Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that this legislation is a victory for the 9/11 families who lost loved ones, heroes, on September 11, 2001. Those family members who were the ones who were instrumental in creating the 9/11 Commission in the first place and who have been tenacious and persevering in making sure that we do the right thing deserve the credit. I want to commend them on their great work on this.

Let me also respond to the previous speaker. By any measure, this legislation will improve our Nation's ability to protect against terrorism. The 9/11 Commission pointed out so well, and I quote them, ``Travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In a provision that I have long advocated for, and that was put in this legislation by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we now have provisions that fortify the visa application process and ensure that our consuls abroad have to thoroughly interview those who are applying for a nonimmigrant visa and meticulously inspect their documents.

Let me remind my colleagues that those who committed the atrocities of 9/11 entered the U.S. legally. They got their visas. They went to one of our consuls in Saudi Arabia and, regrettably, the personnel there were giving out visas like cotton candy. The terrorists exploited a weakness in the system. So they came here legally. They were not illegal immigrants. And that point needs to be underscored.

This legislation with Chairman Hyde's language closes that loophole so that terrorist will be stopped before they get their visas. That's a critical provision in a bill with many, many new programs and I support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. This legislation represents a hard-won victory for the family survivors of 9/11 and for all Americans. They have placed their hopes in us to make the structural changes necessary to prevent another intelligence failure on the scale of September 11th. It is fitting and appropriate that we consider this legislation on December 7th because prior to 9/11, Pearl Harbor represented the largest single day loss of human life to an attack on American soil.

This is, Mr. Speaker, the survivors' bill. If not for the hard work, tenacity and dedication of the families of the victims of 9/11--those 3,000 heroes who lost their lives in that horrific attack--we would not be here today.

Still, there has been much controversy surrounding this bill. Some critics charge that this legislation is not really needed; others contend that it was developed in a rush and should have been considered more thoroughly in committee and subcommittee hearings before being brought to the floor. Neither of these criticisms are valid.

In fact, this legislation is the product of a comprehensive process that began over 2 years ago with the appointment of the 9/11 Commission. I was an early and consistent advocate for the 9/11 Commission because I believed the families deserved answers and the Nation needed a chronicled ``lessons learned'' and a way to move forward to make us safer.

In pursuing its wide-ranging mandate to investigate the facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Commission reviewed more than 2.5 million pages of documents and interviewed more than 1,200 individuals in ten countries, including nearly every senior U.S. government official from the current and previous administrations who had responsibility for topics covered under the Commission's mandate. The Commission's recommendations were nonpartisan, unanimous, and published to wide acclaim this past summer. No less than 13 House committees held more than two dozen hearings on the Commission's report and subsequent legislation. In the Committee on International Relations, I chaired a critical hearing on visa reform and recommendations for enhanced U.S. diplomacy. In the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on which I serve as chair, we held a hearing on Emergency Medical Preparedness.

Today's historic bill addresses and responds to the Commission's major recommendations, and will bring much needed reforms to our intelligence funding, gathering, sharing, and analytical processes. Anyone who questions whether or not these reforms are needed should read the Commission's report. It is filled with information--available to us at the time--that terrorists were actively plotting against us. But instead of our country being on a war footing, the investigations were treated as mere law enforcement cases, and information was not shared between the FBI and CIA. When Predator unmanned drones captured video feed of Osama bin Laden himself in the mountains of Afghanistan, the Pentagon and the CIA bickered for months about who should pay for upgrading the drones to carry Hellfire missiles. The opportunity to take out bin Laden before September 11th was thus squandered by bureaucratic infighting.

Mr. Speaker, on December 7th, 1941 Americans said `never again' will we be caught so unprepared for a sneak attack. But it did happen again. It happened on September 11th, 2001, and nearly 3,000 men, women, and children lost their lives because of it. This legislation will finally create a national intelligence director who will have direct authority over our intelligence agencies and who will have the power to redirect assets and resources as necessary. The position of national intelligence director should have been created after Pearl Harbor, but J. Edgar Hoover, the powerful FBI director at the time, blocked its creation. Later, the Defense Department blocked similar intelligence reforms over the next several decades. Indeed, the same fate nearly befell this very bill before us today, and it was only the timely and persuasive intervention of President Bush which salvaged this historic package of reforms from being yet another casualty of perennial agency turf battles.

Further, this bill creates a National Counterterrorism Center with the authority to plan intelligence missions and counterterrorism operations. The White House has worked with the conferees to ensure that neither the Director nor the Counterterrorism Center will interfere with the flow of military intelligence to the battlefield and the military's need to preserve its chain of command.

By any measure, the conference report will improve our Nation's ability to protect against terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission's report states that for terrorists, ``travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In a provision which I have long pushed for, this bill will require all aliens applying for a non-immigrant visa to completely and accurately respond to any request for information contained in the application, in order to prevent the disastrous series of events in which the 9/11 terrorists failed to provide the most basic of information on their visa applications, yet were still issued visas. It is important to remember that the hijackers were not illegal immigrants. They had valid visas because they exploited the weaknesses of our visa system. With this new legislation, we close those gaps. Consular officials must interview, in person, all appplicants for non- immigration visas unless a special waiver is granted.

This bill includes provisions targeted at preventing terrorism overseas before it reaches our shores. I have been working in this area ever since our embassies were first bombed in Africa in 1998 when I authored the Embassy Security Act. Under the conference report, it directs the State Department to seek international agreements to track and curtail terrorist travel through the use of fraudulent documents and to establish international standards for travel documents, transliteration of names into the Roman alphabet, and common name-based watch list systems. Programs to screen threatening individuals before they reach the U.S. will put U.S. immigration experts at foreign airports.

In order to address the root causes of anti-American incitement overseas which breeds terrorists and sympathizers, the conference report will provide scholarships for Muslim students, more funds for broadcasting and democracy building programs to the Islamic world, and targets aid for strategic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, which were described by the September 11th Commission as absolutely vital to the success in the war on terrorism.

Today's legislation also includes several important, overdue measures to bolster our national security here at home. New programs and pilot projects to upgrade airport and aviation security include explosives detection screening for carry-on baggage, training for foreign air marshals, additional screening of airport workers, and blast-resistant cargo and baggage containers. We will enhance our border security by adding 2,000 full-time border patrol agents, 800 Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators, 150 consular officers per year for the next 3 years, and advance the use of new technologies such as remotely piloted aircraft to ensure the systematic surveillance of our northern and southern borders. Moreover, this bill will grant the FBI the authority to conduct surveillance and wiretaps on suspected terrorists, even if they have no known ties to any foreign country or entity. In other words, if the FBI is aware of a person trying to produce anthrax, but he appears to be working alone, they can still monitor his activities. For the first time, a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be created to ensure that privacy and civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered in the implementation of laws, regulations and government policies to protect our Nation against terrorism.

This conference report also tightens our Nation's immigration laws to close loopholes. For instance, officials will be able to deport any alien who has received military training from a designated terrorist organization, was well as rendering inadmissible aliens who have committed acts of torture, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, extrajudicial killing or genocide.

It is important to note that a crucial reform that the September 11th Commission recommended, but which is notably absent from this conference report, is to change the first responder grant formula and make the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants awarded and assessed based on risk and intelligence data.

The House-passed bill which I cosponsored and voted for (H.R. 10), contained an excellent package of reforms to the illogical grant system that allocates nearly 40 percent of all of the DHS first responder grants strictly on a state minimum basis, rather than risk assessment, and divides most of the rest of the funds on a rote population basis without any risk-analysis. The H.R. 10 reforms would have benefited high-risk, high-population density urban states like New Jersey enormously, while at the same time scaling back grants to states like Wyoming that have fewer terror risks. It would have truly implemented the Commission's recommendation to ensure first responder funding was analyzed and prioritized strictly on risk. The state minimums were reduced substantially.

The Senate passed bill and the Menendez substitute were either much weaker or put too much money into the state minimums, but still represented improvements over current law.

Incredibly, the final conference report dropped both sets of improvements and essentially retains current law. Mr. Speaker, the failure to reform the deeply flawed current first responder grant program is a major missed opportunity for Congress. I pledge to work with similarly-minded colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fix this formula in the upcoming 109th Session of Congress.

While the bill creates general national standards for driver's licenses, birth certificates, and social security cards in order to prevent the identity fraud that terrorists can exploit, as well as improves the physical security of the documents, I remain disappointed that the bill does not prohibit the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The idea of giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens is not only unsound, it is just not safe for the country. I will continue to push for limitations on the validity of licenses for those individuals temporarily in the United States.

I am pleased that provisions I opposed in the House bill, H.R. 10--to expand expedited removal and basically eliminate appeals for asylum-- are not included in the conference report. These provisions would have dramatically altered our asylum procedures and would have had an extraordinarily harmful effect on true asylum seekers, human trafficking victims, women and children who are victims of domestic violence, and others seeking protection against persecution. We must continue to maintain the delicate balance between ensuring our safety and preserving our country as a safe haven for the persecuted and oppressed.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard over the last several years with the widows, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children and other relatives of the victims of September 11th to help establish a meaningful investigation and produce comprehensive reform. Today we mark the furthest milestone in this long, difficult journey. And while no amount of legislative reform can completely heal their hearts, they can take some comfort in knowing that their government has responded and Americans will be safer because of their hard work and great efforts.

Mr. Speaker, as Patrick Ryan, Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, retires from government service, I rise today to pay tribute to his extraordinary career and accomplishments. After more than two decades working for the Committee, and a decade before that working for the Veterans Administration, Patrick is ending his public service career to pursue new personal and professional challenges.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first actions I took when I was elected chairman 4 years ago was to name Pat the chief counsel and staff director for the committee. Having been a member of the committee for 20 years, I was already familiar with the expertise, knowledge, judgment, compassion, and devotion that Patrick had displayed throughout his career.

A graduate of the University of Maryland, Pat went to work for the Veterans Administration in 1974 as a benefits counselor at the D.C. regional office. In this job, Pat learned firsthand about the challenges facing our Nation's veterans, especially those returning from the conflict in Vietnam. He also learned in detail about the programs and services that VA provided to help improve their lives. Among those Pat worked with at that time was a DAV benefits representative named Jesse Brown, who later became Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the 1990s.

Shortly after Pat went to work for VA, he also enrolled in the evening program at Georgetown University Law School. Over the next 4 years, he continued to work at VA, moving up to the position of budget analyst, while attending law school at night, earning his law degree in 1978. He then moved to a new position in VA's Office of General Counsel, where he worked for the next 5 years.

In 1983, Pat Ryan began working for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, serving as counsel for the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care. He later served as counsel for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, as well as for the full committee. Over the years, Pat was promoted to serve as both deputy chief counsel and finally, as chief counsel and staff director.

For the past 22 years, Pat Ryan has made tremendous contributions to many of the most important new veterans laws approved by Congress. He worked on numerous bills to expand services for aging veterans and those in need of long-term care. He was instrumental in helping to establish domiciliaries for homeless veterans and was the principal drafter of legislation to authorize VA's transitional housing guarantee program to benefit homeless veterans. Pat played a central role in helping to establish the Department of Veterans Affairs and in creating the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Pat has been deeply involved in numerous successful committee initiatives that have expanded and strengthened the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC, program, survivor health care services, and educational assistance benefits available to surviving spouses and children of servicemembers killed in action or who later die of a service-related cause. And over the past 20 years, Pat has played a role in increasing the Montgomery GI bill benefit for qualified veterans from $300 when he joined the committee to over $1,000 today.

Using his budget expertise, Pat has been invaluable in helping Congress ensure that VA's budget has been both appropriate and sufficient. His extensive knowledge of the law and the inner workings of VA has also greatly aided the committee in its work to provide exemplary oversight of veterans programs.

From managing the committee's professional staff, to drafting legislation, to overseeing VA's programs and services, Patrick Ryan is the consummate professional. During the four years I have served as chairman, he has helped draft and guide to enactment more than a dozen new laws to benefit veterans, including legislation to modernize the GI bill, expand veterans' health care programs, strengthen benefits for disabled veterans, and aid homeless veterans. I consider him to have been a partner in all that this committee has accomplished during our time together and it has been an honor to work side-by-side with him.

Throughout his tenure in the House, Patrick has earned and retained both the respect and the trust of Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. Pat was hired by Chairman Sonny Montgomery when the Democrats controlled the committee, and he went on to serve both the late Chairman Bob Stump and me while Republicans have controlled Congress. Pat is equally respected inside the Department of Veterans Affairs and by outside leaders of veterans service organizations.

Mr. Speaker, all of us who know Pat Ryan understand that he is driven to succeed, not for his own benefit, but to benefit his fellow man. What has made Patrick Ryan such a valuable public servant are his personal qualities of faith, hope, and charity. A leader in both his community and his church, Pat is well-known for his singing in the choir and for his love of music, especially his eclectic musical tastes.

On a personal level, Pat Ryan has lived his life in a way that has truly made a difference. He has walked to the beat of our Lord's drummer when He said ``whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do likewise to me.'' For Pat, that means always looking out for the little guy. I have such respect and admiration for that character trait, and it is very strong in Patrick Ryan. What motivates Patrick first and foremost is devotion and love for his wife Kathie and their three children--Kerry, Dan, and Julia. For Pat Ryan, family comes first.

Pat is ever proud of his father who has passed, William Everest Ryan, a proud Marine who saw combat action during World War II in the South Pacific, where he was wounded and won the Purple Heart award. He later joined the Justice Department while continuing in the Marine reserves as an Officer in the JAG Corps, retiring with the rank of Colonel in 1964. After a distinguished career of government service, Pat's father retired from government service in 1977. In 1999, William Ryan died in the VA nursing home in Baltimore, 3 years after his wife, Pat's mother, Rosemary Ann Kelly Ryan, had passed away.

Pat Ryan has spent his entire career in Congress defending the same values his father defended on the battlefield and in the courtroom. These are the same values that Pat and his wife Kathie have taught their children through their words and their example.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of his colleagues in the House, members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and other Members who have known and worked with him, on behalf of veterans organizations and leaders across the country, and on behalf of millions of veterans who have benefited from his work, but have never known his name, I want to thank Patrick Ryan for a distinguished career of faithful public service. It has been an honor to work with him.

I call on all of my colleagues to join with me in honoring Patrick Ryan on his retirement and to wish him good luck and Godspeed in whatever lies ahead of him.

Mr. Speaker, as the 108th Congress comes to an end, I want to make some observations about democratization in Central Asia, an energy-rich and geo-strategically important region. All these states are ruled by secular leaders who cooperate with Washington against terrorists. There are U.S. bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, to help promote stabilization in Afghanistan. This collaboration benefits us, as well as Central Asian presidents, and should certainly continue. But unfortunately, these countries are some of the worst human rights violators in the OSCE space. Everywhere in the region, super-presidents dominate the political arena, with parliaments and judicial systems dependent on the executive branch. Media are under heavy government pressure; in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, Soviet-era censorship continues in force. Equally characteristic of Central Asian states is corruption, which has not only enriched the ruling families and the favored few at the top but has impeded the development of free media and independent courts.

True, much of this characterization could be said about all the post- Soviet states to some degree, including Russia. But it is important to point out that there is a counter, or competing tendency in the region, exemplified by Georgia's Rose Revolution of a year ago. While Georgia has a long way to go, there is no doubt about the legitimacy or popularity of its leader, President Mikheil Saakashvili. Also the peaceful protest movement he led to overturn the results of a rigged election has emboldened opposition activists throughout the former Soviet Union to believe that society may yet be able to have a voice in who governs and how.

Central Asian leaders were quick to claim that circumstances in Georgia were so different from their own that no parallels were possible. Still, the Georgian example sent shivers down their spines. That is one reason why the elections in Central Asia that have taken place this year have been, as they were in the past, carefully controlled, with predictable outcomes.

Uzbekistan, for example, is holding parliamentary election in December. No opposition parties have been allowed to operate in Uzbekistan since 1992-1993. Despite pressure from Washington, Tashkent refused to register opposition parties this year, leaving only five pro-government parties to participate. Moreover, Uzbek authorities have contrived to keep opposition candidates from registering in single mandate races--even though officials told the U.S. Delegation to the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Review Meeting in Warsaw in October that opposition candidates would be able to run. The result is obvious in advance: another pro-government, pocket parliament, with no dissenting voices and no capacity to perform any oversight of the executive branch. It should be noted that there have been several outbursts of popular dissatisfaction in Uzbekistan in the last few months; President Islam Karimov's tightly-run political system may be less stable than many suppose.

In neighboring, oil-rich Kazakhstan, opposition parties are registered and were able to compete in September's parliamentary election. Kazakhstan had previously expressed its desire to become OSCE Chairman-in-Office in 2009, and many observers linked Kazakhstan's chances to a good grade on the parliamentary election. But the assessment of OSCE and Council of Europe monitors--citing numerous infractions and an uneven playing field for pro-government parties and the opposition--was critical. Kazakhstan's chances of winning the OSCE Chairmanship have clearly diminished. At the same time, President Nursultan Nazarbaev--who is under investigation for corruption by the U.S. Department of Justice--has announced his intention to run, yet again, for reelection in 2006. Some commentators speculate that he may hold snap elections next year, to keep his opposition off guard. Should he win and serve out another seven-year term, he will have been in office almost 25 years.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, Central Asian leaders do not find the responsibilities of the presidency too burdensome: Tajikistan's President Imomaly Rakhmonov last year orchestrated a referendum on constitutional changes that could allow him to remain in office until 2020. True, Tajikistan is the only country in Central Asia where Islamic political activism is tolerated. We await with interest the parliamentary elections, in which opposition and Islamic parties will participate, scheduled for next February.

As for Turkmenistan, one of the most repressive countries on earth, I'm pleased to note that freedom of religion advanced a bit. The government of President Saparmurat Niyazov took some steps to liberalize the process of registration for confessions--instead of 500 adult members per locality, now only five nationwide are needed to register a community. For years, only Sunni Islam and Russian Orthodoxy were legal; now Ashgabat has registered Baptists, Adventists, Hare Krishna's, and Baha'is. Moreover, the authorities released six Jehovah's Witnesses, although two others remain jailed along with the former grand mufti. These steps--taken under Western and especially U.S. pressure, but which we welcome nonetheless--allowed Turkmenistan to escape designation by the U.S. Government as a Country of Particular Concern this past year. However, troubling reports continue to emerge about limitations on religious freedom and harassment of registered and unregistered religious communities. We must continue to monitor the situation closely and encourage Turkmenistan to continue moving forward with reforms, as even the improved situation is far from meeting OSCE standards on religious freedom.

In all other respects, however, democratization has made no progress. Turkmenistan remains the only one-party state in the former Soviet bloc and Niyazov's cult of personality continues unabated. Recently, he tried to discuss holding presidential elections in 2008. But in a farcical scene, the assembled officials and dignitaries refused to hear of it. They ``insisted'' that Niyazov remain Turkmenistan's leader in perpetuity; he, duly humbled by their adulation, took the issue off the table.

This brings us to Kyrgyzstan, in many ways the most intriguing of the Central Asian states. Of all the region's leaders, only President Askar Akaev, who has held office for almost 15 years, has announced his intention not to run next year for reelection--though he has phrased the pledge carefully if he changes his mind. Kyrgyzstan is also the only Central Asian country where a large-scale protest movement has ever seemed poised to force a Head of State out of office: in summer 2002, thousands of people furious about the shootings of demonstrators in a southern district blocked the country's main road, and threatened a mass march on the capital, Bishkek. Ultimately, the movement petered out but the precedent of public activism was set.

President Akaev's stated intention not to run again, the upcoming parliamentary (February 2005) and presidential (October 2005) elections and Kyrgyzstan's history of protest movements make for an interesting situation. In the next few months, Akaev must make

fateful decisions: the most important is whether or not to run again. If he chooses to stay in office for another term, he risks sparking demonstrations. Though Kyrgyzstan is not Georgia, something akin to a Rose Revolution should not be excluded as a possible scenario. If Akaev opts to step down, however, we should not expect that he, his family and entourage would permit free and fair elections. More likely, he will try to select a successor--as Boris Yeltsin did with Vladimir Putin in Russia--and act to ensure his victory. But that course, too, could lead to protests.

Any decision Akaev makes--with intrusive, anxious neighbors looking over his shoulder--is risky and might have resonance beyond Kyrgyzstan's borders. For that reason, the elections in Kyrgyzstan next year are of great interest not only to the voters of that country but to capitals near and far. Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to report to this chamber next year that democratization has made strides in Central Asia.

Mr. Speaker, in 1973, Congress passed the Church Amendment to protect the conscience rights of hospitals and health care providers from being forced into involvement with abortion. The amendment provides that the receipt of Federal funds in various health programs will not require hospitals or individuals to participate in abortions if they object based on moral or religious convictions. It also forbade hospitals in these programs to make, willingness or unwillingness to perform abortions a condition of employment.

Since 1973, and I think many Members know this, various conscience protections, many of which deal specifically with abortion, have been enacted into law. Unfortunately, over the years, gaps in the protection of existing law have been exploited by pro-abortion organizations which have now undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care providers to participate in abortion. That campaign has met with some success, and there are a number of those which I will put into the Record, including trying to compel Catholic hospitals as a condition of a merger and acquisition to provide abortions. In one case in my own State, they compelled a $2 million settlement that had to go into a trust that paid for abortions. That's outrageous. To counteract this extreme campaign--to force health care providers to participate in abortion--Federal conscience law when signed by President Bush, will now be strengthened.

The principle of the Hyde amendment was that no one should be forced to participate in abortions in any way, and that needs to be affirmed. That is what this Weldon-Hyde amendment will do. The addition of conscience protection to the Hyde amendment remedies current gaps in Federal law and promotes the right of conscientious objection by forbidding federally funded government bodies to coerce the consciences of health care providers who respect fundamentally the right to life and basic human rights for the unborn.

The Campaign To Force Hospitals to Provide Abortion

Forty-five States and the Federal Government protect the

right of health care providers to decline involvement in

abortion. Pro-abortion groups seek to abolish these legal

protections:

abortion access project

Operating in 24 States, the project's goal is ``increasing

access to abortion services by expanding . . . the number of

hospitals offering abortion services.'' The project admits

that its tactics include ``pressuring hospitals'' and it does

so through both political and legal pressure.

The ``Hospital Access Collaborative'' division reports on

the State projects' legal and regulatory interventions

challenging mergers. See www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/ campaigns/hospital/hospital.htm (accessed 09/07/03).

american civil liberties union--reproductive freedom project:

``Religious refusals and reproductive rights.''

The ACLU has published a report and advocacy kit aimed at

requiring all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to

provide abortions. The report argues: ``When . . .

religiously affiliated organizations move into secular

pursuits--such as providing medical care or social services

to the public or running a business--they should no longer be

insulated from secular laws. In the public world, they should

play by public rules.'' ACLU, ``Religious Refusals and

Reproductive Rights,'' January 2002, page 11, www.aclu.org/ Reproductive Rights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10516&c=30

(accessed 09/10/03).

george gund foundation, pro-choice resource center and aclu

reproductive freedom project national meeting

``Much of the debate focused on strategy, with participants

wonder whether it was better to work toward improving and

narrowing conscience clauses or to fight to eliminate them

altogether . . . Although reproductive rights activists

should still work to improve conscientious exemptions, [ACLU

executive director Ira Glaser] said, their ultimate goal

should be getting rid of them.'' See ``Conscientious

Exemptions and Reproductive Rights,'' Executive Summary, page

10, www.prochoiceresource.org/about/CERR_Body.pdf (accessed

09/07/03).

In one session at the national meeting, the group analyzed

a same conscience protection which ``allowed hospitals, their

staffs, or `any other person' to opt out of providing

abortions, sterilizations, and contraception if they objected

to such services.'' The participants decided ``the measure

couldn't be fixed and should be opposed at all costs.'' Id.

at page 11.

Maryland NARAL Hospital Provider Project

``The goal of the Hospital Provider Project is to increase

access to abortion services by requiring Maryland hospitals

to provide abortion . . .'' www.mdnaral.org/initiatives.htm

(accessed 04/05/2002).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

``While everyone has the right to their [sic] opinions

about reproductive health care, including . . . abortion, it

is important to remember that the conscience that matters

most belongs to the patient . . . Health care providers who

object to providing certain services still have an obligation

to respect the rights of their patients and to enable them to

access the health care they need.''

www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/exemptions.html (accessed

09/12/03).

pro-choice resource center

``Through its Spotlight Campaign, PCRC [Pro-Choice Resource

Center] organizes regional meetings to build a network of

opposition to `conscience' or patient abandonment clauses

that allow doctors, pharmacists and entire hospital systems

to deny women access to services like abortion . . .'' See

www.prochoiceresource.org/programs/rg_meet.html (accessed 09/

05/03).

``Right now, so-called `conscience' clause laws are in

place in 45 or 50 States, allowing doctors, pharmacists,

clinics, hospitals, managed care plans and even employers to

refuse to provide, or to pay for, abortion . . . The

MergerWatch program is taking action to expose and overturn

these `conscience' clauses.'' See. www.prochoice

resource.org/programs/spot.html (accessed 09/05/03).

current threats

Unfortunately, gaps in the protections of existing laws

have been exploited by proabortion organizations, which have

undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care

providers to participate in abortion. That campaign has met

with some success. Novel legal and administrative strategies

have resulted in:

Forcing a private community hospital to open its doors for

late-term abortions,

Denying a certificate of need to an outpatient surgical

center that declined involvement in abortion, after an

abortion rights coalition intervened in the proceedings,

Forcing a private non-sectarian hospital to leave a cost-

saving consortium, because the consortium abided by a pro-

life policy in its member hospitals,

Dismantling a hospital merger, after abortion advocates

approached a State attorney general to challenge the merger,

Pressuring a hospital to place $2 million in trust for

abortions and sterilizations before allowing the hospital to

consolidate,

Attempting to require a Catholic hospital to build an

abortion clinic and pay for abortions,

Threatening a Catholic-operated HMO with loss of State

contracts because it declines to provide abortions,

Prohibiting hospitals from ensuring that the property they

sell is not used for abortions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3818) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to improve the results and accountability of microenterprise development assistance programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute in lieu of the amendment reported by the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3818, ``The Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004.'' I introduced this bill at the beginning of the 108th Congress, and this final product represents the culmination of months of hard work and discussion by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate, members of the microenterprise community, and USAID, to build upon one of our most progressive and successful foreign aid programs.

I would like to thank Mr. DeLay and our leadership for scheduling this bill. We know that the House has been considering numerous important pieces of foreign affairs legislation in recent months--from the Foreign Aid appropriations bill to legislation reorganizing our intelligence community and better securing our borders to fight the War on Terrorism--and I am grateful that our leadership took time to schedule this important measure.

I would like to thank Chairman Hyde, who has shown strong support for this bill every step of the way and moved it promptly at the beginning of this year. I would also like to thank Mr. Lantos, Mr. Weldon, and 81 other Members of Congress who cosponsored this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is primarily about ensuring better results, not authorizing additional money. A comprehensive GAO report completed in November 2003 revealed that oversight and accountability of microenterprise programs administered by AID is weak, and that programs are not having the desired effect of reaching the very poor-- those earning less than the equivalent of $1/day--to the greatest extent possible.

In response to those concerns, H.R. 3818 builds-in accountability through a focus on cost-effectiveness and efficiency. H.R. 3818 establishes a dedicated Microenterprise Office within USAID which will approve strategic plans of field missions, establish a monitoring system in order to maximize the impact of programs and measure results, and coordinate preparation of a yearly report to Congress. The legislation also ensures that more funds go to the ``poorest of the poor'' through the development and implementation of easy-to-use, cost- effective poverty assessment techniques. Identifying and targeting the poorest potential clients who would stand to benefit most from microenterprise loans has proven to be more difficult than originally anticipated. I am hopeful that once developed, these poverty assessment techniques may prove useful not only for microenterprise but also in other areas of our foreign aid.

This bill also stipulates that USAID should emphasize the use of global microfinance networks and other non-profit voluntary organizations in the implementation of microenterprise and microfinance programs. In the last two years, I am concerned that USAID has been shifting its focus away from non-profit organizations and networks to contractors in the implementation of the Agency's microenterprise program. While for-profit entities such as consulting firms are making excellent contributions in the areas of technical assistance, research and policy reform, global microfinance networks and non-profit voluntary organizations have the operational experience and track record in microenterprise and microfinance service delivery to poor people. These organizations are able to get resources directly to clients, and are well positioned to reach the very poorest economically active entrepreneurs in the countries where they work. Further, such networks have built self-sustaining microfinance institutions that now cover, on average, almost all of their operating costs. More than $150 million in earned revenue was captured by these institutions in 2002 to cover their operating costs, in addition to private donations that have added significant leverage to USAID's investments. These networks have excelled in rapidly developing microfinance institutions in volatile and risky situations, including during the early stages of a country's transition from war to peace. However, while H.R. 3818 also encourages the use of indigenous governmental organizations as implementing partners for microenterprise and microfinance programs, these governmental organizations should be used only when necessary, efficient and effective, and, in particular, only when they use the best practices in this field. Since the reforms in H.R. 3818 are so comprehensive, we expect USAID will work in close consultation with the appropriate Congressional committees and offices regarding this and other issues.

The term ``foreign aid'' often has a bad connotation--and there are some good reasons why, too. Many times in the past, foreign aid was sent in a ``top-down'' manner to corrupt governments and organizations where it never really reached the intended recipients.

Microenterprise, on the other hand, takes a totally different approach. It's a ``trickle-up'' approach that focuses on helping the poorest people on the planet build themselves up, little by little, into self-sufficiency. The success of microenterprise lending programs to empower entrepreneurs and borrowers in the developing world cannot be overstated.

Over two million clients are currently benefiting from USAID-assisted programs that provide the necessary capital through small loans, usually of a few hundred dollars or less, for entrepreneurs to start and expand their own small businesses. It is estimated that 97 percent of microenterprise loans are successfully repaid and 70 percent to women, who are often very vulnerable, subjected to abuse, and in need of economic opportunities in the developing world. Microenterprise is a key vehicle to assist victims of trafficking and to raise the social and economic status of women around the world.

Microenterprise also complements the principles President Bush has outlined for more effective foreign aid through the Millennium Challenge Account. Business owners assisted by micro-lending are not only able to increase their own incomes, but through their efforts, they create jobs and help economies grow.

Success stories from the beneficiaries of microenterprise are quite numerous. Take for example, Dorothy Eyiah (EYE-ee-ah) from Ghana. Dorothy was resourceful, but she had no idea how she was going to support her AIDS-stricken sister and family when she brought them into her home in Ghana. She used to support herself selling ice, but that wasn't going to pay for the food and medicines she now needed. She started praying. All doors seemed shut until Dorothy met some women within her village who were part of an Opportunity International Trust Bank. The Trust Bank could help her grow a small business--providing her with financing, training, support. Five loans later, Dorothy is the secretary of her Trust Bank and runs 3 businesses, employing 9 people from her village. She is content. Her sister is comfortable, all the children are in school, and their needs are being met. ``God has been so good to me,'' she says.

Success stories such as this are what microfinance and H.R. 3818 are all about. By building the best possible microenterprise program, our goal is to reach the greatest possible number of poor people with services that truly have an impact on their lives. As we compare the effectiveness of various methods of implementation of funds, success will be measured by the ability to reach very poor people and other underserved populations, including women, and by the kind of impact these programs have on poor families. We are concerned not only with the efficient delivery of financial services, but also with the well- being of those who receive those services. We want to see poor people work their way out of poverty, increase their income, build their assets, and grow their businesses, and we also want to see them educate their children, achieve greater self-esteem, strengthen their families, and improve the quality of their lives.

When we provide micro loans for the developing world, we export values upon which our nation is based upon, including the ideal that if you work hard and dream big, you can succeed. Again, I thank my colleagues who have supported this legislation and I urge the rest of my colleagues to do the same.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

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. 3818.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2486, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004. This solid compromise package incorporates 14 benefit bills that have been referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, this Congress and contains more than 40 substantive provisions. S. 2468 would enhance a wide range of veterans' benefits, including protections for mobilized servicemembers.

I want to draw my colleagues' attention to Title I of this comprehensive bill, which is derived from H.R. 1716, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act. This is a bill that I introduced last year along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and others.

The Veterans Earn and Learn Act represents the fifth in a series of employment and business opportunities bills that our Subcommittee on Benefits has offered over the last 3 and a half years. The Veterans Earn and Learn Act would significantly update the Montgomery GI Bill on-job training and apprenticeship programs to reflect learning opportunities in American business and industry today. This legislation is Congress's first major rewrite of the on-job training, or OJT, and apprentice policies for veterans since World War II.

Additionally, effective October 1, 2005, Title I includes a 10 percent increase in the monthly educational assistance allowance the VA furnishes to veterans and others pursuing this particular type of training.

The Veterans Earn and Learn Act is timely because almost 200,000 servicemembers and Reservists separate each year, and they would now all be eligible to use these Earn and Learn initiatives to continue to build transferrable skills.

VA's OJT and apprenticeship program is a valuable program for employers as well. Tapping into veterans as a rich resource of skilled and qualified employees is a shrewd business strategy for employers of all sizes. Veterans bring a unique combination of skill, discipline, character and talent to the workplace.

Title II of the compromise focuses on protecting the civilian job benefits of activated Reservists. In light of longer active duty tours, the major provision here would increase from 18 to 24 months the maximum period of employer-sponsored health care coverage that a Reservist-employee may elect to continue to receive.

Title III, Mr. Speaker, focuses on veterans' benefits matters. The key provision of this title is a $250 monthly increase in dependency and indemnity payments for a surviving spouse with children under the age of 18. This increase would be payable for 2 years following the service-connected death of a servicemember or veteran.

Title IV enhances housing benefits for veterans. Among its important provisions is an increase of the maximum VA home loan to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan amount for a single family residence. The increase raises from $240,000 to $333,700 the maximum VA home loan guaranty.

I am also pleased that this title makes some needed changes to provide flexibility in VA's administration of Transitional Housing program for homeless veterans. The very first loan under this program should close this month, I would point out to my colleagues, and I am looking forward to several more projects getting under way in the next 6 months.

Title V focuses on protecting some of our most vulnerable veterans and dependents when it is necessary to pay the VA benefits on their behalf to a third party.

This bill also makes improvements to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I am pleased it includes provisions that I had authored, including one to furnish additional protections to servicemembers and their spouses with respect to residential and motor vehicle leases when the servicemember is mobilized or sent to a new duty assignment, sometimes with little advance notice.

Finally, I am especially pleased that one of the sections of Title VIII would allow the principal office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be located at any location in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, if that location would allow greater cost efficiencies or a permanent building for the court.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2486, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with Arlen Specter and Bob Graham, the distinguished chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in writing this comprehensive legislation. I thank them both for their leadership.

The Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2004 incorporates 14 benefits bills that have been referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs this Congress. S. 2486 contains more than 40 substantive provisions which would enhance programs affecting veterans' education, training, employment, reemployment, compensation and pension, housing, fiduciary, protections for mobilized servicemembers, and other benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to title one of this comprehensive bill, the Veterans Earn and Learn Act, which is derived from H.R. 1716, introduced by Ranking Member Lane Evans and me and many others.

This section represents the fifth of six measures in a Veterans' Jobs and Business Opportunities package that our Subcommittee on Benefits has authored over the last 3\1/2\ years. I appreciate the vision and bipartisan leadership of Jack Quinn and Bob Filner, followed by J.D. Hayworth and Bob Filner, then Mike Simpson and Silvestre Reyes, and now Henry Brown and Michael Michaud on this package.

Title one of the bill would significantly update the on-job training and apprenticeship programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs to reflect learning opportunities in American business and industry today. Indeed, this legislation is Congress' first major rewrite of on-job training, OJT, and apprenticeship policies for veterans since World War II.

Plus, effective October 1 of 2005, the bill would increase by 10 percent the monthly educational assistance allowance that the Department of Veterans Affairs furnishes eligible veterans, dependent widows and children, and Reservists.

The Veterans Earn and Learn title of the bill is timely because 419 military occupational specialties are currently transferable to the civilian economy. Almost 200,000 separating servicemembers per year, including Reservists, would be eligible to use these Earn and Learn initiatives to continue to build transferable skills. This measure represents a unique opportunity for veterans, Reservists, and dependent widows and children to use their VA educational assistance benefits to augment the entry-level wage the employer pays them as they train on the job. As the training wage increases over time, the monthly VA educational assistance allowance decreases.

VA's OJT and apprenticeship program is a valuable program for employers, too. For example, in a 3-year apprenticeship, VA education benefits under this measure would augment the veteran's training wage furnished by the employer by $17,891. In fact, Missouri has documented that VA's on-job training and apprenticeship programs improve employee retention and bring significant federal training dollars to Missouri communities to the tune of $38 million annually. Tapping into veterans as a rich source of skilled and qualified employees is a shrewd business strategy for employers of all sizes, as veterans bring a unique combination of skill, discipline, character, and talent to the workplace.

The monthly OJT/apprenticeship rates vary based on eligibility. But here are some brief examples of the amount of VA educational

program allowances beneficiaries would receive in 1- and 2-year on-job training programs and 3- and 4-year apprenticeships under the Montgomery GI Bill:

A Reservist participating in a 1-year on-job training program as a management trainee in a retail establishment would receive $2,471 over 12 monthly payments.

A widow or dependent child who participates in a 2-year training program as a financial adviser with an investment firm would receive $9,643 over 24 monthly payments.

A veteran who participates in a 3-year apprenticeship program in plumbing would receive $17,891 over 36 monthly payments.

A veteran who participates in a 4-year apprenticeship program as an electrician would receive $22,529 over 48 monthly payments.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that on-job training and apprenticeships are excellent, practical ways for veterans to use their VA education benefits, especially for those who are married with families to support. VA education benefits are not limited to classroom training.

Let me now highlight other titles in this comprehensive bill.

Title two focuses on employment matters. A major aspect of this title is a provision to increase from 18 to 24 months the maximum period of employer-sponsored health coverage that an employee covered by the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 may elect to continue to receive. This extension of coverage is essential given the longer active-duty tours of our reservists. I commend Representatives Henry Brown and Michael Michaud for their leadership on this issue.

Title three focuses on veterans' benefits matters. A key part of this title is the provision that provides a $250 monthly increase in dependency and indemnity payments for a surviving spouse with children under age 18. These payments are authorized during the 2-year period following the service-connected death of the servicemember or veteran. I commend Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Graham for their leadership on this provision.

Title four enhances housing matters. Among other important provisions, this section of the bill increases the maximum VA home loan to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan amount for a single- family residence. It also annually indexes the maximum amount of VA's home loan guaranty for construction or purchase of a home to that Freddie Mac limit. In effect, the increase raises from 240,000 to $333,700 the maximum home loan purchase amount on a VA-guaranteed purchase.

I am also very pleased this section makes some small needed changes the Department of Veterans Affairs has asked for to provide greater flexibility in its administration of the Transitional Housing program. I was pleased to work with VA in this regard so as to make the Transitional Housing program as effective as possible.

Title five focuses on fiduciary matters to protect our more vulnerable veterans and dependents when they require a third party payee to receive VA benefits on their behalf. These provisions are the result of 2 hearings held by the Subcommittee on Benefits, and I commend Representatives Henry Brown and Susan Davis for their work on this section of the bill.

Title six addresses various memorial affairs issues, including designating a monument constructed at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, CA, as a Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial.

Title seven makes various improvements to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I am very pleased this section of the bill includes the provision I authored to furnish additional protections to servicemembers and their spouses with respect to residential and motor vehicle leases. This provision modifies section 305 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to address the reality of servicemembers having to terminate leases due to longer-term mobilization or deployment. This provision clarifies that if a servicemember terminates a lease entered into jointly with a dependent--usually the spouse--the obligations of both the servicemember and the dependent are terminated. This affords military families the additional protections they need when the servicemember is mobilized to a new duty assignment--sometimes with little advance notice--and the family, too, must relocate.

Lastly, title eight addresses other important matters. I am pleased this section authorizes that the principal office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be located at any location in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Another location may furnish greater cost efficiencies for the court.

In closing, I thank Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Michaud for their leadership and continued bipartisan cooperation. I'd also like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs for their diligent work in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 2486.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, the following is a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body and a letter from the Committee on the Judiciary concerning S. 2486 and our committee's response.

Explanatory Statement on Senate Amendments to S. 2486

S. 2486, as amended, the ``Veterans Benefits Improvement

Act of 2004,'' reflects a Compromise Agreement reached by the

Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs (the

Committees) on the following bills reported during the 108th

Congress: S. 2485, as amended; S. 2486, as amended; and S.

1132, as introduced (Senate Bills); H.R. 1716, as amended;

H.R. 3936; H.R. 4175, as amended; H.R. 4345; and H.R. 4658,

as amended (House Bills).

The Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs have

prepared the following explanation of S. 2486, as amended

(Compromise Agreement). Differences between the provisions

contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related

provisions of S. 2485, as amended; S. 2486, as amended; S.

1132, as introduced; H.R. 1716, as amended; H.R. 3936; H.R.

4175, as amended; H.R. 4345; and H.R. 4658, as amended; are

noted in this document, except for clerical corrections,

conforming changes made necessary by the Compromise

Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and clarifying

changes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say once again that this is a good bill. As a matter of fact, it is a very, very important bill. And I do want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), our distinguished subcommittee chairman, who has done yeoman's work on this, and also the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), who is the ranking member on that subcommittee. This has been a true bipartisan product. I think when President Bush signs this piece of legislation we can all be very, very proud.

I also want to join my friend from Texas in thanking the gentleman from

Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for his outstanding and exemplary work in the Congress for the past 8 years, and he certainly has put veterans first. So again I want to thank him for his work as well.

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

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 S. 2486, the Senate bill just passed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004. The bill, as amended, represents a compromise agreement between the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Senate on these matters.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the committee's ranking member, for his work on this. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for his admirable leadership as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, where most of these measures originated. He has done a tremendous job as chairman. As a 37-year Army veteran, he has put veterans first and has done so in a way that is extraordinary.

Again, I want to thank him for his work and his meticulous attention to detail. It has made the difference. This bill, regrettably, went through a lot of difficulties and travail, and yet he persevered. And I want to thank our chairman of that subcommittee for his leadership. It has been extraordinary.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the ranking member of that subcommittee. Again, these bills are bipartisan. We have worked together very closely, and it is a pleasure to bring this before the body today.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3936 contains more than 33 measures that would improve the management and the administration of veterans health care programs. I want to highlight just a few of those provisions that are contained in the bill.

The VA's homeless grant and per diem program is an economical, flexible, and innovative approach to housing and supportive services for thousands of homeless veterans. The compromise agreement would increase the

fiscal year 2005 authorization level for VA's grant and per diem program from $75 million to $99 million. The Department requested this increase because it has received far more requests for funding from meritorious potential grantees than it can support under existing funding limits.

Another important provision compromise would direct the Secretary to make payments to assist the 128 State-operated nursing homes in hiring and retaining nursing personnel. These homes provide long-term care to over 38,000 veterans annually in an excellent partnership with the VA, and this provision encourages their efforts to keep highly qualified staff caring for these veterans.

Mr. Speaker, today we are at war overseas. We know war can produce terrible physical injuries, and we must do everything possible for wounded servicemembers. This compromise agreement would authorize the VA to establish, in conjunction with the Department of Defense, a limited number of new centers for research, education, and clinical care to improve rehabilitative services for complex traumatic injuries, such as those being suffered by our brave soldiers and Marines in Iraq. These centers will be a Godsend for these wounded war veterans and for their families.

This bill provides VA authority to enter into a 75-year lease to acquire a medical facility on the new Fitzsimons Campus of the University of Colorado. It is anticipated this Federal-State health sciences campus would share many high-cost specialized services and provide expanded access for Air Force beneficiaries at the nearby Buckley Air Force Base.

I want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez) for his leadership on this important provision and the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, who has also done yeoman's work on this as well.

Mr. Speaker, our compromise agreement would improve the process for disposing of unneeded VA properties and authorize the proceeds from property transfers to be deposited into a new VA capital asset fund.

The new fund would facilitate transfers, leases and adaptive uses of VA properties, including historic properties. This compromise agreement also includes authorization for naming five VA medical centers, including one in Illinois to be named for the distinguished House minority leader, Bob Michel. Having served with Bob and having great respect for him, I am grateful that this provision is in here, and I want to thank my colleagues for their support for it. It also names facilities in Texas and New York for two heroic Marines who gave their lives for freedom in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Committee on Veterans Affairs has worked hard in this Congress to examine ways to provide the best possible health care to those who have earned the honored title of ``veteran.'' I would like to recognize the staff of the Subcommittee on Health: John Bradley, staff director; Dolores Dunn and Kathleen Greve, professional staff members; Susan Edgerton, Democratic staff director; and VA detailee Rosalind Howard. I would also like to thank our full committee staff, Pat Ryan to my left, chief counsel and staff director; Kingston Smith, deputy chief counsel; Jeannie McNally, legislative coordinator; and Jim Holley, Democratic staff director.

I also thank the Senate committee staff director, Bill Tuerk, and Bill Cahill, III, professional staff member. I also thank Kim Lipsky, Alexandra Sardegna and Amanda Krohn of the Democratic professional staff for their contributions. This has been a true collaborative effort.

Again, I thank all who have participated in shaping, crafting and making this an extremely valuable bill that will soon be on the desk of President Bush for his signature.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3936.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3936, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 2004.

H.R. 3936, as amended, represents a compromise agreement between the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House and Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Evans, Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who has helped to shape this particular legislation. Also, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Simmons, for his outstanding leadership as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, where most of these measures originated. Finally, I thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Rodriguez, the Ranking Member, who has worked in a bipartisan effort to help craft this and numerous other important veterans' health bills during his time in Congress.

Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Graham of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee also contributed to the legislation before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, VA's homeless grant and per diem program provides competitive grants to community and faith-based organizations that offer transitional housing or comprehensive service centers for homeless veterans. This program is an economical, flexible and innovative approach to housing and supportive services for homeless veterans in all 50 States and in the District. Over 6,000 beds are now available nationally to veterans through this vital community network. In 2003, 66 percent of the veterans discharged from these VA-funded programs went on to either independent living or residential-program housing. The compromise agreement will increase the fiscal year 2005 authorization level for this key program from $75 million to $99 million. The department requested this increase because it has received far more requests for funding from meritorious potential grantees than it can support under existing funding limits.

Another important provision in this compromise agreement would direct the Secretary to make payments to assist states in hiring and retaining nursing personnel at State-operated nursing homes for veterans. The 128 State veterans' homes collectively represent the largest institutional provider of long-term care to elderly veterans, now caring for over 38,000 veterans annually in 47 States. I am personally aware of staffing difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans' homes in Vineland, Paramus and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in their efforts to recruit and retain quality nursing staff to those homes. We need this new incentives program all across the country. It would allow State homes currently receiving per diem payments from VA with established employee-incentive programs to apply for assistance to retain and recruit their nurses. This provision encourages their efforts to keep highly-qualified staff caring for veterans.

Another provision affecting the State home programs would specify that per diem payments made by VA to States for the care of veterans in these homes may not be used to offset or reduce third party payments made to assist veterans, whether from private, State or other Federal sources.

There is well established history of partnership between the Federal and State governments providing care for veterans. This originated with the first Federal law in 1888, providing $100 per year in aid to States to help alleviate the burden of caring for sick and disabled soldiers. This partnership and the first annual payments preceded the advent of the Veterans Administration and the State Home program as we know them today--but Congressional intent has remained constant and clear. Since 1960, Congress has taken an active role in expanding the State home programs to include four levels of care, increased per diem payments and grant funding for construction of facilities. The Congress and its Veterans' Committees are adamant that this partnership and the mutual reliance by VA and the States should not be inadvertently affected by the rules of any other program which is not specifically targeted at caring for aged and infirmed veterans.

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, with Public Law 102-585, it was acknowledged that women who experienced sexual trauma while on active military duty may undergo a variety of psychological and physical health effects requiring special counseling. This law authorized VA to provide mental health counseling for these women veterans. Two years later, eligibility for VA sexual trauma counseling and treatment was broadened in Public Law 103-452 to include veterans of either gender who experience sexual trauma while serving on active duty. H.R. 3936 would make permanent VA's authority to provide sexual trauma counseling to veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the shortage of nurses throughout the United States is well documented and VA must position itself to take advantage of all opportunities available to deal with this shortage. H.R. 3936 would establish a pilot program to evaluate the use of proven private sector techniques, such as employer branding, interactive advertising, automated staffing systems and the use of outside recruitment agencies and online technologies to improve VA's program for recruiting nursing personnel.

Mr. Speaker, how well we know that we are at war overseas. We know war can produce

terrible physical injuries. In previous wars, many soldiers did not survive the very serious injuries of the kind being seen in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The means were not available for quick evacuation to sophisticated medical treatment. Today military medical treatment capabilities have greatly improved for complex traumatic injuries.

However, Mr. Speaker, this success creates new challenges for the caregivers who have patients with complex traumatic injuries. The compromise agreement will authorize VA to establish in cooperation with the Department of Defense a limited number of new centers for research, education and clinical activities to improve rehabilitative services for these veterans. I particularly want to thank Senator Bob Graham, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, for his work in helping us reach agreement on this provision. These centers will be a godsend for these wounded war veterans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, the delivery of health care in this country and in the VA system has undergone a profound transformation over the last decade. Once a hospital based health care system, today's VA has made a significant shift from inpatient to outpatient services, with tremendous growth in the number of enrolled veterans. Yet, much of VA health care bricks-and-mortar infrastructure was designed and built decades ago--some parts of it over a century ago--in a bygone era of health care delivery when long stays in the hospital were the norm.

In 1999, a General Accounting Office report not surprisingly found that VA's cost of operating and maintaining its large inventory of old buildings was a huge and avoidable drain on resources. In the years since that GAO report, VA has undergone a major initiative referred to as the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative, to assess the best use of VA's capital assets for the veteran population to be served, and to use resources more effectively to improve health care delivery to these veterans.

While awaiting the CARES recommendations, little was done by the Department to upgrade VA's physical plants. This legislation is consistent with the CARES recommendations and would provide VA the needed authority to execute leases for 16 community-based outpatient clinics at a cost of approximately $24.4 million, in fiscal year 2005, in the States of California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Most of these leases will upgrade existing clinic locations. All of these leases were requested by the VA.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also provides VA authority to enter into a 75- year lease to acquire a medical facility on the Fitzsimons Campus of the University of Colorado in Aurora. It is anticipated that a new federal-state health sciences campus would share many high cost and specialized services, and also would provide expanded access to care for Air Force beneficiaries from nearby Buckley Air Force Base. I want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Beauprez, for his leadership in developing this good Federal health policy to serve the people of Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, our compromise agreement would improve the process for disposing of unneeded VA properties and authorize the proceeds from these property transfers to be deposited into a new VA Capital Asset Fund. The new fund would defray VA's cost of transferring property including demolition, environmental restoration, historic preservation and establishment of new health facilities. This bill would authorize appropriations of $10 million in seed money to launch the fund to support these initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, the VA has one of the largest federal inventories of properties with significant historic value. In fact, 24 VA medical center campuses are already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and even more are eligible for this designation. This compromise agreement would allow the Secretary to enter into new partnerships or agreements with entities dedicated to historic preservation, and to use the funds in the Capital Asset Fund to facilitate transfers, leases or adaptive uses of those historic properties that are no longer useful for VA health care. Thus, this compromise agreement would protect history and at the same time the way to new uses of structures that have served their purposes for veterans.

Mr. Speaker, this compromise agreement includes authorization to name VA facilities to honor two heroic Marines who gave this country the greatest measure of their personal devotion, giving their lives in combat to save others in Vietnam. Lance Corporals Thomas E. Creek of Texas and Thomas P. Noonan, Jr. of New York were each posthumously awarded the Nation's highest military decoration, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for their selfless deeds.

The late James J. Peters of New York, a war hero in Vietnam, and a leader of paralyzed veterans after his service, would also be honored by our naming a VA outpatient clinic in the Bronx in his memory.

Further, Mr. Speaker, a VA facility in Illinois will be named in honor of our distinguished former House Minority Leader, Bob Michel, and a facility in Texas will be named in honor of the public service of another former Member of this House, Charles Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, VA must comply with a variety of Federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the collecting, handling and disposing of medical waste. Failure to adhere to these laws and regulations could place patients, VA employees and their communities in hazardous situations, as well as subject VA to civil or criminal penalties. This bill would provide a means for Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of VA's medical waste management policies and determine whether additional procedures are needed to reduce environmental and heath risks. The costs of waste disposal would be assessed as well. The bill would require VA to establish and maintain an inventory of medical waste management activities in VA facilities and report to Congress on its inventory, regulatory compliance, and violations of record, along with plans for management improvements.

Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has worked hard in this Congress to examine ways of providing the best possible health care for those who have earned the honored title of ``veteran.'' I would like to recognize the staff of the Subcommittee on Health: John Bradley, Staff Director, Dolores Dunn and Kathleen Greve, professional staff members; Susan Edgerton, Democratic Staff Director, and VA detailee Rosalind Howard. I'd also like to thank our full Committee staff: Patrick Ryan, Chief Counsel and Staff Director; Kingston Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel; Jeannie McNally, our Legislative Coordinator; and Jim Holley, Democratic Staff Director.

Finally, I want to compliment the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee staff: Bill Tuerk, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; and Bill Cahill III, professional staff member. I also want to recognize Kim Lipsky, Alexandra Sardegna and Amanda Krohn, of the Democratic professional staff, for their contributions to this bill.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I include at this point in the record a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on H.R. 3936, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, one final word on homeless veterans: these veterans who need services and a place to lay their heads have difficult problems. VA's programs and the hundreds of community and faith-based programs that serve in partnership with VA work miracles with many of them. The continuation and expansion of these programs with the goal of eradicating chronic homelessness in the veteran population has been one of my top goals as Chairman of this Committee. I intend to further address this program in the next Congress, so that those who once wore the nation's military uniform and who are now homeless. These veterans need a hand up to turn their lives around, and we should provide that hand.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure to enhance health care for veterans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, I include at this point in the Record a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the author of the law, the Millennium Health Care Act, which has made a tremendous difference on behalf of our seniors who are veterans who need long-term health care.

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

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

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. 3936.

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

Mr. Speaker, after 22 years on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Pat Ryan, our chief counsel and staff director, is retiring from government service. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to his extraordinary career and his many, many accomplishments.

For over 2 decades, Pat Ryan has made tremendous contributions to many of the most important new veterans laws that have been approved by Congress. He worked on numerous bills to expand services for aging veterans and those in need of long-term health care.

He was instrumental in helping to establish domiciliaries for homeless veterans and was the principal drafter of legislation to authorize VA's transitional housing guarantee program to benefit homeless veterans. Pat played an essential role in helping to establish the Department of Veterans Affairs and in creating the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Pat has been deeply involved in numerous successful committee initiatives that expanded and strengthened programs to assist surviving spouses and children of servicemembers killed in action or who later died of service-related causes. Over the past 20 years, Pat has helped to increase the Montgomery GI Bill benefit for qualified veterans from $300 per month when he joined the committee to over $1,000 per month today.

Using his budget expertise gained from 10 years working for the VA early in his career, Pat has been an extraordinarily valuable person in helping the Congress to ensure that the VA's budget has been both appropriate and responsive and that all funds are well spent. His extensive knowledge of the law and the inner workings of the VA greatly aided our committee in its work to create exemplary oversight of veterans programs.

From managing the committee's professional staff, to drafting legislation, to overseeing VA's programs and services, Patrick Ryan is the consummate

professional. I consider him to be a great friend and a great partner in all that this committee has accomplished during our time together, and it has been an honor to work side by side with him.

On a personal level, Pat Ryan has lived his life in a way that has truly made a difference and has walked to the beat of our Lord's drummer when He said whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do likewise to me. For Pat, that means always looking out for the little guy. I have such respect and admiration for that character trait, and it is very strong in Patrick Ryan. What motivates him more than anything else, and it is first and foremost in his life, is his love for his wife, Kathy, and their three children: Kerry, Dan, and Julia. For Pat Ryan, family always comes first.

Pat is ever proud of his father who has passed, William Everest Ryan, who was a proud Marine and who saw combat during World War II in the South Pacific where he was wounded and won the Purple Heart award. He later joined the Justice Department while continuing in the Marine reserves as an officer in the JAG, retiring with the rank of colonel in 1964. Pat Ryan has spent his entire career in Congress, defending the same values his father defended on the battlefield and in the courtroom.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of his colleagues in the House and members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs who know and admire him so much, and other Members who have known and worked with him, and on behalf of millions of veterans who have benefited from his work, but have never known his name, I want to thank Pat Ryan for a distinguished career of faithful public service. It has been an honor to work with him.

Mr. Speaker, there is reason to fear for the fate of rule of law in Russia. I want to present one relevant example.

Mikhail Trepashkin, an attorney and former Federal Security Service, FSB, officer was arrested on October 24, 2003, a week before he was scheduled to represent in legal proceedings the relatives of one of the victims of a terrorist attack in Moscow. Mr. Trepashkin's American client is Tatyana Morozova of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In September 1999, Ms. Morozova's mother was killed and her sister barely survived the bombing of an apartment house in Moscow. Officially, the crime was blamed on Chechen separatists, but Mr. Trepashkin was expected to present the findings of his investigation which suggested involvement of elements of the FSB in the 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow as well as an aborted attempted bombing in the city of Ryazan.

Mr. Trepashkin had been a consultant to the public commission set up by prominent human rights activist and former Duma Deputy Sergei Kovalev to investigate the 1999 bombings. The Kovalev commission asked many unpleasant questions but got precious few answers from the authorities. Meanwhile, in the course of his investigation Trepashkin discovered evidence that didn't track with the official version of the bombing incidents. This included events in Ryazan, where a bomb in an apartment basement was discovered by local police and safely detonated hours before it was due to explode. The two suspects in that case were released after presenting FSB identification documents. The whole incident was later declared a ``readiness exercise'' by Russian authorities.

Several months later, the co-chairman of the Kovalev Commission, Duma Deputy Sergei Yushenkov, was assassinated in front of his home. Four persons were convicted of the murder. Another member of the Commission died of food poisoning in a hospital, another was severely beaten by thugs, and two members lost their seats in the Duma. The activities of the decimated commission came to an abrupt halt.

A week before the October 24, 2003 trial opened, the police just happened to pull Trepashkin over on the highway, and just happened to find a revolver in his car. Trepashkin claims the gun was planted. Three weeks later, he was put on trial and sentenced to 4 years labor camp by a closed court for allegedly divulging state secrets to a foreign journalist.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know all the details of this case, but it looks very much like Mr. Trepashkin was prosecuted in order to prevent him from releasing potentially damaging information regarding the activities of the FSB. The

U.S. State Department has commented diplomatically: ``The arrest and trial of Mikhail Trepashkin raised concerns about the undue influence of the FSB and arbitrary use of the judicial system.''

Today Mr. Trepashkin is held in a Volokolamsk city jail in a 130- square foot, lice-infested cell, which he shares with six other prisoners. He suffers from asthma but reportedly has been denied health care or even medicine. These arduous conditions may be retaliation for Mr. Trepashkin's filing a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

It is difficult to believe that President Putin, given his KGB and FSB background, is unaware of the controversy surrounding the bombing investigations and the possibility that elements of the security services were involved. He must realize that corruption and personal vendettas within the FSB are dangerous commodities not only for the people of Russia, but for an entire civilized world that relies on the combined efforts of the intelligence community in the war against terrorism.

I urge President Putin to order a thorough and honest investigation of Mikhail Trepashkin's jailing and full cooperation with the Kovalev Commission. While the jury is still out on the 1999 bombings, persecution of those who want to find out the truth does not add to Mr. Putin's credibility among those in the West who so far have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the death of journalist Paul Klebnikov, who was murdered on July 9 of this year outside his Moscow office. An American citizen of Russian lineage, Mr. Klebnikov was editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, he was the 11th journalist killed in Russia in a contract- style murder in the past four and a half years.

Mr. Klebnikov had achieved prominence as a result of his investigative journalism which often focused on the connections between business, politics and crime in Russia. Mr. Klebnikov's investigations resulted in his writing two books, both devoted to exposing corruption within Russia's business and political sectors. Clearly, he made powerful enemies. There has been speculation that his murder was connected to a Forbes article that focused on Moscow's 100 wealthiest people. Someone, goes the theory, did not care for the publicity. Another suggestion is that Mr. Klebnikov's book Conversation with a Barbarian: Interview with a Chechen Field Commander on Banditry and Islam may have sparked a motive for the murder.

It was Mr. Klebnikov's love of Russia and his belief that reforms were advancing the nation toward a greater transparency in business and politics that motivated him to launch the Russian edition of Forbes magazine in April 2004. Mr. Klebnikov was committed to exposing and confronting corruption in the hope that such work would contribute to a brighter future for the people of Russia. He believed that accountability was an essential element to achieve lasting reforms.

Unfortunately, this hope for a better future in Russia has been dealt a serious blow by the murder of Paul Klebnikov. As I and ten other Members of the Helsinki Commission wrote to President Putin on October 5th of this year, much more is at stake than determining who killed Paul Klebnikov. The fear and self-censorship arising from the murders of journalists in Russia only serves to add to the corruption of government officials and businessmen. A cowed press cannot be the effective instrument for building the free and prosperous society that Mr. Putin purports to seek.

Mr. Speaker, according to the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS, on the occasion of ``Militia Day,'' November 10, President Vladimir Putin told police officials that protecting the economy from crime and fighting corruption is a priority task in Russia. I would urge Mr. Putin to back up these words with action. Russian authorities should investigate to the fullest extent possible the murder of Mr. Klebnikov, no matter where the trail leads.

Only through rule of law and accountability can Russia achieve the safe, free and comfortable future that Mr. Klebnikov believed was possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight on what is happening to recently-separated veterans who seek benefits and services from the Department of Veterans Affairs. There has been significant progress made in the last 3 years; some of that progress was reported correctly in a Washington Times article this past Sunday, but the headline in a piece from the Washington Post that appeared on the same day and was quoted by one of my colleagues on Monday made it seem that VA is totally unprepared to provide disability, compensation, rehabilitation and other benefit to America's veterans.

It is inaccurate to describe the current inventory of 323,000 claims for VA benefits as a ``backlog,'' if by that term you mean to imply that veterans are waiting unnecessarily for an answer from VA. The truth is that at any given time, the VA is actively processing more than 250,000 claims while receiving more than 70,000 new and reopened claims each month. It's normal for the VA to have a working inventory of at least 250,000 claims.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, at the request of this President, Congress provided additional funding to increase the number of VA claims processors by more than 1,300 since he took office. When we authorized these new employees, we effectively overstaffed the VA so that experienced employees would be available to train these new employees without an adverse effect on the timeliness of claims processing. These new employees are now fully trained and productive, and there should be no reduction in services to veterans.

With respect to meeting veterans' benefits needs, the Washington Post article cited recently one of my colleagues failed to mention any of the documented improvements in VA claims processing. In the past four years, the VA has reduced the average time to decide disability claims from a high of 233 days to 160 days, reduced the percentage of pending claims for over six months from 48% in 2002 to 21% now, reduced rating- related claims from 432,000 in 2002 to 323,000 currently and is on track to meet the VA goal of 250,000.

Most importantly, VA has increased the number of claims decisions from an average of 40,000 per month in 2001 to nearly 70,000 in 2004. These are significant accomplishments by the Bush Administration on behalf of veterans, and all of us should be proud to have supported the increased funding which the Administration requested to make this possible.

Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post article lead readers to believe that there was some delay in providing benefits to a soldier on active duty, and that the VA is unresponsive to America's veterans. In fact, I am advised that VA has already evaluated this particular soldier's disabilities and will begin awarding benefits on the first the day he is discharged from the Army. As all of my colleagues should know, VA cannot provide veterans benefits to a soldier until he or she is discharged from active duty.

The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense are working hard to ensure that military members have a ``seamless transition'' from active duty; this means prompt decisions on claims for disability benefits and quality health care when needed. Even before servicemembers are discharged, VA provides transition services at 136 military bases so that servicemembers can ask questions and be briefed about their VA benefits and how to file for those benefits as they approach discharge. The VA has even assigned its own professional staff to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and the Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany to ensure our wounded American heroes will be aware of their VA health care and benefits long before they are discharged.

Mr. Speaker it is often said that you shouldn't argue with an entity that buys ink by the barrel, but the Washington Post has its facts wrong in this case. This is not that surprising since the Post has not reported on any of the hearings--and we've had many--on these issues held by either the House Committee on Veterans Affairs which I chair and the House Armed Service Committee during the past year. Had they done so, their readers could have learned about the problems which have faced separating service members in the past and what is being done today to prevent those problems from occurring in the future.

Both the Armed Forces and VA are working more closely together than in any previous conflict to ensure that the benefits which service members earned by their faithful service are delivered in a timely and compassionate manner. Members who attended those hearings learned that while mistakes have occurred, no one is more dedicated to ensuring that these deserving veterans than the current VA Secretary Anthony Principi and his able staff. The VA, the Congress and the President are all working together to make sure that our newest generation of combat veterans are taken care of. They deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, in the debate last night, Senator Kerry stumbled badly when asked a question on the stem cell research debate. He suggested that the only choice was between continuing cryogenically freezing those embryos or their destruction. That is not the only option. Those embryos can be and are being adopted.

A couple of weeks ago, right nearby, in the Capitol here, I met with more than a dozen little children who were once cryogenically frozen embryos who were adopted. Their parents, in their love and compassion, those who had made the contribution and had created these new embryos, allowed those individuals to be adopted; and those kids had names like Michael and Katie. They are not throwaways. No human being is a throwaway.

I hope we will disabuse ourselves, Mr. Speaker, of this false idea that there is such a thing as a ``spare'' embryo. Every embryo that is not wanted, that is not going to be implanted in the donor mother-- these mothers, ought to allow that embyro to be adopted.