Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for his contribution, and just remind him that his brother, Dan Mica, used to be on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and never lost an opportunity to remind us how everyone, everybody ultimately moved to Florida from the northeast and everywhere else. So his point about need was very well- taken. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) who, again, worked very hard to ensure that the Sarasota provision was included in our bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), another friend and great advocate for this issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, too, want to thank my friends and colleagues on the other side, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) and, of course, our distinguished chairman of the subcommittee who spoke earlier, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, just thank them for their good work on this, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), of course the prime sponsor. I also want to thank Senator Specter who is the chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee with whom we worked on all of these issues, but he got this back very, very quickly in a way that actually improved it. So I want to thank him for that, and Senator Graham.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. 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. 1516, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the prime sponsor of this legislation and the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health. (Mr. SIMMONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is today considering H.R. 1720, as amended, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act. Enactment of this measure would be a significant step in addressing the problem of crumbling and substandard health care facilities for our Nation's veterans. I want to just say at the outset how very delighted and pleased I am that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) is here. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the prime sponsor of this bill, he has worked many, many hours in crafting this legislation. I want to really pay him the highest compliment for the extraordinarily good work he did in writing this legislation. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this. I would also like to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for their good, hard work. This is a bipartisan bill that we present to the House today, and I hope it will get the full support and assent of this body. Mr. Speaker, most VA hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and research facilities have ongoing needs for maintenance, repair, and modernization to promote patient and employee safety and provide a higher standard of care for our Nation's veterans. For example, hundreds of millions of dollars are needed to address problems at many VA facilities that could suffer severe damage in the event of an earthquake. However, projects to address these and other deficiencies have been put on the shelf while VA contemplates and completes its CARES process. The Department of Veterans Affairs is currently undertaking, as I think many Members know, a market-based national assessment to determine whether its present health care facilities meet current and future veterans' health care needs. The VA's process for achieving this goal, called the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services, or CARES, is intended to produce a national plan which the Secretary will then approve or disapprove by the end of the year. Members, I am sure, or at least some Members, are aware that while the VA has an aggressive schedule for completing the planning process, the implementation of this plan will take many years to complete. In the meantime, a number of pressing construction needs have been identified. The committee has been vigilant to avoid authorizing projects at facilities that might not be needed to serve the future needs of our veterans. All of the projects authorized by our committee in recent authorization measures would serve veterans for many years after they have been completed. Similarly, the projects authorized in this bill would improve health care for veterans for 20 years or more and are a wise and, we believe, worthy investment for this Nation to make on behalf of our veterans. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of additions to this bill that were made precisely because Members came to us and made very persuasive argument as to why they need to be included. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a member of the committee, really pushed hard on the Fitzsimons project. That is included in here. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) from my own State made a very strong estimate and gave us documentation for a study. That is included in here. There are others that came to us, again made their cases, cogent cases that they were; and those have been included in this authorization measure. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House is considering H.R. 1720, as amended, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act. Enactment of this measure would be a significant step in addressing the problem of crumbling and substandard health care facilities for our Nation's veterans. Mr. Speaker, most VA hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and research facilities have ongoing needs for maintenance, repair and modernization to promote patient and employee safety and provide a higher standard of care for our Nation's veterans. For example, hundreds of millions of dollars are needed to address problems at many VA facilities that could suffer severe damage in the event of an earthquake. However projects to address these and other deficiencies have been ``put on the shelf'' while VA completes its CARES process. The Department of Veterans Affairs is currently undertaking a market- based national assessment to determine whether its present health care facilities meet current and future veterans' health care needs. The VA's process for achieving this goal, called Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services, or CARES, is intended to produce a national plan which the Secretary will then approve or disapprove by the end of this year. While VA has an aggressive schedule for completing the planning process, the implementation of this plan will take many years to complete. In the meantime, a number of pressing construction needs have been identified. The VA Committee has been vigilant to avoid authorizing projects at facilities that might not be needed to serve the future needs of veterans. All of the projects authorized by our committee in recent authorization measures would serve veterans for many years after they have been completed. Similarly, the projects authorized in this bill would improve health care for veterans for 20 years or more, and are a wise and worthy investment for this Nation to make on behalf of veterans. Mr. Speaker, we are coming to a crossroads in the pattern of funding for VA health care facilities. A consultant's report in June 1998 concluded that VA should be spending (at a minimum) from 2 percent to 4 percent of its ``plant replacement value'' on upkeep and replacement of its health care facilities. The value of VA facilities was estimated to be $35 billion in 1998; thus, VA should be spending from $700 million to $1.4 billion each year to keep pace with its capital needs. Sadly, VA only received $213 million in VA construction funding for fiscal year 2003 and only requested $421 million for fiscal year 2004. When the Undersecretary for Health submitted his admittedly incomplete CARES plan to the Secretary's CARES commission earlier this year, it called for a minimum of $3.5 billion in new construction over the next 5 years. I say the plan was incomplete because it excluded funding for projects that would enhance VA's ability to provide veterans with long-term care. The VA Committee has called on the CARES Commission to address this serious shortcoming. Nevertheless, a plan to spend $3.5 to $4 billion over the next 5 years means that Congress will need to appropriate $700 to $800 million every year during that period. Mr. Speaker, even though the deficit outlook for the next several years is not good, this is an obligation that has been put off long enough. The failure to begin addressing this huge backlog in renovation and modernization projects can only lead to inefficiency and inferior care for veterans in the future. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1720, as amended, would authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve, establish, restore or replace VA health care facilities where necessary. The Committee decided in the last Congress that there is a demonstrable need to provide a more flexible and responsive authorization process to address the overwhelming backlog of construction projects, and this bill continues with that approach. Under this bill, the Secretary would be authorized to approve individual facility projects, based on the decisions of a capital investments board that must carefully and objectively consider each proposed construction project. The bill provides criteria to be used by the board that would place a premium on projects to protect patient safety and privacy, improve seismic protection, and provide barrier- free accommodations. It would also emphasize improving VA patient care facilities areas of particular concern, such as specialized care programs, in order to meet the contemporary standard of care veterans deserve and need. H.R. 1720 would require the Secretary to report his actions on construction to this Committee and to the Committee on Appropriations, and would mandate a review of the delegated-project approach by the General Accounting Office, to ensure this is an effective mechanism to advance VA medical construction during and after the CARES process. The bill also would authorize construction of a specific set of urgent major medical projects as follows: Clark County, NV--the lease of a multi-specialty outpatient clinic and Veterans Benefits Administration satellite office at an annual rent not to exceed $6,500,000; Columbus, OH--$90,000,000 to construct a new VA medical center; West Haven, CT--$50,000,000 to renovate inpatient wards and research facilities at the Wet Haven VA medical center; Chicago, IL-- $98,500,000 to consolidate inpatient care in a new bed tower at the West Side Division; San Diego, CA--$48,600,000 for seismic corrections to Building 1 at the San Diego VA medical center; and Pensacola, FL-- $45,000,000 to construct a joint-venture outpatient clinic at the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The bill would require the Secretary to move forward on these projects first before awarding construction contracts under the general construction delegation provided by the bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize appropriations of $500 million in fiscal year 2004 and $600 million in fiscal year 2005 to accommodate construction projects under the various authorities provided. Additionally, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $300 million over 3 years for the replacement VA medical center near Denver CO, at the former Fitzsimons site. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, H.R. 1720, as amended, includes the provisions of H.R. 116, a bill to authorize a joint VA-Air Force health care facility to be located on the grounds of the ``New Fitzsimons'' campus of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, in Aurora, CO. The bill would require the Secretary, after consulting with the Secretary of Defense, to decide how to replace the 57-year-old Denver medical center with a new Federal Regional Medical Center in Aurora. There is a unique opportunity at this location to enhance VA-DOD sharing by jointly constructing or leasing a premier health treatment facility as a joint venture of the VA, the Department of the Air Force, and the University. We certainly expect that both the Air Force and the VA will find a way to execute this plan in a manner that advances the interests of the American taxpayer and the beneficiaries served by the two Departments. I want to commend Chairman Joel Hefley and Representative Bob Beauprez, a Member of the VA Committee, for spurring this project forward. We would not be considering this measure on the floor of the House today without their hard work and individual efforts to help make this project a reality. H.R. 1720 would also require VA to conduct a study and report on the feasibility of constructing a new medical center for veterans in Charleston, SC, and a study for meeting the inpatient hospitalization needs of southern New Jersey veterans. The Committee appreciates the work of Mr. Brown, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Benefits, and Mr. LoBiondo, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, for their insight in crafting these two provisions. The final measures in the bill, Mr. Speaker, would designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in New London, CT, as the John J. McGuirk Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic, and the VA Medical Center at 820 S. Damon Street in Chicago, IL, the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Our bipartisan bill would also honor the late Jesse Brown, former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, for his exemplary service to his country as a combat-wounded U.S. Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam war and dedicated leader of the Department of Veterans. Mr. Brown enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1963 and was seriously wounded in Vietnam. Mr. Brown's career in veterans' advocacy spanned his entire remaining life. He served with distinction in the Clinton administration as the third Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Naming the West Side VA Medical Center after Jesse Brown would appropriately memorialize his accomplishments and commitment to improving the quality of life of all veterans. The final provision in this bill adds a new degree of accountability to the VA medical research program. The provision is the result of efforts by two of the Committee's Subcommittee chairmen, Mr. Buyer and Mr. Simmons. Their proposal is supported by Ms. Hooley and Mr. Rodriguez, their respective ranking members. The language of section 11, which is taken from H.R. 1585 as revised by our Subcommittee on Health requires VA to maintain a permanent and independent research compliance and assurance office. While establishment of this office may not provide a complete shield against possible future abuses, it does send a clear message that the Congress expects compliance with rules already in place to assure protection of human subjects who participate in research sponsored by VA. Finally, I want to thank the Committee's ranking member, Lane Evans, for his support of this legislation, and for the work of the chairman and ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Rob Simmons and Ciro Rodriguez, respectively, for considering this bill in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1720, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. BUYER), who wrote section 11 dealing with human research protection. (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), and thank him for his work on behalf of the $6.5 million lease for the outpatient clinic in his area. (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), and thank him because he was very instrumental in helping us work on the language that provides $45 million for an outpatient clinic in Pensacola. I want to thank him for that outstanding work he did.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and thank him for his work on the medical center, a $90 million authorization that he worked so hard to procure. (Mr. HOBSON 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. 1720) to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out construction projects for the purpose of improving, renovating, establishing, and updating patient care facilities at the Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who is the author of H.R. 116, which is included as section 4 of this bill, which authorizes a $300 million Fitzsimons Hospital System, along with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who is the chief cosponsor. (Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who is the author of H.R. 116, which is included as section 4 of this bill, which authorizes a $300 million Fitzsimons Hospital System, along with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who is the chief cosponsor. (Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) And the university's move will create a state-of-the-art medical campus which, in turn, will develop many of the very best services of in the United States. The Anschutz Cancer Pavilion, which is already open, is among the best institutions in the Nation for all types of cancer treatment and research. The University of Colorado Health Science Center is well known throughout the country for its organ transplant programs, for instance. Unfortunately, the University's move created an 8-mile separation between the University of Colorado and the old veterans hospital that had been so close before. This 8-mile separation creates a very real and significant barrier to quality care for veterans who have been working in cooperation all these years, the two hospitals. A study commissioned by the Veterans Integrated Service Network indicated that high demand for medical services by veterans at the Denver Veterans Medical Center will continue unabated for at least the next 20 years. The cost of maintaining the current Denver Veterans Medical Center, to satisfy minimal accreditation levels until 2020, has been estimated to be $233 million, and estimates to rebuild the facility in 2020 are $377 million in today's dollars. So if we put this $233 million into it, at the end of this period, this 20-year period, we still have an old facility, and we have put almost as much into it as it would take to build a new facility. Planning studies have shown that a move of the Denver Veterans Medical Center to the Fitzsimons campus is the most cost-effective of the reasonably accepted alternatives. The Denver Veterans Medical Center relocation to the Fitzsimons campus will solve aging facilities issues, cap new facilities cost, enhance quality of medical care, increase flexibility and reduce operational costs. Veterans who have highly specialized medical needs must have easy access to the best diagnostic and treatment programs that America provides. In a medical school environment, doctors tend to be better informed of the latest treatment procedures and protocols. They are closer to the cutting edge of modern medicine. Quality of medical care for veterans is enhanced in a medical school teaching hospital. University physicians and special residency programs provide a significant amount of care in the Denver veterans medical center. To date, some 90 percent of the physicians that work at the VA Medical Center also work at the University of Colorado Health Science Center. And most VA doctors have faculty appointments in the medical school. Colocating the University of Colorado hospital in the Denver Veterans Medical Center will allow university doctors to continue their close relationship in treating veterans. Mr. Speaker, let me just summarize real quickly. This is an opportunity that you do not get very often, to have a medical campus which is, in essence, right in the middle of a metropolitan area like Denver, Colorado. If it was not for the closing of Fitzsimons Hospital, which we all hated at the time, this would never have come about. But right here, in the middle of this metropolitan area, you will have the one of the finest, state-of-the-art, cutting edge health medical facilities in the whole United States. It is going to mean cutting edge, quality care for veterans. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) can take a lot of credit when this comes about. The new VA Medical Center at Fitzsimons site will be veteran-friendly and will provide a practicable alternative to the Denver Veterans Medical Center remaining at its current, out-dated facility. The new Veterans Medical Center at Fitzsimons will be a free-standing ambulatory and impatient care federal tower building for veterans, clearly identified as the Veterans Administration Medical Center. New veterans research facilities will be constructed and there will be a new veterans long-term care unit located next to the new 180-bed State veterans nursing home currently being constructed at the site. Given the rising demand for veterans health care, and the significant challenges of an aging and increasingly less-efficient Denver Veterans Medical Center facility, my interest and my efforts are aimed at continuing the collaboration between the Denver Veterans Medical Center, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and University of Colorado Hospital. I believe that the opportunity to co-locate the Denver Veterans Medical Center with the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and the University of Colorado Hospital at the Fitzsimons campus will meet the demand for veteran care in this area through 2020 and beyond; provide significant savings in both capital and operational costs for the Department of Veterans Affairs and the taxpayer; continue to meet the Denver Veterans Medical Center commitment to education and research; and potentially create a national model for the future of veterans' care dealing with both a new concept for facilities and collaboration with long-established partners. More importantly, this move will retain veteran ``identity'' while also providing optimum patient care. To date, over 45 local, state and national Veterans' Service Organizations and the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2241, have expressed their support for this proposal. I believe that co-locating the Denver Vetrans' Medical Cebter with the University of Colorado Hospital will achieve the goals of providing the up-most modern, comprehensive and cost-efficient medical care that we as a nation owe our veterans. Congress has a duty to provide the best medical care it can to our nation's veterans and we must always strive for the very best health care services it can by utilizing the most cost-effective measures available. The fact is, aging facilities, lack of funds, and the growing demands on the veterans health system are proving to be daunting obstacles in meeting Congress' responsibilities to our nation's veterans. However, the possibility for the Denver Veterans Medical Center to move to Fitzsimons and co-locate with University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and University of Colorado Hospital is a unique opportunity to provide solid and constructive solutions to these challenges.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) again, Mr. Speaker, for the outstanding work that he has done. He has been indefatigable in promoting this project along with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez). And we are very, very grateful on the committee to have that kind of advocacy coming our way on behalf of the veterans. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to our remaining time and ask if the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) might yield some of her time. We have an additional speaker, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for her gracious yielding. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez). He has been a very strong supporter of this legislation in general, but particularly for Fitzsimons.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for his leadership in realizing that we need to accelerate our efforts to inform, to enlighten, and hopefully to motivate America to stand up on behalf of life, to let women know that there are alternatives. We spoke the other day, actually the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and I and a few others, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), and we cosponsored a forum on women who had had abortions. As a matter of fact it was called Women Deserve Better, and we were able to hear from four very brave women, including Jennifer O'Neil and Melba Moore and others, who told their stories of having had abortions and the horrific consequences to their emotions, to their bodies, to their psychological health as a direct result of that abortion. And the abortion lobby would like to have us believe that this is something that is benign, and it is anything but. It is an ugly, very destructive act that is committed upon her unborn child, and women are the co-victims of every abortion. We know that the baby is either chemically poisoned, or he or she is dismembered as a result of the abortion; but we also know that the woman carries with her a terrible price that goes on year in and year out, and regrettably the abortion lobby enables that and somehow suggests that she ought to be happy with that decision. And what we are trying to say is that there is reconciliation. The Women Deserve Better campaign is trying to reach out to those women who are suffering in carrying the burden of that abortion and to say that there is hope, there is reconciliation, and there is life after an abortion; but they need to come to terms with it. And I would encourage all those women who are perhaps listening to be in contact with the Women Deserve Better organization or to talk to some others who have direct experience, have experienced an abortion themselves and can bring, like I said, some reconciliation to them because, again, there needs to be that, I think, individually and collectively in America if we are to go forward. Let me also point out, as my good friend and colleague I am sure pointed out, today is truly a historic day having seen the Senate pass by a very wide margin a ban on the gruesome act known as partial-birth abortion where a baby is partially delivered only to have his or her head punctured with scissors in the back of the head and the brains of that tiny innocent baby snuffed out, vacuumed out to complete this horrific procedure known as partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion, I would respectfully submit, is but the tip of an ugly and unseemly iceberg. Just below the surface, the surface appeal of choice, is a reality almost too horrific and cruel to contemplate, let alone face. Yet we persist in our allusions and denial as a country ever enabled by clever marketing, bias news reporting, and the cheap sophistry of choice. Let us be clear, and I do not think we can say this often enough, abortion is child abuse and it exploits women. Women deserve better than having their babies stabbed or cut or decapitated or poisoned. Women deserve nonviolent, life-affirming positive alternatives to abortion. Thirty years after Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the companion decision, the national debate on partial-birth abortion has finally pierced the multiple layers of euphemisms and collective denial to reveal child battering in the extreme. The cover-up is over, and the dirty secret concerning abortion methods is finally getting the scrutiny that will usher in reform and protective statutes. I would say to my colleagues that there is nothing compassionate, there is absolutely nothing benign about stabbing babies in the head with scissors so that their brains can be sucked out. That is child abuse. And yet over on the Senate side today and previously here in the House, we had Members for whom I have an enormous amount of respect defending the indefensible. We reach out to them and say, look at what you are saying. If they did this, if they were a young mother and they had a little baby girl, a young child who took her doll and took a pair of scissors and stuck those scissors into the back of the head of that baby, they would get counseling. They would say no, my daughter should not be play-acting that kind of activity. And yet there are Members of this Chamber who embrace, enable, facilitate, and defend that indefensible act on a tiny living baby girl or baby boy. As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) knows and as my colleagues know, the loss of human life to abortion in this country has been staggering; 44.4 million babies have been killed by abortions since Roe v. Wade. And, yes, there were tens of thousands killed even prior to it in those States where abortion had been legalized like New York, like Hawaii, like Oregon, but 44.4 million kids. That is one out of every three of this generation missing. I say to my colleagues, the next time they are in a classroom, look around at the desks, count one, two, then the missing child; one, two, the missing child. This generation, perhaps more than any other in our own history, perhaps any other's history, is missing children who by ``choice'' have been destroyed by an abortionist. Let me just conclude. On the WorldNetDaily site, there was an article on October 17, and I will just read part of it: ``Attendees of a national conference for abortion providers watched and listened with rapt attention as the inventor of the partial-birth abortion procedure narrated a video of the grizzly procedure, and then they burst into applause when the act was over and the unborn child was destroyed. The disturbing and eye-opening event featuring abortion doctor Martin Haskell, addressing members of the National Abortion Federation, was actually captured on audiotape, calmly and dispassionately describing each step of the process up to and including the insertion of the scissors into the base of the baby's head, followed by the sound of the suction machine sucking out the baby's brain. Dr. Haskell walks his audience through the procedure that opponents hope will finally be banned,'' that is us, ``during this congressional session. At the end of the procedure,'' the article goes on to say, ``after the late-term fully developed unborn child's life has been violently and painfully terminated, the audience breaks into applause.'' That is sick, I say to my colleagues. These are the providers of abortion. These are the ones that our friends on the other side of this issue will defend passionately. They broke into applause as that baby met his death. That is what partial-birth abortion is all about. It is a horrific, grisly procedure. We are all about life, life affirmation. Thank God we have a President who respects the dignity and the value of each and every life and will sign this legislation into law, unlike his predecessor, Bill Clinton, who on two occasions vetoed this legislation. And I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my friend, for having these times on the floor so that we can begin the process of educating America. Much work needs to be done, and for those people who watch C-SPAN, know this: we care about life, the unborn, the newly born, all of those who are weak and disenfranchised. Many of us are the leaders on human rights, religious freedom, Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and a whole host of other important legislation designed to protect the innocent from the strong, the weak, and the vulnerable from those who would do them harm. That is what it is all about. Government is for the weakest and the most at risk. The unborn in our society are the weakest and the most at risk. Again I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), and I yield back to my good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Terry Schiavo smiles, tries to talk to her family and friends, and moves her arms and legs on command. But at the direction of her husband, and against the will of the rest of the family, her feeding tube was removed last Wednesday. This is what Terri is experiencing right now in this, the 7th day of her court-ordered dehydration and starvation: Extreme thirst, nausea and stomach cramping, dry skin, dizziness, extreme headaches, cramping in her arms and legs because she is losing electrolytes, sodium and potassium in her blood. Her mouth is very dry. Her saliva is thick. And as the abuse continues, soon her lips and her mouth will crack, she will bleed, and her heart rate will increase, her blood pressure will drop, and she will probably experience stroke. She will finally go into shock as her whole body begins to shut down. No one, Mr. Speaker, deserves to be treated with such incredible cruelty. Terri's life is valuable and she should not be sentenced to death because she has a disability or someone feels she is a burden. Hopefully, the Florida Legislature will act in time and the Governor will intervene.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 356. I thank and commend Mr. Hyde for introducing this resolution commemorating and honoring the memory of victims of an abominable act perpetrated against the people of Ukraine in 1932-33. Seventy years ago, millions of men, women and children were murdered by starvation so that one man, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, could consolidate control over Ukraine. The Ukrainian people resisted the Soviet policy of forced collectivization. The innocent died a horrific death at the hands of a tyrannical dictatorship which had crushed their freedom. In an attempt to break the spirit of an independent-minded Ukrainian peasantry, and ultimately to secure collectivization, Stalin ordered the expropriation of all foodstuffs in the hands of the rural population. The grain was shipped to other areas of the Soviet Union or sold on the international market. Peasants who refused to turn over grain to the state were deported or executed. Without food or grain, mass starvation ensued. This manmade famine was the consequence of deliberate policies which aimed to destroy the political, cultural and human rights of the Ukrainian people. In short, food was used as a weapon in what can only be described as an organized act of terrorism designed to suppress a people's love of their land and the basic liberty to live as they choose. Mr. Speaker, I recall back in the 1980s seeing the unforgettable movie, Harvest of Despair, which depicted the horrors of the Famine, as well as the fine work of the congressionally-created Ukraine Famine Commission, which issued its seminal report in 1988. Their work helped expose the truth about this horrific event. I am pleased that the resolution notes that there were those in the West, including The New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty, who knowingly and deliberately falsified their reports to cover up the Famine because they wanted to curry favor with one of the most evil regimes in the history of mankind. The fact that this denial of the Famine took place then, and even much later by many scholars in the West is a shameful chapter in our own history. Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution which will help give recognition to one of the most horrific events in the last century in the hopes that mass-murders of this kind truly become unthinkable.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), our distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, and again I want to thank him for his good work on this bill.