colleagues that some of the more matured democracies, like France, have seen a growing intolerance when it comes to religious expression. As a matter of fact, I spent 2 hours meeting with the prime author of their religious cults legislation and was appalled at the far-reaching nature of that legislation, to designate a body of religious belief or denomination a cult. Once branded, it comes under the severe repression of the government; and my hope is that that legislation will be junked in the near future, although I will not hold my breath. But in good countries like France, where you would expect there to be a tolerance, we see the tide going in the other direction. As a matter of fact, the Chinese and other governments have actually looked at the French model and are looking to emulate it and to put a cover, a facade, on their own repression harkening back to that legislation. I just want to point out to my colleagues as well, that getting here 5 years ago was not all that easy. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) will remember that we went through several iterations of the language that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) originally introduced, always with his full concurrence and his meticulous attention to detail. The previous administration, at first, was against it. Secretary Albright and John Shattuck, the Assistant Secretary, said if we pass this, we will somehow set up a hierarchy of human rights. If ever there was a bogus argument, that was it. When all of us joined in on passing and implementing the Jackson- Vanik amendment, we did not set up a hierarchy of human rights when it came to immigration. When many of us were against, as we all were, apartheid in South Africa and believed that sanctions were a means to that end, which I believed very strongly, that did not say we were putting racism above any other human rights. It was in addition to, not in lieu of. And, thankfully, and with the help of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), we were able to craft legislation that, ultimately, the Clinton Administration signed into law; and now, 5 years later, is being very, very vigorously implemented by the Bush Administration. Let me also remind my colleagues this act created an ambassador at large, which is now being ably filled by Tom Hanford. He has a great staff. Tom Farr, who recently retired, did the yeoman's work in that position. There was not a country on the face of the Earth, there was not a religious intolerance or practice that he was not aware of, as well as the staff. They did a very good job in chronicling accurately what indeed is going on around the world. And from the basis of that chronicling, we are able to take more effective action. We also created a Commission on International Religious Freedom, which is also staffed, as well as manned, by commissioners who are experts in the fields, and I think they are doing a tremendous job in giving us an independent look, in addition to the State Department office, as to what is going on in country after country as it relates to religious freedom. I would just say to my colleagues that for the countries of particular concern, the designation that was created in the legislation has also been very, very useful. But I would hope, and I recently wrote, along with other Members, a letter to Secretary Colin Powell asking that some of the countries that are not on this list right now be put on it because of either their deterioration with regard to religious freedom or because they have been ongoing, egregious violators on it. And some of those countries we would like to see on the list include Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. We believe they should be designated as CPCs. Hopefully, as the analysis is done on their practices, the State Department will come to that determination. Again, I want to thank my colleagues. When we finally got this legislation down to the White House 5 years ago after numerous hearings, rewrites and rewrites and rewrites, it was a good bipartisan product; and, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) was there every step of the way, working with us on that legislation. I actually chaired the subcommittee that worked on it. We held the hearings together and made sure that this legislation was shepherded through the House and into the Senate. But the yeoman's work was done by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I again want to single him out and say how grateful we all are for this landmark and historic piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 423) recognizing the 5th anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and urging a renewed commitment to eliminating violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion and protecting fundamental human rights, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for sponsoring this very important resolution and for his eloquent remarks just made on behalf of the Pope. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Sensenbrenner resolution urging the President on behalf of people of the United States to present the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Pope John Paul II, who in his 25 years as leader of the Catholic Church, has become pastor to the world, boldly proclaiming the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, and its message of love, hope and reconciliation. The Holy Father walks the path to peace that surpasses understanding, the road that leads to heaven. Even at age 83 and struggling with various health ailments, including Parkinsons disease, the Pope's charisma and steadfast faith shine brightly, giving hope to millions of people of all faiths. Mr. Speaker, as we know, during his pontificate the Holy Father has visited over 125 different countries, several more than once, proclaiming the good news to millions and has been seen by more people than anyone in human history. In what is believed to be the largest gathering ever, he spoke before an estimated 6 million people at a mass at World Youth Day in the Philippines in 1995. Pope John Paul II is truly a world leader and has been an unparalleled champion of those who cannot speak for themselves, the poor, the disenfranchised, unborn children, the disabled, even those condemned to death and those whose basic rights as children of God are trampled upon by oppressive regimes. Mr. Speaker, it has been noted that years before he was Pope when he was teaching at a university in Poland as a young priest, a communist student launched an aggressive attack against religion during class. The student, an avowed atheist, was so filled with rage, his fellow students feared that the young priest, then known as Karol Wojtyla, would lose his temper and kick the student out of class. Instead, Father Wojtyla had listened to the student before calmly and thoroughly refuting his argument point by point. After class the two had a conversation that began a dialogue. The student would later say that helped him greatly when confronting atheist communists after he converted to Catholicism and after he himself became a priest. Mr. Speaker, it is worth recalling that Pope John Paul II's first words as Pope to the world included the message, ``Do not be afraid.'' This message was part of an unrelenting crusade against the forces of atheistic communism that was instrumental in its collapse. No one, Mr. Speaker, can dispute that John Paul II's historic visit to Poland in 1979 inspired the creation of the solidarity movement with its great leader Lech Walesa in the midst of unspeakable turmoil and personal risk. Remember, this Pope was shot, and he actually, after he was shot, and he was actually we believe saved miraculously, went to the jail cell of his would-be assassin to forgive that man for the crime he attempted and for the pain and suffering that he visited upon the Pope. Despite all of those personal risks, Pope John Paul II was, during those terrible years, and is the brave voice of reason, candor and hope. Even Mikhail Gorbachev admitted that the sweeping changes in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union itself would not have occurred had it not been for this Pope. Today, the Pope continues to preach, Mr. Speaker, the message of life, hope and love amid the oppressive tide of the culture of death. His teachings not only inspire the faithful today but will continue to have an impact long after his work on earth is complete. Many of his most profound messages are contained in 13 incisive encyclicals, including Evangelium Vitae, ``The Gospel of Life,'' which reminds all of us, especially those in public service, that the gift of human life is so precious, so full of dignity, that it must remain inviolable and be defended against all means of violence. The Pope writes in that very important document that, ``This is what is happening at the level of politics and government,'' and I quote him, ``the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people, even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of relativism which reigns unopposed, the right ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part.'' Elsewhere, Mr. Speaker, in Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II states in unambiguous terms that, ``Abortion and euthanasia are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws,'' he writes and said, ``There is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. In the case of intrinsically unjust law,'' he continues, ``such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, just let me say this. My dear wife Marie and I have had the awesome privilege of meeting the Holy Father on two occasions, and we were awed. We were deeply struck by his innate goodness, the clarity that we see in his eyes, the love that he emanates and by his gentleness. When we were in Newark, New Jersey, at the cathedral there when he came during one of his visits to the U.S., and we happened to be there as a family. He walked over to my youngest daughter Elyse, gave her a big nice kiss on the top of the head, and we could just see the compassion of this man in his eyes and in his gestures and in his heart. We were also even faces in the crowd in 1979 at New York's Shea Stadium when he came in on his first trip and again were inspired by this good man. Mr. Speaker, we have been on numerous occasions and I think many Members, House and Senate, Democrats, Republicans, it does not matter, have all been touched by his care and his compassion for others, a man that is so completely rooted in God. We have been touched by his devotion to the Blessed Mother. He is a man who in word and deed unselfishly cares for the least of our brethren. John Paul II is truly the vicar of Christ on earth, a man who has and continues to be faithfully and courageously walking in the shoes of the fisherman, Saint Peter.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and the underlying bill which will follow immediately thereafter. I want to just point out to my colleagues that the concurrent receipt victory that is in this bill is significant, it is profound, it is historic, and will make a major difference in the lives of our men and women who have served ably and honorably in our military, have served for 20 years or more, and also have been disabled. It will provide that anyone who is service-connected disabled 50 percent or more or combat- related of any rating will get the full concurrent receipt after a phase-in of 10 years. Let me point out to my colleagues that this adds about $22 billion in benefits over 10 years to veterans compensation. This is not an insignificant amount of money. After the phase-in period, let me remind my colleagues as well that this bill adds about a $3.5 billion every year to service connected disabled vets. So the next 10 years we are talking about another $35 billion more that will go to our disabled veterans. That is in excess of $57 billion to our disabled veterans as a result of this legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee, for his work, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and so many others who worked on this to make sure that we get concurrent receipt resolved.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic motion to recommit is among the most cynical and political motions I have seen in my 23 years in Congress. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is a cheap shot, cynically designed and crafted to politicize disabled veterans and to mock the historic benefits increase contained in this bill, $22 billion in the first 10 years and at least $57 billion over the next 20 years for disabled veterans. For example, a 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans over the next 10 years may see an increase of approximately $167,000. That is brand new money. They do not have it now. Under this bill these deserving men and women will get it. The same goes for those whose wounds are combat related or rated 50% or above by the VA. For the last 100 years, as we know, the unfairness of concurrent receipt has been with us. For most of those years, the Democrats had a hammer lock on the House and Senate and did nothing. In the early 90's the Democrats had it all. Bill Clinton was in the White House for 8 long years. Yet nothing was done on the Bilirakis bill. Nothing was done to reform concurrent receipt. Even this year, it wasn't in the Democratic budget. We tried to make this a bipartisan effort--today's motion is pure politics. I am sickened by this kind of posturing. I know the game you are playing. This is all about the next election. Our bill is a victory for veterans. This will make a significant addition to the benefits received by our disabled veterans. I hope Members will vote for it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out for human rights in Burma and to call for continued action against this regime. I commend my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts for his great leadership on this issue and his tremendous efforts on behalf of the Burmese people. Earlier this year I stood on the floor of this House in support of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The piece of legislation passed this House overwhelmingly, by a vote of 418-2. In the bill, we called on the State Department, and especially Secretary of State Colin Powell, to use every opportunity to press for freedom and democracy in Burma. I want to publicly encourage the Secretary to continue his outspoken call for freedom in Burma, and suggest some changes in the international strategy to bring about democracy and human rights in that country. It is now clear that United Nations efforts to bring about democracy in Burma have completely failed. Rather than making progress, the efforts have simply bought time for the regime, and allowed it to perpetuate its increasingly brutal stranglehold on power. The United Nations envoy to Burma, rather than serving as a positive voice for change, has repeatedly bailed out the regime just as critical international pressure has begun to make a difference. His defense of the regime's head of military intelligence Khin Nyunt is beyond unacceptable. It is time to review the personnel and mandate on the United Nations role in Burma, and to give a qualified mediator the tools they need, including access to the United Nations Security Council, to make a difference. The State Department should lead the efforts for these changes at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly. The process is broken. We need to revamp this system with new actors as soon as possible.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the interpretation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). It was also my understanding that an organization can satisfy the prohibition that the gentleman has referred to if it states in a grant application, a grant agreement, or both that it does not promote, support, or advocate such actions since it has no policy regarding this issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-386 has made an enormous positive difference in our efforts to end modern-day slavery, a nefarious enterprise that, according to the United Nations, nets the exploiters something in the order of $7 billion to $10 billion each year. This modern-day slavery, this terrible practice that is in our midst, enslaves more than 800,000 to 900,000 people according to the United States Department of State, of which about 20,000 are brought to this country every year to be exploited in the sex trade and in other aspects of this modern-day slavery. That number, I would point out to my colleagues, does not even include those who are trafficked intra- country. For instance, in places like India where there are millions of women who are forced into sexual slavery, they are not even counted in this number. It is for the victim, a difference without a distinction like the difference between a refugee and the internally displaced person--IDP. They suffer the same misery, but they have not crossed a geographic border. But nevertheless, the exploitation continues. The 3-year-old landmark law with its numerous mutually-reinforcing provisions to prevent trafficking, to protect victims, and to prosecute to the max those who traffic, has been a model statute worldwide. Indeed, many of its provisions have been adopted into law, in whole or in part, by governments around the world. Mr. Speaker, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 does not pull any punches. By naming the names of countries out of compliance with what we call ``minimum standards'', and by imposing smart sanctions that are prescribed in the Act, the withholding of nonhumanitarian foreign aid, for example, we have signaled to the world that ending this egregious practice is among the highest priorities of the United States. By prosecuting traffickers and imposing serious jail time, and I would note parenthetically that in my own State of New Jersey, a group of traffickers were convicted under the Act and got just over 17 years for their crimes. So the law is being implemented around the country. There is something in the order of 79 current Federal prosecutions that have been initiated. We are telling these exploiters that we are coming after you and you are going to have to pay for your crimes. By protecting the victims, Mr. Speaker, and not sending them back to their home country where they are often exploited again in a cycle of exploitation, we say to the victims, we will try to make you safe and secure. I would point out that nearly 400 survivors of trafficking are already getting help here in the United States and rebuilding their shattered lives. For its part, Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has aggressively sought to implement both the spirit and the letter of the law. Our former Congressional colleague, John Miller, is doing an exemplary job as director of what we call the Trafficking in Persons Office. He is living this 24-7 and has a fire in the belly to try to stop the traffickers and provide a save haven for the women. I commend our former colleague for his outstanding work. President Bush himself is deeply committed to ending slavery and recently told the U.N. General Assembly that trafficking was a ``special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and the most vulnerable.'' He called on the United Nations and its member states to do more; and I am proud of the fact that President Bush has led in both spirit, word and in deed. Last year President Bush issued what is known as NSPD-22 which established a zero-tolerance policy regarding the U.S. Government employees and contractor personnel representing U.S. abroad who engage in trafficking in persons. In other words, if you do business with the United States, if you are one of our contractors, do not be involved in any way, shape or form, do not be complicit in trafficking. If you do, you are in big trouble and its going to cost you the contract. The DOD Inspector General, Joseph Schmitz, has released phase one of a global assessment of human trafficking as it relates to the Department of Defense and its activity. We have found that in many of our deployments, that many of our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen were actually visiting places where women have been trafficked from Russia and the Philippines. And this is particularly the case in South Korea. Thankfully, as a result of this Inspector General's report and the action plan that followed, we are achieving the zero-tolerance policy as it relates to our deployments, and hopefully NATO will follow suit soon. Notwithstanding these initial successes, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that even more has to be done to destroy this mob-infested criminal enterprise known as human trafficking. The bill before the House today, the Smith-Lantos bill, enhances our efforts. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on this. We are working in a partnership that is really making a difference. This legislation that is before us today tries to update, expand, and improve our law. There have been lessons learned since the first law was enacted 3 years ago. They are incorporated into this legislation as we try to do a better job in mitigating the suffering of the victims while simultaneously going after those who traffic and the countries that harbor traffickers who are part of the problems themselves. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It has a number of mutually-reenforcing provisions, just like the original bill. But it updates current law and expands it as well. For example, we would now require that U.S. contracts relating to international affairs contain clauses authorizing termination by the United States if a contractor engages in human trafficking or procures commercial sexual services while the contract is in force. We have found, Mr. Speaker, through hearings that have been held, that companies like DynCorps, where we have provided money for their overseas work in the area of policing, particularly in the Balkans, that some of their members, some of those that we are underwriting the cost of, are engaged in trafficking. This is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the only things that happened to those individual employees was they were sent home. The contract continued unabated. This legislation will say, Department of State, DOD or any of the others can rip up that contract if a contractor's personnel are involved in trafficking. We also promote innovative trafficking prevention initiatives, such as border interdiction programs. And we urge working with private/ public partnership on trying to educate and alert travelers as to what is going on with our sex tourism laws so that they know they will be prosecuted. An informational campaign will follow from that. We provide protections for trafficking victims by allowing State or local law enforcement authorities to assist in identifying the victims of trafficking who have cooperated in the investigation or prosecution of trafficking crimes. We allow trafficking victims to sue their traffickers in U.S. courts. We eliminate the requirement that the victim of trafficking between the ages of 15 and 18 must cooperate with the investigation and the prosecution of his or her trafficker in order to be eligible for a T Visa. That was an oversight in the first law. It is fixed in this legislation. We allow benefits and services available to victims of trafficking to be available to their family members and that they may be legally entitled to join them here in the United States. So we do not have the separation and we do not have the situation where they can be exploited back home because their daughter or their sister or their wife, who had been trafficked, goes into a situation of protection here. They are no longer vulnerable back home. They can come and join them as immigrants. We also provide prosecution of trafficking-related crimes through a number of provisions, including making human trafficking crimes predicate offenses for RICO charges. We encourage the use of international law enforcement academies to train foreign law enforcement authorities, prosecutors and members of the judiciary regarding human trafficking. We permit Federal anti-trafficking statutes to be used to prosecute acts of trafficking involving foreign commerce or occurring in a special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Equally important in this bill we would elevate, John Miller's position, the Director of the Trafficking in Persons Office, an ambassador-at-large, raising his status and the ability to make changes both in the building, as well as outside of it, in this very important fight. There is much more. Naturally, we authorize the money it will take to do the job and effectively implement the new law. By and large, this bill is a significant upgrading. This is a bipartisan bill. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 H.R. 2620.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just have a few closing comments. We have no further speakers, so I reserve the balance of our time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my good friend and colleague, who has been a champion on behalf of human rights in general but particularly on this issue of trafficking. His bill, the Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill, contains many of the provisions that need to be implemented. And not only has he faithfully implemented those; he has provided additional funding and resources for that. So I want to thank him for his leadership. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2620) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and say a very special thanks to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), who has been a stalwart in promoting this legislation. When the gentleman from Illinois was chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 3 years ago, we ran into a serious barrier to provisions which referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Hyde and Charles Kennedy, our former colleague, were indispensable in making sure that the legislation was not bottlenecked in that committee, and sure enough, a compromise was worked out, and the bill was released out of the Committee on the Judiciary. I also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership on this issue as well. And majority leader Tom Delay for supporting the bill and getting it to the floor. I also thank Renee Austell and Walker Roberts for their work from the Committee on International Relations, Dorothy Taft who is our chief of staff for the Commission on Security Cooperation in Europe, Maureen Walsh, who is also from the commission, who has worked on this, George Phillips, Dina Funderburk who works in the office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), David Abramowitz, a good friend on the Democratic side who has worked so well with us, and I specially want to thank Joseph Rees, who is now our U.S. Ambassador to East Timor. He worked night and day on the original trafficking law and other pieces of legislation when he was staff director of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. Joseph used to be the general counsel for the INS. He knew those issues intimately and was indispensable in getting the original trafficking legislation passed. It took almost 2 years to craft that legislation. It ran into a myriad of obstacles. It was referred to four full committees, 11 subcommittees. A number of barriers had to be overcome, and Joseph did a great job, and I thank him for that. I also remind my colleagues, and I did not go through all of the provisions, but there is so much in this bill. Just recently, the President determined which countries were Tier III, egregious violators which were not making serious and sustained efforts to get off the list, thereby subjecting themselves to a number of sanctions that will be imposed. There are a number of countries that are Tier II. In other words, they have a very serious problem with human trafficking, but they have taken efforts to get off the list. They have passed laws, issued decrees, prosecuted traffickers, and protected victims, but we are concerned, that there could be some erosion or backsliding so they will be watched. I believe under John Miller's leadership and, of course, with the strong oversight capabilities of the Congress, we will keep pressure on those countries. We create in this bill a new watch list to try to prevent that kind of slippage from occurring. Yes, the sword of Damocles has been removed, for the time being, from these countries, and there were some 15 that were on Tier III that were at risk of losing significant benefits from the United States Government, many of which got off that through a flurry of activity. But I want them to know, and I say this in bipartisan way, we will be watching. If there is any backsliding, if they do not continue the work to mitigate, and hopefully end, this horrific practice of human slavery, they will lose those benefits. We will take our case everywhere, including the World Bank, international multilateral lending institutions, and they will lose their support if they do not end this complicity in human trafficking. So the watch list is a very important inclusion in this statute or soon-to-be statute. I just want to bring Members' attention to it. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, a bipartisan bill, and I hope Members will support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week the Turkish Republic, an original participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, will mark its 80th anniversary. The Turkish Government, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is working hard toward membership in the European Union. The accession of Turkey to the Union would recognize the important reforms that have already been adopted and accelerate the reform process. The various constitutional reform packages in recent years have addressed, or begun to address, many longstanding human rights concerns. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission I am pleased to note that much needed change is beginning to take place. For example, the crucial issue of torture is finally receiving the attention necessary to prevent such abuse and address the legacy of this endemic scourge. Perpetrators of torture are facing punishment by a new generation of state prosecutors. For the first time, police who have committed acts of torture are being brought to justice. However the ongoing use of torture in southeast Turkey in the guise of anti-terrorism is an outrage that Turkey must bring to a halt. It is not enough to pass these reforms or to hold a few show trials. No, all transgressors must be arrested and tried. There must be a zero tolerance policy in place on torture. Other issues of concern have also benefited from the reform package process. For example, religious communities with ``foundation'' status may now acquire real property, as well as construct new churches and mosques and other structures for religious use. However, there is a considerable gap between the law and its application. Also, while the problem of allowing the return of internally displaced persons who fled the internal conflict with the PKK terrorist organization remains. Renewed efforts to address this problem are promising, such as inviting the UN Rapporteur on IDPs to visit and the possibility that Turkey may host an international conference on internally displaced persons. While Turkey still has a long way to go to successfully eradicate human trafficking in its borders, the government has taken some positive steps. While I am pleased Turkey has expanded its cooperation with source countries to improve its victim protection efforts, I want to encourage continued improvement to wipe out this modern day slavery. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, other serious concerns remain. While Turkey works to bring its laws and regulations into conformity with the Copenhagen criteria for EU accession and works toward fulfilling human rights commitments as an OSCE participating State, actions taken by police and other government authorities raise doubts as to the sincerity of these reforms. The imprisonment this month of Nurcihan and Nurulhak Saatcioglu for attending demonstrations four years ago protesting the prohibition against head scarves in public institutions, is deeply troubling. The fact that the government denies women who choose this religious expression the ability to attend state-run universities and work in public buildings, including schools and hospitals, is counterproductive and an encroachment of their right to freedom of expression. Similarly, authorities severely curb the public sharing of religious belief by either Muslims or Christians with the intent to persuade the listener to another point of view. These limitations on religious clothing and speech stifle freedom of religion and expression and are contrary to Turkey's OSCE commitments. At a fundamental level, the inability of religious groups to maintain property holdings is problematic, as the Office of Foundations has closed and seized properties of non-Muslim religious groups for contrived and spurious reasons. Groups most affected by this policy are the Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic and Greek Orthodox churches, which have also experienced problems when seeking to repair and maintain existing buildings or purchase new ones. I hope the application of the aforementioned reforms will rectify this problem. The most notable property issue concerns the continued closure of the Orthodox Theological School of Halki on the island of Heybeli in the Sea of Marmara. Considering the reportedly promising conversations between the church and government, I urge Turkey to return full control to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and allow religious training to resume, in keeping with relevant OSCE commitments. Furthermore, religious groups not envisioned by the Lausanne Treaty have no legal route for purchasing property and building facilities, since the new legal provisions affect only communities with the official status of a ``foundation.'' As no process exists for these other groups to obtain foundation status, they are forced to meet in private apartments. This lack of official status has real consequences, since provincial governorships and the Ministry of Interior have initiated efforts to close these meeting places, leaving the smaller Protestant groups and Jehovah's Witnesses without any options. Churches and their leaders in Diyarbakir, Mersin, Iskenderun and other towns all face troubling government prosecutions and threats of closure. I urge Turkey to create a transparent and straightforward process to grant religious groups so desiring official recognition, so that they too can enjoy the right to establish and freely maintain accessible places of worship of assembly. The continued incarceration of four Kurdish former parliamentarians: Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak is particularly disturbing. Convicted in 1994, they have won their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and were granted a retrial under recent Government of Turkey legal reforms. The retrial began March 28, and at each of the eight sessions, most recently October 17, the court has refused to release the defendants. Their continued imprisonment is an outrage. Mr. Speaker, on the 80th anniversary of the Turkish Republic, the initial legal reforms put in place by the government display Turkey's-- or at least the legislators in Ankara's--apparent willingness to address much needed reforms in human rights practices. But actions speak louder than words. We need to see implementation of these reforms seriously carried out before we can rest assured that Turkey has met minimal OSCE human rights commitments. As Turkey strives to enter the European Union, I applaud the efforts that have been made to date and urge Ankara to intensify the reform process.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a good friend, for his statement and for his fine work. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues we are at a crossroads. We have not done our due diligence in ensuring that sufficient funds were available to renovate, to update, to modernize our aging infrastructure of VA health care and other facilities within the VA, that is to say, those dealing with research and development. There was a consultants' report as far as back as June of 1998 that suggested we spend 2 to 4 percent on plant replacement value to upkeep these vital facilities. We have not done that. We need to now do some hurry-up-and-catch-up baseball here. This legislation is certainly a step in the right direction. I hope it has the full support of our colleagues. Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1720, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act. I am pleased that the House of Representatives acted today to approve this important bill. H.R. 1720 includes language originally included in legislation introduced by my colleague, Congressman David Hobson, that authorizes the construction of an expanded VA medical facility on the campus of the Defense Supply Center in Columbus, OH. I have been deeply and personally committed to improving health care for veterans for nearly 20 years, going back to my days as a congressional staffer handling veteran's casework. I know first hand the difficulties our veterans have had receiving the level of care they earned through their service to our country. Columbus is the 15th largest city in America. Central Ohio, a metropolitan area of 1.2 million people, has over 135,000 veterans who reside here. Yet we have never had a VA hospital, and our clinic has always been too small to provide the services needed for our veterans. As one of the fastest growing areas in the country, we continue to see the number of veterans in central Ohio increase each year. On the day it opened in 1995, our existing clinic was already too small to meet all the health care needs of our veterans. It was designed to handle 135,000 annual visits. Last year there were 192,000 visits, and this year the clinic is handling 823 visits per day, which will total approximately 205,000 visits in 2003. Furthermore, the current veterans population projection data does not account for veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle or Iraqi Freedom. In Ohio alone we have mobilized over 6,000 National Guard and Reserve Forces who are now eligible for health care, as well as the hundreds of thousands of Active Duty soldiers of those operations who will be returning home in the near future. These new veterans will dramatically swell the rolls at our local facilities. While our local VA officials do the best they can with the resources they have been given, the existing facility is simply too small to meet our current needs, much less the growing needs of the future. A continued piecemeal approach to veterans' needs both wastes taxpayer dollars, and provides substandard care to the central Ohio men and women who have given so much to our country. The VA spends nearly $3 million a year shipping our veterans around the State, admitting emergency cases to a local hospital, and paying for outpatient specialty care because they lack adequate facilities. Additionally, the current facility is leased, and the lease will expire in just over 10 years. I believe it is not a good use of taxpayer money to invest dollars in a facility the VA will not control over the long term. I want to tell you about a veteran I know who lives in Pataskala, OH. Mr. Stanley Folk is 78 years old, and is a 60 percent service connected World War II veteran who is forced to travel to the Cincinnati VA hospital twice a month. He gets up at 4:30 a.m. to catch a shuttle down to Cincinnati to get the treatment he needs. He is forced to stay there all day until the shuttle returns him to Columbus. He does not get home until well after 7 p.m. The strain of this trip makes him so tired and ill that he is in bed for several days after to recover. This would be a hardship on anyone, but is doubly so for the elderly and disabled. It is unconscionable that veterans must go through this to get the care they deserve. The sad part is Mr. Folk is not alone. I could go on and on with stories of veterans who have faced similar hardship. Furthermore, there are many veterans who will not seek emergency care at night and on weekends, because the VAOPC is closed, and they are afraid to go to private hospitals with no prior guarantee the VA will pay the private hospital expense. These veterans have no health insurance and they are afraid they will be stuck with a large bill they cannot pay, so they delay treatment at risk to their health. I believe the facts clearly show that these facilities and services are desperately needed to meet the health care needs of veterans in central Ohio. I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Evans, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Simmons and Ranking Member Rodriguez for their hard work on this legislation. My colleagues in the central Ohio delegation, Congressman David Hobson and Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, as well as Ohio Senators Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, also deserve a great deal of credit for their hard work on this issue and steadfast support for the interests of central Ohio's veterans.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the other body acted upon H.R. 1516 as amended in such a timely manner. Our action today will clear this measure for the President's signature. I am hopeful that we will have the opportunity to clear most, if not all, of our veterans measures which the House has acted upon before we adjourn next week. The VA adopted a goal, Mr. Speaker, of providing the option of burial in a national or State veterans cemetery to 90 percent of the veterans within 75 miles of their homes. H.R. 1516, as amended, would help the VA meet that goal in six additional locations. It reflects the findings of a recently-completed VA study which determined the areas in the country most in need of a new national cemetery. H.R. 1516, as amended, would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a new national cemetery not later than 4 years after the date of enactment in six areas determined to be most in need of such a cemetery. Those locations include the areas of southern Pennsylvania, which will serve 170,000 veterans; Birmingham, Alabama, which will serve 212,000 veterans; Jacksonville, Florida, which will serve 189,000 veterans; Bakersfield, California, which will serve 184,000 veterans; Greenville/Columbia, South Carolina, which will serve 169,000 veterans; and, Sarasota County, Florida, which will serve 406,000 veterans. The Senate amendments to the House bill add the Sarasota County location to the other five. I want to thank especially the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) for her timely intervention in ensuring that we included that in our legislation and adopted this Senate amendment to our house bill. All told, Mr. Speaker, more than 1.3 million veterans and their survivors will benefit from these additional cemeteries. The Secretary would be required to use the advanced planning funds to begin the work necessary for establishment of each cemetery. Additionally, in determining the specific cemetery locations, the bill would require that the Secretary solicit the advice and views of the State and local veterans organizations representatives and other individuals as the Secretary deems appropriate. I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) who is the prime sponsor of the bill and his staff for his work on the bill, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) and her staff, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), our very distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) who worked very hard in ensuring that this legislation was properly crafted and met the needs of our veterans. As always, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and his staff for their good work on this bill as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1516) to provide for the establishment by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of five additional cemeteries in the National Cemetery System.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for his good work on this bill as well. This is a bipartisan bill, and he certainly did his part in making sure this legislation went forward, so I do want to thank him. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), the prime sponsor of this bill, who has broken a logjam; and now we will soon have a bill signing in this important legislation, not just for Pennsylvania but for other regions as well; it will go forward to the President and will become law.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1720, as amended.