Floor Statements

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. 2297.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues today in support of one of the most courageous men of peace on the planet today, an advocate for freedom, Dr. Oscar Biscet. A long-time human rights activist and pro-life doctor in Cuba, Dr. Biscet had already spent some 3 years, unjustly, 3 years in Castro's gulag for speaking out against the death penalty in Cuba and for calling for the release of all political prisoners.

After his release, Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2002, he remained undaunted by his oppressors, Castro and the brutal thugs who run his regime, and continued to attempt to peacefully organize human rights' supporters. Dr. Biscet was redetained with 16 other dissidents after they attempted to simply meet in a home in Havana to discuss human rights last September. Just think about that, my colleagues, just simply meeting, gathering together, and in come the thugs to take you away.

When police prevented him from entering that home, Dr. Biscet and others, just like Dr. Martin Luther King, sat down in the street and protested, uttering slogans like ``long live human rights,'' and ``freedom for political prisoners.'' For that, he received a draconian 25-year prison sentence in April. That was during the same time when there was a massive crackdown that Amnesty International pointed out, reminiscent of what happened during the early years of Castro's brutal regime when massive numbers of people were arrested and given long prison sentences, many of those, 75 of them, some of the bravest and brightest in Cuba today: Independent journalists and democracy activists, who now themselves languishing in prison.

Mr. Speaker, while reports of Dr. Biscet's actions in prison continue to be heroic, and the word does get out, this is a man of conscience, a man of courage, the reports of his mistreatment, however, have been equally horrific. He is heroic; the mistreatment is horrific. For months, we know that he has endured solitary confinement for refusing to wear the prisoner's uniform. He has lived with insufficient light, and now no light at all, no running water and no bed. His benign and peaceful protest on November 11 on behalf of the cruel treatment of another prisoner, even though he is suffering so much, Mr. Speaker, he speaks out and tries to lend a hand to other prisoners who are being mistreated, for that he was moved to a punishment cell, as my colleagues have pointed out, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), who spoke so eloquently a moment ago, to a cell known as the dungeon.

This man, this peaceful man, this Martin Luther King of Cuba is now languishing in a dungeon, a small confined area with no light. He has been put into a prison cell, this dungeon, with a man who on 12 different occasions has committed assault.

I remember during the years of Nicolae Ceausescu, the brutal thug in

Romania, what he used to do. He would put people who committed crimes in with peaceful activists, political prisoners, and political prisoners of conscience with the hope and the thought that these men of violence would commit violence against these peaceful activists, and God forbid that that happens. We will continue to speak out, and, hopefully, nothing will happen as a result of this emplacement of this thug in with Dr. Biscet.

Let me just point out to my colleagues that in the spring Dr. Biscet, and this just shows the heart of this great man, stated ``I am innocent of the charges for which I was condemned, which is why I will maintain my ideological position. A true man cannot betray himself, so I can only appeal to the living God and pray to our Lord. And he is not neutral and never abandons his flock.'' What a faith. Here is a man crying out from prison, praying to God above, asking that he not be forgotten in a way that is reminiscent of our Lord when he said, why have I been abandoned? Well, in this case he is saying despite his ordeal that God will not abandon him.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot abandon him, and that is why we are speaking out and speaking out so strongly tonight. We cannot allow this prisoner of conscience, and there are hundreds, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) said so ably earlier, hundreds who live likewise in Castro's gulag. His wife, Elsa Morejon, has said his crimes are honoring the universal declaration of human rights: Opposing abortion and the death penalty and organizing civil rights movements through nonviolent civil disobedience to reclaim the rights of fellow Cubans that he believes are being violated. For that, 25 years being mistreated and being treated in a way that we would not even treat our animals.

Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker. After months of brutal treatment, his health is very poor. We have to speak out. There are Members who take to the floor here and say we need to have an expansion of travel and trade and the like. Well, not until these individuals, starting with Dr. Biscet, are released. Otherwise, the blame and the crime of complicity rests at your doorstep.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 427, which recognizes the courageous leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church in Vietnam and stresses the urgent need for the government of the Republic of Vietnam to respect religious freedom and basic human rights. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for offering it today.

Mr. Speaker, Vietnam's oppression of religious liberty, which is well documented in the State Department Reports on Human Rights and Religious Freedom, as well as by credible human rights organizations, continues to deteriorate. This is a regime with clear non-ambiguous policies designed to control and to repress religion. At its Seventh plenum in January 2003, the Communist Party's Central Committee stepped up its persecution of religious groups issuing a resolution which calls for the establishment of cells of Communist party members within each of Vietnam's six approved religions in order to foil ``hostile forces.''

Persecution of Buddhists highlighted in this resolution has been particularly harsh. Many leading clergy of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam have been imprisoned including the church's Patriarch, the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, who is now 85 years old and has been detained for the past 21 years.

The government has continually attempted to control the selection of new clergy for the Unified Buddhist Church, restricting the travel of and intimidating monks attending selection meetings. We know that other groups suffer severe religious persecution as well, including the Christian Montagnards in the Central Highlands, Catholics and members of indigenous Vietnamese religions.

One particular case, Mr. Speaker, that has been disturbing, one of many, is that of Father Ly, an outspoken critic of the regime who is currently serving a 10-year sentence for calling on the government for the return of confiscated church properties and respect for religious freedom. Amazingly, his nephews, Nguyen Vu Viet and Nguyen Truc Cuong, and his niece, Nguyen Thi Hoa, recently received prison sentences after a sham trial, after being found guilty of dubious charges of ``abusing democracy.''

Next week, Mr. Speaker, the Vietnamese government has the chance to set the record straight when their appeal will be heard. They should be released. They have to be released along with Father Ly. And I think this Congress, the House and the Senate, needs to be watching very carefully if our relationship is to progress. We have to see significant and sustained progress on these cases and, of course, those with regards to the Unified Buddhist Church.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has not been lax in trying to raise these issues, as I know my good friend and colleague Mr. Leach knows because he has worked so strongly in this area. ``I offered The Vietnam Human Rights Act'' as an amendment to the State Department bill, which is now pending before the House and Senate. Similar legislation has already passed the House before and hopefully the session, the Vietnam Human Rights Act will become law. This legislation sets up a number of criteria that would seek to move the ball forward with regard to human rights, and in particular, the area of religious freedom.

Again, it is a good resolution that has been offered today and it deserves the honest support of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1813) to amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 that is under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, torture remains a cruel weapon of choice for antidemocratic, dictatorial regimes around the globe. It is used to silence opposition leaders and to suffocate political dissent.

Today, torture is commonplace and, sadly, systematic. In many countries around the globe, including the People's Republic of China, Cuba, and many countries in Africa, the Middle East, it is used to extract confessions. It is used to humiliate, to punish. It is used to crush people's souls and hearts and their bodies and to break them while they are in captivity. Torturers themselves, it turns out and is no surprise to any of us, are sadistic and cruel beyond imagination.

Mr. Speaker, even torturing a single, carefully targeted individual can have a multiplier effect, sending a message of fear throughout the entire community and even across generations. For example, the paralyzing effect of torture is painfully clear in Turkmenistan where countless people have been tortured, killed and disappeared in the wake of last year's November 25 attack on President Niyazov's motorcade.

We see it throughout China, especially regarding people who are part of the Falun Gong. Hundreds of them have been tortured to death simply because of their expression of their conscience in that religious expression. We see it with the Buddhists and others. We see it with the Catholics in the underground church in China where, again, these individuals are routinely and through incredible harshness tortured.

I point out to my colleagues that even after a dictatorial regime has fallen, as it has in Iraq, the impact of torture can be felt for years. Leaders are broken and lost. There is a profound lack of trust in public institutions, in the police and in courts. Unless we find a way to understand and to heal the legacy of torture people will be unable to work with each other to rebuild their nation. Individuals who are tortured, who carry around both psychologically and in their person that legacy, very often suffer post-traumatic stress disorder, one of the worst expressions or manifestations or legacies of that torture. Unless we are able to heal or provide or facilitate that healing, these people are literally walking time bombs, and we will find it hard both in these countries and the emigre community to build institutions that will not fail.

I think many Members will be surprised to learn that in the United States there are an estimated 500,000 torture survivors, most of whom came to the United States as refugees. Worldwide, while it is impossible to count the actual number, Amnesty International has documented torture in 150 countries. So we know the number is in the millions.

The Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act before the body today provides $20 million to the Department of Health and Human Services to assist

treatment programs in the United States for fiscal 2004 and $25 million for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of these numbers, and this is an increase over the previous year's, the number of survivors seeking treatment in U.S. centers funded through this legislation has steadily increased. The word is getting out that one can go to these centers and get treatment, and the process, very often a lifelong process of healing, can begin.

We found, or there has been a finding I should say, that when the centers first opened there were about 935 people who were helped in 1999 as a result of the legislation we passed then. That jumped to 1,550 clients served in 2000 to 2,579 in 2001. We now know that there are some 3,664 clients that have gotten services at a cost of about $3,500 per client in fiscal year 2002. With the additional funding that we contemplate that this bill would authorize, it is estimated that U.S. centers would have the capacity and the ability to serve an additional 2,800 survivors per year.

Torture treatment centers provide a range of services, Mr. Speaker, including medical exams, lab tests, psychological and psychiatric screening evaluations, psychiatric medication, individual, group and family therapy, and crisis counseling.

In addition, the network of treatment centers already in the U.S., and we know this, needs to be expanded; and I would point out to my colleagues there are a number of large cities with large emigre communities with torture victims who are not being served in places like Miami, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Cleveland, St. Louis, Kansas City, Salt Lake City, and Seattle. Hopefully, as a result of this reauthorization and the subsequent appropriations, money will be made available to craft or to establish those centers that are so vitally needed in those cities.

The Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act also authorizes $11 million in U.S. funds for the Agency for International Development to support foreign treatment centers in 2004 and $12 million in fiscal year 2005. This is a modest increase from the $10 million we first authorized in 1999; and, of course, the need is much more than that, but at least this is an attempt to try to meet some of that need.

USAID's Victims of Torture Fund, I would point out to my colleagues, administers treatment programs in 26 countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Near East, and in Europe. Last year, the fund supported approximately 45 treatment programs. Nongovernmental organizations that receive this funding provide a direct service to survivors, to their families and communities. They strengthen the capacity of country-based institutions to deliver services to survivors and increase the level of knowledge and understanding about the needs of torture victims. These treatment centers can also gather forensic evidence that can be used to improve the capability of those documenting and seeking redress from the practice of torture.

To help meet the needs of victims around the globe, I would remind my colleagues that the U.N. established a fund back in 1981, and before we passed our first act, the United States' contribution to that fund was only in the hundreds of thousands. We have now pushed that number to $5 million, and this legislation would increase it to $7 million; and hopefully that, too, will be part of the fix to help mitigate the suffering endured by torture victims.

This is a good bill. I hope my colleagues will support it. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend and colleague and the ranking member of the committee, who is the chief cosponsor and has worked with us hand in glove in crafting this legislation. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our good friend and colleague, the chairman of our committee, for his leadership on this very unrecognized and very below- most-people's-radar-screens issue. They often say torture victims, what are we talking about, and yet they are in our midst. They are suffering. They need help. This legislation provides at least some help.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to thank my friends and colleagues for their very strong statements and their passion on this issue.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is the ranking Democrat on the Helsinki Commission, we work together. There is no division. There is no air between our shoulders as we promote human rights in general and the elimination, or a zero tolerance policy towards torture within the OSCE.

There are 55 countries that make up the OSCE. At the parliamentary assemblies and with bilateral meetings and with country visits, we bring this issue up. We bring it up with the heads of state, we go to gulags, like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who is also a member of our commission, and we do all that we can to stop torture in the first place.

But as this bill seeks to do, there are victims, they number in the millions, and their needs are not being cared for in many instances, especially overseas. The lucky ones make it here as emigres and as asylum seekers, and we have to make sure that both domestically and internationally, we try to mitigate that enormous pain and the nightmares they carry with them. As we know from our hearings and from our site visits from talking to these victims, maybe they cannot be cured fully and completely, but the pain can be eliminated to a great extent, and they can develop coping mechanisms and the like in order to deal with it and live a more normal life despite the fact that they have suffered so horrifically.

So I want to thank my friends and colleagues. And again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who knows this personally, who is a Holocaust survivor and is always out front on human rights. It is always great to work as a teammate with him. And, again, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his kinds words, as well as my friend and colleague from Minnesota, I want to thank her as well.

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

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for speakers, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important bill, the Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act, which will bolster our Federal Government's efforts to prevent unborn babies from developing birth defects and help these special children after birth.

Specifically, this piece of legislation contains two provisions that are especially important to our work helping those who suffer from autism and spina bifida, which combined affect more than 1.5 million Americans and their families.

This bill will codify our Government's support for a National Spina Bifida Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Last year, thanks to widespread support of many in this Chamber, we were able to secure initial funding to establish this program. And this year, members of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus--which I cochair along with my friend Congressman Stupak--are working hard to continue to grow and develop the program.

The National Program is working to prevent cases of spina bifida by spreading the word to

all women of child-bearing age that daily consumption of .4 milligrams of folic acid supplements can reduce their baby's chance of developing spina bifida by 75 percent. The program is working with the National Institutes of Health and other agencies to develop new therapies for people born with spina bifida. Additionally, it is helping better educate doctors and nurses on how they should best care of these patients, and working to reach patients and clinicians what they must do to prevent and treat various secondary health problems to which people with spina bifida are particularly susceptible.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress, officials at the CDC, and the hardworking advocates with the National Spina Bifida Program to help all those living with spina bifida.

Secondly, S. 286 contains a very important provision addressing an ongoing autism surveillance project I authored several years ago and which was incorporated as title I of the Children's Health Act. Right now, the CDC, in conjunction with state health departments and other research entities, is conducting autism surveillance in more than 15 States, including New Jersey. The rate of diagnosis of new autism patients is at least 1 in every 250 people, and may be even higher in some regions.

In order for us to obtain an accurate picture of the Nation's autism epidemic, it is absolutely imperative that health officials have the ability to gather the data they need. The provision in S. 286 will help ensure that the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education will work together to gather this much-needed data from education records, which are estimated to be the source of more than 40 percent of the data in need.

Without this coordination by health and education officials, we will never obtain an accurate picture of the autism epidemic because in order to achieve optimum results, we need to know more about this disorder, what causes it, and what we can do to prevent it. This data being collected is indispensable and will help us improve life for all with autism.

I would like to thank all of my colleagues who helped bring this bill to the floor today, and I look forward to continuing to work together so we can have healthier, happier babies and families.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.