Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4231, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2004. I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, my friend and colleague, for introducing this legislation, and for his astute judgment and perseverance that was essential in bringing this bill before the House today. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), as well the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), because, again, that partnership is so important in bringing these veterans bills to the floor; and I want to thank them for their leadership as well.

As amended, H.R. 4231 would authorize several new and innovative approaches to help the VA maintain the quality of its workforce in all VA health care facilities. The bill would establish a pilot program to use outside recruitment agencies with interactive and online technologies to improve VA recruitment of vital nursing personnel. It would also allow the VA to offer three alternative work schedules for nurses so that employment in VA can be more sensitive to family and personal needs for scheduling flexibility and career development.

It also contains a provision to aid State veterans homes which care for thousands of veterans in need of nursing home care each and every year.

One measure in the bill as reported deserves a moment of discussion, because it caused some concern for members of the committee and organizations whose members might be affected. As reported, the bill would have prohibited VA from denying employment to a State-licensed registered nurse whose educational preparation was other than a baccalaureate degree. There is a well-documented shortage, Mr. Speaker, of trained, registered nurses in the United States. Community colleges in every State have stepped forward to offer professional nursing careers through associate degree preparation. Their success in preparing their students is reflected in the rate at which associate degreed nurses pass required State registered nurse examinations.

Associate degree nurses are systematically and vigorously recruited in almost every health care institution in the United States. In the VA, there is a preference in hiring baccalaureate graduates and a policy of excluding associate degree nurses from internal VA promotions. At a time when nurses are in short supply and when community colleges are the primary source of new nursing graduates, should the VA be emphasizing baccalaureate degrees to the exclusion of others who are fully qualified as professional nurses? We think not.

The committee is concerned that these current VA hiring practices and the variation in these practices noted in the recent report of the VA's National Commission on VA Nursing discouraged nurses with associate degrees from even seeking VA employment. VA's practice of exclusion in the face of high demand and scarcity of nursing personnel discourages qualified nurses from seeking VA employment. This practice also adversely affects VA's ability to retain current nurses.

Following extensive discussions after this bill was ordered reported, the bill before the House today does not include section 4 of the bill as ordered reported. Section 4 was designed to keep the VA competitive with the private sector and to clarify that the lack of a baccalaureate degree could not be the basis to deny nurse employment in a VA facility. However, the aim of the provision was misread by some who believe that the best qualified nurses are those who have a bachelor's degree or some advanced degree in nursing.

Most of us who seek health care look to providers who are competent, compassionate, critical thinkers, good communicators, and who are dedicated to expanding their knowledge of human

susceptibility to disease. None of those qualities are guaranteed to be present in a particular graduate of any health care profession from any school. In the case of nurses, competence is tested by State licensing exams, and only those who pass the exam are licensed to practice in a State or in the VA. The other qualities I mentioned are acquired from associating with and learning from other professionals who possess them. There is no guarantee that any particular licensed professional possesses all of them.

Mr. Speaker, VA's own hiring policy requires that persons with associate degrees in nursing be considered at entry-level positions. The committee supports the underlying premise of this policy, and there should be no discrimination based against persons who demonstrate competence by passing a State examination. Unfortunately, the committee has gathered irrefutable evidence that some VA medical centers did violate VA's hiring policy and discriminated against prospective employees who possessed an associate degree in nursing.

The committee has recently received assurances, however, from the acting Under Secretary for Health that the VA will correct these improper practices. He has pledged that the VA will continue to adhere to its policy of considering appointment of licensed, registered nurses to entry-level positions without regard to the institution that granted them their nursing degree. In addition, the Under Secretary promised to undertake a number of significant steps to address any lingering effects from the improper recruiting practices which the committee discovered.

In light of this commitment and the VA's concern about the potential inadvertent effect of this language, the bill before us today does not contain the nursing qualification provision as ordered by the committee.

The committee looks forward to full reports on the execution of the several commitments made in a letter signed by Under Secretary on September 21 of this year, and I will include the letter at this point in the Record.

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Veterans Health Administration,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2004.

Hon. Christopher H. Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter provides the Veterans Health

Administration (VHA) position regarding H.R. 4231, Section

4--Appointment of nurses who do not have Baccalaureate

Degrees.

VHA is committed to hiring all levels of licensed nurses

including Bachelors prepared and registered nurses who have

associate degrees or diplomas. In calendar year 2000, VHA

appointed 815 associate degree nurses; in calendar year 2004

to date, VHA has appointed 1,337 associate degree nurses.

Given the national nursing shortage, VHA cannot afford to

overlook associate degree nurses. We recognize and value

their contributions.

In order to further enhance recruitment of associate degree

nurses, VHA is taking the following actions:

1. Instruct Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility

managers and human resources staff to no longer include in

vacancy announcements language limiting applicants to those

who hold a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree or

convey a preference for a BSN for ``Nurse I'' positions.

2. Continue working with the American Association of

Community Colleges (AACC) to augment our marketing and

recruiting efforts to associate degree nursing graduates. The

Office of Nursing Services in Washington, D.C., will meet

with the AACC on a quarterly basis and will present a

marketing and recruiting strategy to them. An acceptable

plan, including a commitment of VA resources, shall be in

place by June 30, 2005.

3. The Health Care Staff Development and Retention Office

will visit at least one community college nursing program

affiliated with the AACC in each Veterans Integrated Services

Network (VISN) in the coming year, and VA will ensure local

facilities conduct outreach to community college programs. VA

will provide information regarding employment opportunities,

promotion policies, and scholarship and loan repayment

programs available from VA. The first cycle of visits will be

completed by December 31, 2005. In addition, to accomplish

this goal, VISN staff will conduct many of the visits in

coordination with the Health Care Staff Development and

Retention Office.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. Should you

need additional information, a member of your staff may

contact Nevin Weaver, Director, Management Support Office at

202-273-5805.

Sincerely,

Jonathan B. Perlin, MD,

PhD, MSHA, FACP,

Acting Under Secretary for Health.

The last provision in the amended bill I want to mention incorporates the provisions of a bill that I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4020. That bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make increased grants to assist States in hiring and retaining their own nursing personnel at State-owned operating nursing homes for veterans. State homes that currently receive per diem payments from the VA and have established employee incentive programs would be eligible to apply for incentive assistance and could receive up to 50 percent of the annual cost of the incentive program.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Civil War, State veterans homes began caring for veterans and are now the largest provider of long-term care to our Nation's veterans. Today, over 16,000 veterans are being cared for in 128 State veterans homes in 47 States in the key partnership between the States and the VA.

The Department of Health and Human Services in 2002 surveyed the 50 States and Puerto Rico to learn how States are responding to the needs of health care workers. Ninety percent reported a shortage of nursing staff as a major concern in their responses. In efforts to respond to these nursing and other health care worker shortages, 44 of the 50 States reporting established task forces and commissions to study and seek solutions. The focus of the task forces or commissions in 25 States was to study shortages in the long-term health care force.

I am aware of difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans homes in Vineland, Paramus, and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in recruiting and retaining nursing staff. We can address this effort with new Federal incentives that supplement and assist State initiatives in providing long-term care to veterans. I think this legislation provides a sound blending of authorities to help maintain quality nursing personnel for veterans cared for in both the VA and State-run facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4231, as amended, the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act of 2004.

I want to thank the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, my friend the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Simmons, for introducing this legislation and for his astute judgment and perseverance that was essential to bringing this bill before the House today. I also want to thank Mr. Evans, the ranking member of the full committee, and Mr. Rodriguez, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee for their leadership on this measure.

As amended, H.R. 4231 would authorize several new and innovative approaches to help the VA maintain the quality of its workforce in all VA health care facilities.

The bill would establish a pilot program to use outside recruitment agencies, with interactive and online technologies, to improve VA recruitment of vital nursing personnel. It would also allow VA to offer three new alternative work schedules for nurses so that employment in VA can be more sensitive to family and personal needs for scheduling flexibility and career development. It also contains a provision to aid State veterans homes which care for thousands of veterans in need of nursing home care each year.

One measure in the bill as reported deserves a moment of discussion because it caused some concern by Members of the Committee and organizations whose members might be affected. As reported, the bill would have prohibited VA from denying employment to a State-licensed registered nurse whose educational preparation was other than a baccalaureate degree.

There is a well-ducumented shortage of trained registered nurses in the United States. Community colleges in every state have stepped forward to offer professional nursing careers through associate degree preparation. Their success in preparing their students is reflected in the rate at which associate degree nurses pass required state registered nurse examinations. Associate degree nurses are systematically and vigorously recruited in almost every health care institution in the United States.

In the VA there is a preference in hiring for baccalaureate graduates, and a policy of excluding associate degree nurses from internal VA promotions. At a time when nurses are in short supply and when community colleges are the primary source of new nursing graduates, should VA be emphasizing baccalaureate graduates to the exclusion of others who are fully qualified as professional nurses? We think not.

The Committee is concerned that these current VA hiring practices, and the variation in these practices noted in the recent report of

VA's National Commission on VA Nursing, discourage nurses with associate degrees from even seeking VA employment. VA's practice of exclusion in the face of high demand and scarcity of nursing personnel discourages qualified nurses from seeking VA employment. This practice also adversely affects VA's ability to retain current nurses.

Following extensive discussions after this bill was ordered reported, the bill before the House today does not include section 4 of the bill as ordered reported. Section 4 was designed to keep VA competitive with the private sector, and to clarify that the lack of a baccalaureate degree could not be the basis to deny that nurse employment in a VA facility. However, the aim of the provision was misread by some who believe that the best-qualified nurses are those who have a bachelor's degree or some advanced degree in nursing.

Most of us who seek health care look for providers who are competent, compassionate, critical thinkers, good communicators, and who are dedicated to expanding their knowledge of human susceptibility to disease. None of those qualities are guaranteed to be present in a particular graduate of any health professions school. In the case of nursing, competence is tested by State licensing exams, and only those who pass that exam are licensed to practice in a State or in the VA. The other qualities I mentioned are acquired from associating with and learning from other professionals who possess them. There is no guarantee that any particular licensed professional possesses all of them.

VA's own hiring policy requires that persons with associate degrees in nursing be considered for entry-level positions. The Committee supports the underlying premise of this policy--that there should be no discrimination against person who demonstrate competence by passing a State examination. Unfortunately, the Committee has gathered irrefutable evidence that some VA medical centers did violate VA's hiring policy and discriminated against prospective employees who possessed an associate degree in nursing.

The Committee has recently received assurance from the Acting Undersecretary for Health that VA will correct these improper practices; he has pledged that VA will continue to adhere to its policy of considering appointment of licensed registered nurses to entry-level positions without regard to the institution that granted them their nursing degree. In addition, the Under Secretary promised to undertake a number of significant steps to address any lingering effects from the improper recruiting practices which the Committee discovered. In light of this commitment, and the VA's concerns about the potential inadvertent effects of this language, the bill before the House today does not contain the nursing qualification provision as ordered reported by the Committee.

The Committee looks forward to full reports on the execution of the several commitments it made in a letter signed by the Under Secretary on September 21, 2004. I ask unanimous consent to insert a copy of that letter in the Record at this point.

The last provision in the amended bill I want to mention incorporates the provisions of a bill I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 4020. That bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make increased grants to assist States in hiring and retaining their own nursing personnel at State-operated nursing homes for veterans. State homes that currently receive per diem payments from VA and have established employee incentive programs would be eligible to apply for incentive assistance and could receive up to 50 percent of the annual cost of the incentive program.

In the wake of the Civil War, State veterans' homes began caring for veterans and are now the largest provider of long-term care to our Nation's veterans. Today, over 16,000 veterans are being cared for in 128 State veterans' homes in 47 States in a key partnership between the States and the VA.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2002 surveyed the 50 States and Puerto Rico to learn how States are responding to needs for health care workers. Ninety percent reported a shortage of nursing staff as a major concern in their responses. In efforts to respond to these nursing and other health workforce shortages, 44 of 50 States reported establishing task forces and commissions to study and seek solutions. The focus of the task forces or commissions in 25 States was to study shortages in the long-term care work force.

While the HHS study documented the extent of the problems nationally, I am aware of difficulties that the three New Jersey State veterans' homes in Vineland, Paramus and Menlo Park have faced over the past several years in recruiting and retaining quality nursing staff. We can address this effort with new Federal incentives that supplement and assist State initiatives.

State homes are important partners in providing long-term care to veterans. I think this legislation provides a sound blending of authorities to help maintain quality nursing personnel for veterans cared for in both VA and State-run facilities.

Finally, H.R. 4231 would reform the qualification requirements for candidates for the position of Under Secretary for Health. Current law requires the Under Secretary for Health to be a doctor of medicine, limiting the pool of candidates that VA may consider for this vital executive position. Executives in the American health care industry who present exceptional credentials and experience, but did not receive a medical degree as a part of their preparation, are excluded by law from consideration. In fact, of the 62 top hospital, health insurance and managed care organizations in the United States, only five CEOs hold the doctor of medicine degree. H.R. 4231 would repeal the requirement for VA's Under Secretary for health to be a doctor of medicine. This change would allow a future Administration to consider candidates from the widest spectrum of executive talents, including doctors of medicine, nurses, dentists, health academics, health economists, insurance executives and other qualified candidates with the demonstrated abilities to fill such a key leadership role in veterans' affairs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a carefully crafted bill that will advance measures that are important to providing our veterans with quality health care services.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission I am concerned about Kazakhstan's draft law on combating extremist activity, as the legislation could violate Kazakhstan's OSCE commitments on religious freedom and damage the country's positive reputation on religious tolerance and liberty. In President Nursultan Nazarbaev's address to the parliament on September 1, he urged deputies to pass the bill while dismissing concerns about the further regulation of religion. Nevertheless, the text is problematic in several respects and would benefit from further refinement. Considering that Kazakhstan wishes to be the OSCE Chair-in- Office in 2009, I urge Kazakhstan to seek the advice of the OSCE Panel of Experts on Religious Freedom or Belief, as President Nazarbaev wisely did two years ago regarding a proposed draft law on religion.

Intended to combat terrorism, the draft law would criminalize membership in certain groups or the holding of certain beliefs, rather than combating actual criminal deeds. A critical portion of the law is also vague, as the text fails to define clearly the term ``extremism.'' The omission is glaring and will very likely lead to its misapplication. In addition, the draft uses the word ``religious'' ten times and links religion with an ill-defined understanding of ``extremism.'' In the context of an anti-terrorism law, such a connection gives rise to concern, as these types of statutes can easily be misused against unpopular religious communities. The draft law would strengthen state control over religious activity by giving the State Agency for Work with Religious Associations the ability to monitor groups. From its observations, the State Agency can recommend the banning of a group for ``extremist activity,'' but again the text does not spell out what activities would qualify.

Another problematic provision included in the draft concerns the foreign classification of a group as ``extremist,'' as the law will honor the classification by another country and ban their activity in Kazakhstan. This clause would in effect allow the long arm of a repressive government to outlaw a group in Kazakhstan, as well. I remember when a Moscow court labeled the Salvation Army as a ``paramilitary'' organization; under this draft bill, Kazakhstan could follow this erroneous assertion and ban this well-respected humanitarian organization.

Existing Kazakh law fully provides for the prosecution of criminal acts, so these new provisions are not only unnecessary but harmful. In fact, some articles of current law are too restrictive. For example, Article 375 of the Administrative Code, which requires the registration of religious groups, should be removed. I have received consistent reports since the promulgation of Article 375 of unregistered groups being penalized for legitimate activities and their facing civil and criminal sanctions. Considering the recurring misuse of civil regulations, I fear further abuse under the draft law.

I understand that President Nazarbaev is concerned about the spread of extremism in his country, especially from ``radical'' Islamic groups. The President may be tempted to follow the actions of his neighbors, especially Uzbekistan, but I would advise him otherwise. The Uzbek Government has for years ruthlessly clamped down on pious Muslims suspected of being associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir. This reactionary and heavy-handed policy has proven counterproductive, antagonizing the devout Muslim population and leaving it receptive to other, radical voices. Instead of defeating terrorists, demanding legal requirements for religious practice and Uzbekistan's harsh responses have restricted the religious freedoms of the many peaceful Muslims and Christians wanting to practice their faith. Obviously, individuals involved in criminal activity in Kazakhstan should be punished. But, by banning entire groups, particularly independent mosques outside the control of the state-backed Muslim Spiritual Association, entire communities will be penalized. The result will be the inappropriate limiting of a fundamental freedom, while doing little to prevent criminal acts.

In closing, the Congress of World and Traditional Religions convened by President Nazarbaev himself was successful in bringing together Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu leaders to discuss tolerance and understanding. I fear that the draft law on extremism, if not amended, will sully Kazakhstan's reputation on religious tolerance by unduly limiting religious freedoms through the criminalization of certain memberships and beliefs as opposed to addressing real criminal activity.

Mr. Speaker, less than 5 minutes ago, I was in a room here in the Capitol filled with children who were frozen embryos, several months--even years ago--who went on to be adopted. The stories of these adopted embryos, with names like Kate and Mike, are compelling. We know of at least 60 children who were once cryogenically frozen but have now gone on to be adopted. An adoption program called Snowflakes adoption agency that has been promoting this loving adoption option and underscores why we need to protect these newly created human beings and not steal their stem cells for use in research.

Let me also point out to my colleagues that we often hear the term ``spare embryos'' in connection with embryonic stem cell research. I hope that we will cease employing that very false term. There is no such thing as a spare embryo. These individuals can be adopted, they are being adopted; and they are just like any other little boy or girl.

We should put our emphasis, and our research dollars, Mr. Speaker, on adult stem cell research and cord blood stem cell research. This research has no ethical downside. And it has worked. That is where the real breakthroughs are occurring each and every day. Heart repair and myriad other advances are occurring not from embryonic, but from adult--and cord blood stem cells.

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

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

In April of 2004, Mr. Speaker, at the same time as world leaders were gathered in Kigali, Rwanda, to remember the Rwandan genocide of 10 years earlier, a humanitarian cease-fire was signed between the government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, and the Sudan Justice and Equality Movement to end the atrocities and reverse the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The agreement was facilitated by the U.S., European Union, the African Union and the United Nations. All parties agreed to take immediate steps to stop the violence and atrocities being perpetrated by the Janjaweed militias.

Sadly, the agreement was not worth the paper it was written on, and the violence continued. The U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan later said, ``The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved.'' President Bush confirmed this conclusion on September 9 by declaring ``The United States is appalled by the violence in Darfur, Sudan. The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than 1 million people.''

Mr. Speaker, despite the best efforts of the U.S. Government, including the extraordinary efforts of Ambassador Williamson at the U.N. Conference in Geneva, and I was there and I saw it up close and personal, he did an extraordinary job; Sudan was given nothing more than a half-hearted slap on the wrist during the sixtieth session of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights which concluded its work in May. Like I said, I was there in Geneva, and I was appalled when Sudan was reelected to serve on the commission for another 2 years. The hypocrisy of the election of Sudan, one of the worst violators of human rights on the planet, to serve on the U.N. Commission For Human Rights should not be lost on anyone. It is utterly outrageous.

Sudan now, as it has in the past, uses its clout on the Human Rights Panel to thwart scrutiny of its policies and to water down resolutions of condemnation. Sudan uses its seat on the committee to network and to collude with other rogue nations to run interference for the dictatorships. And again, I saw that firsthand as they were walking the halls in Geneva and working the room to try to water down resolutions.

Finally, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, the atrocities committed in Darfur have all been well documented. An estimated 50,000 people have been killed and another 300,000 face imminent death in the coming months. Over a million have been displaced, and some 200,000 others have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. This atrocity must come to an end. This resolution again puts us on record in trying to mitigate and, hopefully, end this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, in April 2004, at the same time as world leaders were gathered in Kigali, Rwanda to remember the Rwandan genocide of 10 years earlier, a humanitarian cease-fire was signed between the government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, and the Sudan Justice and Equality Movement to end the atrocities and reverse the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The agreement was facilitated by the United States Government, the European Union, the African Union, and the United Nations. All parties agreed to take immediate steps to stop the violence and atrocities being perpetrated by the Janjaweed militias.

Sadly, the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on and the violence continued. The U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan later said, ``The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved.'' President Bush affirmed this conclusion on September 9 by declaring, ``The United States is appalled by the violence in Darfur, Sudan . . . The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than one million people.''

Despite the best efforts by the United States Government, including the extraordinary efforts of Ambassador Williamson, Sudan was given nothing more than a half-hearted slap on the wrist during the 60th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which concluded its work in May. I was there in Geneva and was appalled when Sudan was reelected to serve on the Commission for another two years. The hyprocacy of the election of Sudan--one of the worst violators of human rights on the planet--to serve on the U.N. Commission for Human Rights should not been lost on anyone. It is utterly outrageous.

Sudan uses its clout on the Human Rights Panel to thwart scrutiny of its policies and to water down resolutions of condemnation. Sudan uses its seat on the Committee to network and collude with other rogue nations to run interference for dictatorships.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in the past 4 months that this House has considered resolutions which have shed light on the crisis in the Darfur region. The first resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 403, condemned the Government of Sudan for its attacks against civilians in Darfur. The second, House Concurrent Resolution 467, declared that the atrocities taking place in Darfur constitute genocide. This declaration of genocide was affirmed by President Bush and Secretary of State Powell. Senate Concurrent Resolution 137, which lies before you now, represents a logical next step.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 137 endorses the Secretary of State's call for an investigation into violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law that have occurred in Darfur, and calls for Sudan's suspension from the Commission on Human Rights until that investigation has been completed. Should the investigation lead to a determination by the United Nations that genocide has occurred or is occurring in Darfur, the resolution calls for the removal of Sudan from the Human Rights Commission. Finally, the resolution calls upon the Member States of the Human Rights commission to convene an immediate special session to consider suspension of Sudan's membership.

The atrocities committed in Darfur have been well documented. An estimated 50,000 people have been killed, another 300,000 face certain death in the coming months, over a million have been internally displaced and some 200,000 others have been forced to flee to neighboring Chad. Attacks show a systematic pattern and include murder, rape, gender-based violence, and other scorched earth tactics. Despite the existence of a cease-fire, African Union monitors have confirmed government support for and participation in attacks against civilians in Darfur as recently as August 26, 2004. Human Rights Watch reports that the Sudanese Government has allowed the Janjaweed to maintain military camps in all Darfur states--several of which they share with the Sudanese Army--and that many Janjaweed have been incorporated into the army or police.

On July 22, 2004 the House voted unanimously to declare that the atrocities in Sudan constituted genocide. On September 9, 2004, the State Department followed suit, releasing a report which outlines these atrocities and concludes that the Sudanese Government has ``promoted systematic killings based on race and ethnic origin,'' and that these acts constitute genocide.

It is unconscionable that a government which has perpetrated genocide would be welcome to sit on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights--the very body charged with the protection of human rights around the globe. Sudan should be in the dock--being held accountable for crimes against humanity. Sudan's flagrant disregard for the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes a mockery of the Human Rights Commission's work, and tangibly undermines that work. Its continued presence on that Commission degrades the United Nations system as a whole.

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights places great importance on each member country having a common understanding of human rights and freedoms. One must wonder if the Government of Sudan, which has demonstrated such a flagrant disregard for these principles, has ever read that document. If they have, surely they have not taken it to heart.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the recent adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1565, which establishes the International Commission of Inquiry called for by both this body and by President Bush. But in light of the evidence already before us, I believe it would be extraordinarily difficult to make an argument against suspending Sudan's membership from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. This resolution is timely, it is logical, and I urge your support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in very strong opposition to the Davis amendment and the other four amendments being offered on Cuba today.

Under the current U.S. laws, we all know, travel to Cuba is allowed for 13 licensed categories. Last year, under these licenses, approximately 100,000 U.S. citizens traveled to Cuba, the vast majority of whom were family members. However, these new regulations promulgated by the administration would further refine this travel to deny at least some of the $96 million in hard currency that has been gotten and gleaned by this rogue regime, through the manipulation of those family visits in 2003, the number from that year. Custom duties and excess baggage fees have added $20 million more in revenue to this gross dictatorship.

To my colleagues, I want to say that I just held a hearing, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), on the issue of human trafficking. Cuba is a Tier III country, an egregious violator when it comes to human trafficking. Approval of this amendment would prop up a regime that not only traffics in human persons, but allows for the exploitation of young children, who are reduced to this horrible thing called child prostitution. When we allow trafficking and child prostitution for the amusement of those who travel there, many of whom bring that hard currency that is now permitted by this administration, I think we are seriously erring and making a grave mistake. We are also enobling and enabling a human rights violator.

Let me also say to my good friend and colleague who spoke a moment ago about the political prisoner, Dr. Biscet, and so many others who are subjected to unspeakable cruelty. A couple of years ago, I offered an amendment that said we will lift the travel ban if and only if the prisoners are let go. Fidel Castro has said one big no to that. And not only has he continued to incarcerate and torture hundreds of political prisoners, the best and the brightest and the bravest of Cuba, he now has arrested another 75 to 80 more and meted

out sentences of 25 to 27 years. That is unconscionable.

We do not want to directly or indirectly enable that kind of dictatorship, that kind of repressive regime. If my colleagues or myself were sitting in one of Cuba's gulags, we would hope that someone would say human rights do matter; that we are not going to provide the hard currency to prop up his regime so that his thugs can so mistreat those prisoners.

I have tried, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), to get into the prisons of Cuba and I have been denied. I can get into Cuba and meet with Fidel Castro and have a jawfest for 4 or 5 hours, as some of my colleagues have, but to get into the prisons to say these people should be allowed to go, no, we cannot do that. The ICRC, the Red Cross, has tried repeatedly to get into those prisons and has been refused.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is all about human rights and enabling a dictatorship. Say no to the Davis amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank and commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Royce) for his authorship of this very important and necessary resolution, and I am very pleased to join as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 760; and I join in the chorus of the Americans who stand in solidarity with the Russian people in their grief for those who have been murdered by terrorist actions. No words can adequately express the shock and sorrow that we feel at the events in Beslan. Our hearts go out to the people of Beslan as they bury their children and their neighbors. They have our deepest sympathy, and they have our prayers. Our hearts go out to the wounded and disabled, especially the young, who will bear the scars of terrorism for the rest of their lives.

This resolution properly deplores the terrorist attacks against Russia and expresses condolences to the families of the victims. Their grief is our grief. Their anger is our anger. Their loss is our loss.

Mr. Speaker, there is ample reason to criticize Russia's military operations in Chechnya. I continue to believe that Moscow's strategy in that tortured region has been brutal, ill-advised, and self-defeating. As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have met numerous times with Russian leaders to protest their policy in Chechnya and have held a number of hearings, including with people like Elena Bonner, to protest what is going on there.

But let me make it very clear that there is no justification, no justification whatsoever, for the bloody violence that was perpetrated by cowardly terrorists who use innocent children to achieve political ends. If the terrorists thought they were helping the people of Chechnya by killing innocent people in North Ossetia, they were tragically in error. The people of Chechnya seek a respite from war. They and many in Russia want a just peace, not more carnage. Slaughtering children and traumatizing many more betrays the cause of peace.

Mr. Speaker, I trust this resolution reflects not only the sentiments of this House but also of millions of Americans that we represent. We mourn the tragic loss, the wanton loss of innocent lives.

And again I want to commend my colleagues, especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce); the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), ranking member, for their leadership on this important resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4836 would name the VA Medical Center in the City of Amarillo, Texas, for Lance Corporal Thomas E. Creek. This heroic Marine gave his life on February 13, 1969, to save fellow Marines by falling on a grenade near Cam Lo, Vietnam. He was awarded our Nation's highest military declaration, the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Lance Corporal Creek was only 18 years old when he went above and beyond the call of duty while serving as rifleman with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines. He was one of three Medal of Honor recipients who served with the 9th Marines during the Vietnam War.

I commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), for introducing H.R. 4836 to honor one of our Nation's heroes, and I will momentarily yield to him.

The VA medical center in Amarillo, Texas, Mr. Speaker, opened in 1940 and played an important role during and after World War II in caring for and rehabilitating U.S. servicemembers. The medical center today provides general medical and surgical treatment and alcohol rehabilitation and vocational rehab services for veterans. Expansion and renovation projects have kept the facility modern, and it currently has some 69 inpatient beds and 120 nursing care beds. I think it is entirely fitting and appropriate to remember the ultimate sacrifice of this young brave Marine by naming the Amarillo VA Medical Center for him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the prime author of this bill.

Mr. 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 the bill, H.R. 4836.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1318 would name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in the City of Sunnyside, Queens, New York, for Lance Corporal Thomas P. Noonan, Jr., a Marine, who on February 5, 1969, was killed in action in Quang Tri Province, Vietnam.

Lance Corporal Noonan was 25 years old on that fateful morning in Vietnam when serving as a fire team leader he was mortally wounded while valiantly trying to drag a wounded Marine to safety. For his heroic actions, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, our Nation's highest military decoration.

I want to commend my distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), for introducing H.R. 1318. This is the second naming bill the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has brought to the floor today to honor servicemembers who gave their lives in Vietnam. These are bipartisan measures which pay homage to our fallen heroes. I am pleased to bring these bills before the House for its consideration.

I hope that these stories of bravery and sacrifice are an inspiration to the new generation of soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who are so ably serving our country in the war against terrorism. By naming these facilities to honor Lance Corporals Noonan and Creek, we also signify our intent to continue providing health care to veterans of our Armed Forces now and into the future.

Again, I am grateful to my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle for introducing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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. 1318.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, most Americans can tell you precisely where they were and what they were doing 3 years ago when the grim news broke that the terrorists had crashed commercial jet liners into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania. Sadly, approximately 3,000 innocent people were savagely murdered, including 697 from my own State of New Jersey, with 60 families in my congressional district feeling the pain directly.

The extraordinary courage of the victims like Todd Beamer and Captain Chip Burlingame and so many others who sacrificed their lives in an attempt to thwart the terrorists' plots and plans, as well as the first responders who bravely ran into burning buildings, deserve the highest honor and respect a Nation can bestow. Sadly, some 374 first responders died going into skyscrapers as they were engulfed in flames. They died trying to save those who were victimized by the 9/11 attackers.

Last week, President Bush very eloquently summed up America's heart and spirit when reflecting on 9/11. President Bush said, ``I have seen the character of a great Nation, decent and idealistic and strong.'' President Bush went on to say, ``The world saw that spirit 3 miles from here,'' he was speaking at the Garden, ``when the people of this city faced peril together and lifted a flag over the ruins and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say here buildings fell and here a Nation rose.''

9/11, Mr. Speaker, was America's wake-up call that transnational terrorism, especially from the likes of al Qaeda, is willing and able and determined to murder us in a massive way. Much, however, has been done by the President and by the Congress to mitigate that threat in the 3 years since 9/11.

We now know that the President, working with our coalition partners, has captured and destroyed many of the al Qaeda operatives, and the Taliban has been crushed, and we have now entered into a close collaboration with partners like Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

Much has been done to assist the victims' families, but no assistance, as we all know, can ever remotely replace their staggering loss. Still, when all is said and done, the victims' compensation fund, while not perfect, will have provided close to $7 billion to the surviving families. We also know that the Federal government has provided about $26.7 billion thus far, which has been awarded to enhance the abilities of State and local governments and first responders to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and other emergencies.

Much has been done to reform our defenses, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, no small feat, particularly in this town, to do such a massive reorganization. And the Terrorist Threat Integration Center now has the left hand talking with the right hand so that intelligence is properly shared. We are all on the same page.

For its part, the 9/11 Commission, a commission created by the families of 9/11, declared that ``we are safer,'' but they also pointed out that we are ``not safe''. Over the course of the August district work period, some 26 hearings were held to respond to and to try to figure out what a new comprehensive

reform bill should look like, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for the two outstanding full committee hearings he put together. We are now poised to act on those recommendations, and in some cases, we may opt to exceed the 9/11 blueprint.

Finally, let us all remember, if this is an extremely difficult week for us, the sense of collective violation pales compared to the pain of the families who lost their loved ones, their wives and husbands, their children, their brothers, their sisters. For them, this is the toughest week and September 11th--the saddest day. This is a day of remembrance, a week of remembrance, and our prayers and our hearts go out to the victims' families and friends, because they have lost so much and have stood up so bravely in the years since.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4598: the Accutane Safety and Risk Management Act.

In an effort to improve the health and safety of patients using a pharmaceutical product that has been linked to several major side effects, I recently joined with my friend and colleague Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan to introduce this legislation that will establish a comprehensive patient registry for users of the drug Accutane and its generic forms.

Accutane was approved for use in treating severe acne in the early 1980s. Today, more than 1 million prescriptions are approved each year, and not always for the serious cases of acne for which the drug is intended. The Food & Drug Administration states that, ``Accutane may cause depression, psychosis, and rarely, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide.'' Additionally, the makers of the drug state that ``there is an extremely high risk that a deformed infant can result if pregnancy occurs while taking Accutane in any amount, even for short periods of time.''

Four years ago, Congressman Stupak had to endure the tragic suicide of his teenage son, who was using Accutane at the time of his death.

Despite the fact that the significant and serious side effects linked to Accutane are well known, the Food and Drug Administration has yet to mandate a program to better monitor the use of this drug and to document its effects in patients. Such a registry has been recommended by FDA advisory panels on two separate occasions.

Mr. Speaker, our bill is common sense legislation that will build upon a safety plan first proposed by the makers of this drug themselves. It will still permit doctors to prescribe Accutane, but will also institute several additional patient safety and protection measures and ensure patients and their families know the full risks before beginning treatment.

H.R. 4598 will permit physicians to prescribe Accutane only for ``severe, recalcitrant nodular acne'' that has been unresponsive to other forms of treatment. Severe acne is the condition for which Accutane was originally approved by the FDA to treat.

For patients with severe acne, Accutane may be the only medication that can successfully treat their affliction. But in far too many cases, Accutane is prescribed in an overly cavalier manner, and patients are being placed at risk to the drug's potential side effects for no medically valid reason. Many teenagers suffer from acne, and doctors and patients need to be cautious and not treat this drug lightly.

The legislation will also register all physicians and pharmacists who prescribe and dispense the drug, and institute an education campaign to ensure these providers are well-informed about the potential risks associated with Accutane. All patients will also be educated and be required to receive similar information before starting treatment with Accutane and throughout the treatment regimen.

Prescriptions will only be written for 30 days and will not be permitted via the telephone, Internet, or mail. Female patients will also have to undergo a monthly pregnancy test before receiving a renewal on their prescription, and all patients will be required to take a monthly blood test.

The makers of the drug and all practitioners who dispense Accutane will also be required to file prompt reports with the Department of Health and Human Services anytime they learn of a negative reaction, including a death, that occurs in a patient while using Accutane.

Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 652 which urges the Government of Belarus to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process for its parliamentary elections in October 2004. As the sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act (H.R. 854), which has also been reported out by the International Relations Committee, it is important that the House call specific attention to these upcoming fall elections. Mr. Bereuter, in his capacity as Chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Europe, has lend his support of the Belarus Democracy Act as well.

Belarus' poor track record with recent elections--which were judged as not meeting international democratic standards by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--and more broadly with the situation with respect to human rights and democracy in Belarus, underscore the need for this resolution. Belarus, under autocratic ruler Alexander Lukashenka, has the worst human rights record in Europe today. Repressions against members of the democratic opposition, non- governmental organizations, the independent media and independent trade unions have become commonplace. Independent thought and action are anathema to Lukashenka, who over the last 10 years has consolidated his power to an alarming extent.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Belarusian authorities will take this resolution seriously, as it provides them with a blueprint on what they need to do to have their elections conform with OSCE standards. Unfortunately, four benchmarks for free and fair elections established by the OSCE 4 years ago still not been met. Thus far, the pre-election environment has not been encouraging. Last month, three opposition parliamentarians staged an 18-day hunger strike demanding changes in the Election Code, which still includes several undemocratic provisions. The reform bill was overwhelmingly defeated by the Lukashenka-controlled parliament.

Belarusians still have no opportunity to receive independent viewpoints through broadcast media. Opposition access to the state media is virtually non-existent; rather the political opposition is often vilified. Just yesterday Lukashenka, talking about his hopes for a pro-government majority in the October elections, said: ``I strongly hope that the people will make the right choice,'' and added that ``the people will take a close look at traitors, black sheep . . . wolves in sheep's clothing, and we will help them if they don't.'' This is not a good harbinger for the elections--and the election campaign has not even begun!

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we convey to the Belarusian authorities our call for a free, fair, open and transparent parliamentary election process consistent with Belarus' freely undertaken OSCE commitments. The long-suffering Belarusian people deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I recently received this in the mail, and I do not know if the cameras can really pick it up. It is a front page that is sort of startling.

It says the budget, bloated with pork. The national debt, soaring past $7 trillion. Is it not time to fight back, is the main headline. Interest rates rising. Entitlement program, $73 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Sort of makes one realize the tremendous burden that we are passing on to our kids and our grandkids. It speaks of $7 trillion dollar national debt, and of course, you have to pay interest on that national debt because you are borrowing the money.

Interest on that national debt now represents about 14 percent of the total budget. This pie chart represents how we are spending the $2.4 trillion of expenditures this year. Interest at 14 percent, that represents $800 billion that we are paying in interest, and interest rates now are relatively low. So that means, as interest rates go up, the portion of the total income coming into the Federal Government is going to be used up paying interest.

So two things: interest rates are going up, and the debt is going up faster than it ever has. We are now increasing the debt by over $500 billion a year, and that is because we have a propensity to spend. Politicians have found out that they are more likely to be re-elected if they bring home the pork barrel projects. They get on the paper cutting of the ribbon of the new facilities, of the jogging trails or the libraries or whatever, and that overspending, because of efforts to try or politicians to try to be liked by the people back home and to get elected is part of what is driving up our debt.

Over $500 billion a year of deficit spending. Deficit spending means how much in 1 year we are overspending, over and above the revenues coming into government. That $500 billion of increased debt a year, how do you put it in perspective?

Well, we are a country about 228 years old. It took the first 200 years of this country to amass a debt of $500 billion. Now, we are going deeper in debt $500 billion every year.

What does that do to our kids? I am a farmer from Michigan; and the way I was raised, what a farmer did for his kids was try to pay down the mortgage, hopefully make their life a little better than mom and dad's life was. But in this Congress, in this city of Washington, we are driving up that mortgage for our kids and our grandkids to pay off.

So two areas: one is the increased debt that we are laying on our kids and our grandkids, and the other is the increased promises of unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities are the green-shade, the economists' words, for how much we are promising in benefits for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, how much we are promising in benefits over and above what revenues we have to pay for those benefits. This is $73 trillion and putting $73 trillion sort of in some kind of a measurable fashion, and I am not sure any of us can do that. Our current spending every year is just a little over $2 trillion, and here is $73 trillion that is needed to go into a savings account today that is going to have a return of at least interest rates that will accommodate inflation to pay for what we have promised in programs over and above what is coming in in revenues from the payroll tax.

Let me go around this pie chart, and then we will talk a little bit more about the unfunded liabilities.

You can see the biggest piece of pie is Social Security, using up 21 percent of total government spending; and so many people say, well, Congressman Smith, you should not have that as part of the pie. Social Security is separate.

I would just point out that the Supreme Court now on two decisions has said that there is no entitlement to Social Security benefits just because you have paid in Social Security all your life. The Social Security payroll tax is simply a tax. The benefits that you might get are a separate, different program that Congress and the President has signed into law saying here are some benefits that you get at age 65; and of course, if you look back at history, we know that over the years we have changed those benefits dramatically. When we run out of money, we increase the tax and reduce benefits usually.

Going around the pie quickly, Medicare is at 12 percent. Now, with a prescription drug program, it is estimated that Medicare is going to overtake Social Security as a percentage of total spending within the next 20 years.

Medicaid is growing very rapidly at 6 percent. The reason Medicaid is going to be growing is more people who thought they were saving enough for retirement now are living much longer than they anticipated. They are using up their savings; and once they are broke, they go on Medicaid.

Of course if you go to a nursing home, you end up paying $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year to go into that nursing home facility, and if you are living very long, that means a lot of your savings are used up, and you go on Medicaid and then taxes pay for the Medicaid program.

Other entitlements represent 10 percent. Defense, I am going to skip over here to defense at 20 percent. Before Afghanistan and Iraq, defense was a little under 19 percent. Now we are going up to 20 percent, not a huge increase in terms of percentage of total budget, but here is the domestic discretionary spending that uses up 16 percent of the total Federal budget. On those 12 appropriations bills, it is what we spend most of the year, at least half to three-quarters of the year arguing about how we are going to spend that 16 percent of the budget.

My point is, unless we look at these other expenditures, the indebtedness and interest on the debt, Social Security programs that are going broke, Medicare programs that are going broke, Medicaid programs that are going broke, the so-called entitlement programs, which means that you are entitled to receive these benefits from other taxpayers if you are at a certain level of poverty, if you are at a certain level of poverty and have children, if you reach a certain age, if you are a veteran that is retiring, if you are a farmer that is in the farm programs.

So the entitlements are sort of like on automatic pilot. Unless we deal with some of those problems, the overpromising of those entitlement programs, we are going to leave our kids, grandkids and the future generations not only this massive debt that is now $7 trillion, but the problem of trying to raise enough money to pay for the promises, and I would say the ``overpromising'' that this Congress has done.

I asked Art Laffer, an economist that I respect, the originator of the so-called Laffer Curve, I said ``Art, what is worse, increasing taxes or increasing the debt?''

He said, ``Well, in the long run they are about the same because increasing indebtedness is the promise of future taxes,'' and it is. To accommodate that 14 percent that we are now paying in the total Federal spending pie for interest, and that 14 percent is going up very quickly as interest rates go up and as we increase the debt, it is going to mean that we have to come up with money in some fashion to pay for it. So that brings us back to the propensity of politicians to spend more and promise more.

How do we get control of the overzealousness to try to solve more and more problems of the country? If we look back at the Framers of our Constitution that were brave enough to declare independence from Great Britain, that wrote a Constitution that designed an economic incentive that those that work hard, that try, that save, that invest, that go to school and use that education are better off than those that do not, that is what has helped us be the strongest, most successful Nation on earth. It is not that we are smarter than anybody else in the world; it is that we have had that kind of motivation and incentive to do our very best, to come up with ideas and work hard.

Now, over the years we have sort of said, well, if you work hard and get a second job, and you wanted that second shift so you could have more money for your family, we are not only going to tax you more, we are going to tax you at a higher rate. So dividing that wealth of those that are successful, and so if you work hard and are successful, we are going to tax you more and more, and give it to the people over here. So it is sort of pay in according to your ability to pay in, and take out according to your need.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be careful that we do not lose that kind of incentive that has made this country great in our overzealousness to divide the wealth, number one, and to pass on to future generations the overspending that we are doing today. It is really somewhat egotistical, I think probably a better word might be ``unconscionable,'' to think that our problems today are so great that it justifies spending the money our kids have not even earned yet.

Next chart, unfunded liabilities. What are they and what are the promises?

The three largest categories of unfunded liabilities are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The Social Security and Medicare trustees have calculated that these programs have over $73 trillion in unfunded liabilities. So $73.5 trillion are going to have to be invested today to have a return that is going to accommodate inflation to pay what is needed to make up the difference between the revenues coming in in the payroll tax and what is needed to accommodate the current promises.

Breaking them down, Medicare Part A, mostly hospitals, $21.8 trillion unfunded liability; Medicare Part B, $2.2 trillion unfunded liability; Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug program, $16.6 trillion unfunded liability; and Social Security with our promises, about $12 trillion unfunded liability.

Those are huge problems. How are we ever going to solve those kinds of promises in relation to what this country is worth, what we can produce in our gross domestic product every year? We are now spending approximately 20 percent of the GDP in our funding at $2.4 trillion. So that means 12, 13, some good years, maybe $14 trillion is the total product, the total gross domestic product that we produce in this whole country in 1 year, and yet we are talking six times that amount that we need

right now if we are going to accommodate the future promises, the cost of the future promises we have made over and above what is coming in in revenues. Just huge problems.

So what do we do about it? We do not do anything. The longer we put the solutions to these problems off, the more drastic the solution is going to have to be. I have been working on Social Security, and I am going to talk a little bit about Social Security tonight.

It was estimated back in 1987 that we were going to run out of money for Social Security. Actually, I was in Michigan, and I was chairman of the Senate finance committee, the Senate taxation committee, if you will. That is where I wrote my first Social Security bill. When I looked at the fact that with people living longer and the birthrate going down, Social Security was going to go broke. It was going to run out of money.

So I came into Congress. I was elected in 1992, and every session since I have introduced a Social Security bill. I have had my Social Security bills scored by the Social Security actuaries. They say that my bills would keep Social Security solvent essentially forever, even though they do it for the next 75 years. The way I structured my bills, it would keep Social Security solvent forever.

Nobody really wants to deal with Social Security, and let me tell you why. Because most of the seniors on Social Security depend on Social Security for 80 percent or more of their total retirement income.

So if you are dependent on that Social Security check, you can understand that it is very easy to scare a senior by saying, well, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) wants to ruin your Social Security and take your Social Security away from you.

It was tough in my first few elections. I have probably given between 270 and 300 speeches on Social Security in my district. I suspect that my Seventh Congressional District of Michigan is more aware of the problem of Social Security and that it is going broke than maybe any other part of the country. It is a huge problem.

I was made chairman of the Bipartisan Social Security Task Force, and we spent a year having expert witnesses come in to explain to the Republicans and Democrats on that task force the problems of Social Security, the fact that it was going broke, the fact that the longer we put off a solution, the more drastic that solution is going to have to be. So when we finished, we had a bipartisan agreement that there has got to be a better way to invest some of the money coming in to get a better return than we have in Social Security. We had an agreement, the longer you put off not dealing with this huge problem, the worse it is going to be, so it was important we all agreed to deal with it as quickly as possible.

So we wrote and introduced Social Security legislation. I have had Social Security legislation introduced for the last 8 years which has had bipartisan sponsors of that legislation because those individuals on both sides of the aisle that are aware of the magnitude of this problem agree that we have got to move ahead with a solution to Social Security. We have to do the same thing with Medicare and Medicaid. We cannot go on pretending that it is okay to continue to increase spending because it seems to be popular at home.

Why is it popular at home? Here is my two bits worth as a farmer from southern Michigan. We now have approximately 50 percent of the adult population in the United States that only pays 1 percent of the income tax. So you can see that there will be some people in this country that say to Washington, to the President and Members of Congress, to the Senators, well, spend some more tax dollars helping me with my problem because it ends up that they are getting much more out of government than they are paying in in taxes.

That is another talk on where we go with this complicated Tax Code and the unfairness of the Tax Code. I think we need the kind of Tax Code that everybody pays at least something in to run the Federal Government so they have a stake in the overzealousness of politicians to spend tax dollars and increase taxes.

Now, in an election year and approaching this Presidential election, we have a lot of concerns from the Democrat side of the aisle that we are shortchanging spending on needed programs, such as this needed program and this needed program, so let us increase taxes to make sure that we are doing the right thing to spend money for this program.

This evening we heard a lot of comments that we have to go into Sudan and the atrocities which have been occurring in Darfur is partially our responsibility. I think it is, but it is not just singly the responsibility of the United States, it is the responsibility of all the countries of the world.

Maybe we sent the wrong signal when we went into Iraq. Maybe other countries sort of heard the message that if they did not do anything, the United States would do it anyway. There were 17 U.N. resolutions condemning Iraq. We knew that there were problems of tyrant dictators, accommodations for terrorists, and developing more and more weapons in several countries, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. After the terrorist attack of 9/11, it was appropriate that we go to the source of that problem and go into Afghanistan.

But here are countries developing more and more weapons, with tyrant dictators, accommodating terrorists, and so what should the choice be? Our first choice was go to the United Nations to try to get more countries to join with us in going after all of these countries to send a strong signal that we are not going to allow the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

I bring this up because other countries said, well, why don't you go ahead and do it alone? We sort of did. Thank goodness for Great Britain that has joined us in that venture. But now we are challenged with some of these other countries. Maybe we are moving ahead with North Korea now in their development of nuclear weapons with the help of China because North Korea does not want to offend China and the other five countries that are putting pressure on them to stop their weapons of mass destruction, but my guess is we will do something like President Clinton did and that is essentially paying off the blackmail to get them to stop developing and selling weapons of mass destruction.

The decision was made because of the many U.N. resolutions, because of the fact that Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, because of the fact that maybe if we could get Iraq to make a transition to a democracy and have an increased standard of living, it would make a huge difference in the countries surrounding them. I think that is true. If we are successful in Iraq, I think the people of Iran will not stand for not moving ahead with more liberty and more freedom in their particular country.

I recently visited Libya and met with Colonel Qaddafi. I think it was partially because he did not want to end up like Saddam Hussein did, is sort of my guess. As I talked to Colonel Qaddafi, it was like him coming to confession that he was a terrorist but he saw no reason to continue having those weapons of mass destruction. It is a good start and Colonel Qaddafi and Libya now are more a part of the World Trade Organization. It is going to end up being better for their country. But now we need to encourage the rest of the world to encourage these other countries to move in and be part of the world community, in trade, because in the long run it is going to be good for those countries.

It is going to be a huge challenge in stopping terrorism in this world. I am just so convinced that we cannot turn tail and run, that we have got to stick to it, we have got to be dedicated and whether it is Iraq or whether it is a continued fight to do away with terrorists in this world, we have got to work together to do it.

Mr. Speaker, next I am going to briefly go through a couple of these charts. This is the general revenue transfer. To make up the difference between what we promised in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and what is coming in from the payroll tax, this is in a few years what is going to have to come out of the general fund if we simply do nothing and let it go.

By 2020, that means that we are going to have to take 28 percent out of the general fund to make up the difference

between what is coming in in the payroll tax and what we promised in benefits for these programs. If we just go to 2030, another 26 years away, it is going to take over 52 percent of the general fund revenues to accommodate those programs.

So why do we not deal with it? Partially maybe because it is a tough question and it is a tough solution. There are only a couple of ways to fix the programs. You either increase taxes and have more revenue coming in, or you reduce benefits. Of course, that is what we have done over the years. Every time we have had problems with Social Security, we have either increased revenues or reduced benefits or a combination. That is what I think we need to guard against, simply because most adults in the United States today pay more in the payroll tax than they do in the income tax.

Here is a quick visual snapshot of the problems with Social Security. After the Greenspan Commission in 1983, we have surplus revenues coming in because we had a dramatic increase in the payroll tax, increased revenues coming in over and above what Social Security is paying out; and then by 2017 the red portion of the chart begins, and that is the time when we have to come up with money from more borrowing or more taxes to pay promised benefits.

Here is how Social Security works. Just very briefly, the payout is very progressive. The taxes being paid in are not progressive. Benefits are progressive, and they are based on earnings at retirement. All of a worker's wages up to the tax ceiling, which is now $89,000 a year, are indexed to present value using wage inflation. Present value means if you had a certain job 20 years ago and wages double every 10 years, then for calculating your Social Security benefits, they up the wages to what that job would be paying on the day you retire. The best 35 years of earnings are averaged, the annual benefits for those retiring in 2004, and here is the progressive part: if you are very low income, you get back in a monthly check 90 percent of what you were getting when you were working. So 90 percent of the earnings up to $7,300 are what you get in your Social Security check. Thirty-two percent of the earnings between the $7,300 and the $44,000. Then everything over that, you get 15 percent of your earnings above $44,000.

If you are very rich, you get maybe 16 percent of your average wage back in Social Security benefits. If you are very low income, then you get 90 percent of what you are earning weekly or monthly or biweekly back in a Social Security check. Early retirees receive adjusted benefits, and I added a column on this one. When we started Social Security in 1934, it was interesting going through the archives. Franklin Roosevelt said that there should be a private sector savings account owned by the individual, and actually the Senate passed a Social Security bill that had a savings account owned by the individuals but with the provision that you could not use any of the money until you retired at age 65. Actually, it worked very well then because the average age of death was 62 and so most people died before they became eligible for benefits and this pay-as-you-go program worked very well.

Pay-as-you-go, let me just explain that a second. When you have the deduction of the 12.4 percent for Social Security, a total of 15.2 percent payroll tax, your employer sends in that money. By the end of the week, that money is sent out to existing retirees. So there is no savings account with anybody's name on it. It is a pay-as-you-go program. So the taxes come in, and they are immediately sent out to existing beneficiaries, sort of like the chain letter.

I remember a cartoon I once saw with the elderly person saying, well, I am going to retire, how does Social Security work? And here is Uncle Sam saying, well, see this long list. You put your name at the bottom of the list, and then you send your money to the person on the top of the list.

And so it is sort of like a chain letter and you hope there is going to be some money left when your name at the bottom of the list gets closer to the top of the list.

Social Security was supposed to be one leg of a three-legged stool. I would encourage every person under 55 years old to make an aggressive effort to start putting aside savings for your retirement. The challenges for this country in the next 10 years when we start running out of money for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, between 10 and 20 years, there is going to be a dramatic pressure to increase taxes and reduce benefits.

My argument to try to get business and industry on board in terms of the need to have a Social Security solution and a Medicare and Medicaid solution is the consequences of doing nothing and that is what we see happening in many countries around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask everybody to just make a guess of what the payroll tax is, for example, in France to accommodate their senior citizens. It is now over 50 percent of the payroll. So you can see that that makes that country much less competitive. They have either got to pay their workers less wages, and that is why there are a lot of strikes over in France, or they have got to increase the price of their product that makes them less competitive. In Germany, the payroll tax in Germany just went over 40 percent. Japan is hard-pressed in terms of their taxes that are needed to accommodate their senior population.

So for goodness sake, let us not keep putting off these problems for the next Congress because we do not know exactly how to deal with it, so we end up with that kind of taxes and that kind of pressure on our businesses that are going to put our businesses at a greater competitive disadvantage as they try to compete in world trade.

Social Security is a system stretched to its limits. There are 78 million baby boomers that begin retiring in just 3\1/2\ years; 78 million baby boomers begin retiring in 2008. Social Security spending exceeds tax revenues in 2017, and the trust funds go broke. Insolvency is certain. It does not take a guess. We know how many people there are, and we know when they are going to retire. We know that people will live longer in retirement. We know how much they will pay in and how much they will take out. The actuaries' estimate right now is payroll taxes will not cover benefits starting in 2017, and the shortfalls will add up to $120 trillion between 2017 and 2075, $120 trillion that we are going to need. The $120 trillion is what we need in all those future years one year after the other. That is what would be accommodated if we put $12 trillion into a savings account now that would have a return of at least inflation and the time value of money.

Here is sort of a chart that shows what has gotten us into this predicament. That is the demographics. Our pay-as-you-go retirement system will not meet the challenge of demographic change. Back in 1940, we had 28 workers working and paying in their Social Security tax to accommodate every one retiree. So here are 28 people sharing the cost of every one retiree. By the year 2000, it got down to three workers paying in their taxes, and the three of them sharing the cost and benefits for Social Security of every retiree. The estimate by the actuaries is by 2025, we are only going to have two workers trying to pay enough tax to accommodate one retiree. That is what is happening, and that is why our taxes continue to go up; and if we do nothing, it means increasing the tax.

I have read by some, some on this side of the aisle, that, look, all we need is a strong economy, so if we can have a strong economy and better jobs and better wages and more profit, it will do it. But here is the problem. Because benefits are directly related to the wages you get in and as there are more jobs and more people working and more wages, that means that temporarily it fixes the problem because you have a little more money coming in; but because benefits are directly tied to the wages that you make, it means the payout in future years is going to be greater. So in the long run it does not fix the program. Growth makes the numbers look better now, but leaves a larger hole to fill later. In my talks around the country and around Michigan, people say, well, if Congress would just keep its cotton-picking hands off the Social Security trust fund.

We should do that. What we should be doing with the trust fund is getting a real return on it. But what Congress has been doing, and the President, for the last 20 years is, every time there is

a little extra money coming in from Social Security, we spend it on other government programs. Right now, government owes the trust fund, because that is what we do, we write out an IOU. Government owes the Social Security trust fund $1.4 trillion, but the shortfall, what we are going to need, is $12.2 trillion. So just the trust fund by itself is not going to accommodate or solve the problem.

Social Security has a total unfunded liability of $12 trillion. The Social Security trust fund contains nothing but IOUs, and to keep paying promised Social Security benefits, the payroll tax will have to be increased by nearly 50 percent or benefits will have to be cut by 30 percent.

In this chart I have tried to show that Social Security is not a good investment. The average retiree only gets back a 1.7 percent return over inflation for the money they and their employers send into Social Security. Actually, if one happens to be a minority whose average age is 63\1/2\ right now, they actually end up with a negative return because they die before they hit 65 and start collecting benefits. The average is 1.7 percent return.

But the market, in this case I did a graph showing the Wilshire 5000, the average of 5,000 stocks for the last 10 years. Even with the poor returns that we have had for over the past 3\1/2\, 4 years, even with those poor returns, the Wilshire 5000 has returned 11.8 percent over and above inflation.

So how about that? How about having some of this money coming in from Social Security, invested in accounts? And I think there has got to be a limitation on accounts, so what I do in my bills is, I do it sort of like the Thrift Savings Account, index stocks, index bonds, index mutual funds, the option of foreign stock funds. Once one has accumulated a certain $2,500 in their retirement account, and they cannot use it, government is going to control it, once they get to that level, then there could be more flexibility as determined by the Secretary of Treasury in terms of additional alternative investments that one might use.

This is how many years one has got to live after they retire to break even on the money they and their employer put into Social Security or, if one is self-employed, the money they put in. If people retired in 1960, it was a pretty good deal. They only had to live 2 years after retirement. But now, in 2005, people are going to have to live 23 years after they retire to break even on the money they sent in for Social Security. By 2015 it goes up to 26 years that people are going to have to live after retirement. And, look, that might be possible. The age of life has continued to increase.

Here is the chart I want to finish with. And that is the danger of doing nothing. What we have done in the past is increase taxes or reduce benefits every time we have had a problem with enough money to pay out promised benefits. And over the years we have increased benefits, too, for Social Security. In fact, in 1965 we amended the Social Security bill to start the Medicare program. So that was a huge new challenge and huge new promises that are going to put our kids and our grandkids even deeper in debt.

Just going up from the 1\1/2\ percent in 1940, we raised it to 2 percent of the first 3,000. In 1960, running short of money again for the increased benefits, we tripled the rate, a 300 percent increase in the rate going up to 6 percent, and we increased the base, too, to 4,800.

By 1980, we raised the tax rate to 10.16 percent of the first 25,900. By 2000, again we raised the rate up to 12.4 percent of the first 76,200; in 2004, 12.4 percent of the first 87,900, but now it is 12.4 percent of the first 89,000. So we have continued to increase the tax.

And I just plead, Mr. Speaker, with everybody that might be listening that they, as workers in America, or their kids that are going to be working if they retire, should not be asked to pay a higher and higher tax to accommodate the existing retirees. Probably the people that are retiring this year, and I have not seen the statistics, but I would guess they are probably one of the most wealthy generations that ever has retired in America.

Six principles of saving Social Security, and here is what I sent out to all the Members of the House and all the Members of the Senate: Protect current and future beneficiaries; allow freedom of choice, and in my legislation, we can guarantee that they are going to have as much return by having their own investment as they would if they stayed in the current system, so we guarantee that the return on their private savings account that they own, that government is going to control it, that they cannot take it out until they are 65 or until they have an annuity that is going to prove that they are never going to fall back on other taxpayers. That, in a sense, says that one can be an average worker and retire as a very wealthy person if they start saving this money.

And some of these counties have had the option of not using the Social Security because that is the way the legislation was written. A municipality or a State can have the option of investing their own money or going into Social Security. Some of these counties are giving to their retirees that invested their own money over the last 60 years up to nine and ten times as much as Social Security pays similar wage- earning retirees.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to close with the plea that we work together to make this kind of a bipartisan effort. It may be our chance next year after this Presidential election. I would guess that if we cannot do it in the first 4 years of a President's term, then it is going to be difficult to make the tough decisions that are required to solve these kinds of problems in Social Security and solve the kinds of problems that we need to be looking at in Medicare and Medicaid and some of the other entitlement programs. It is just unfair, unconscionable, to pretend that our problems are so great today that we have to take the money and the savings of our kids and our grandkids because they are going to have their own problems and their own concerns.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4608) to name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located in Peoria, Illinois, as the ``Bob Michel Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chief sponsor of this very important resolution, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

Let me urge all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4608, offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), which would name the outpatient clinic in Peoria after the very distinguished former minority leader, Bob Michel. I cannot think of a person more deserving of this honor.

Bob Michel had an illustrious career as a Member of this body for 38 years. Having been elected in the 85th Congress, Bob was the minority leader for 14 years of his time here. Prior to that, he was the whip for three Congresses.

Madam Speaker, aside from his political career, which was outlined by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), Bob Michel was a distinguished veteran of World War II. Our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) talked about that, and for those of us who serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, we look at a guy like Bob Michel and say, he is the quintessential veteran. He is a guy that served honorably, rarely talks about it, was honored by our country for his valor, and for his suffering with a Purple Heart, and he is a real example of the greatest generation.

He continues to give and to give mightily. Bob set an example as minority leader of statesmanship and civility in both his words and his actions. He taught those of us who were fortunate enough to serve with him, and I was elected in the 97th Congress, that one can disagree without being disagreeable, and that life in politics can and should be balanced with outside interests and pursuits.

Bob Michel was a patriot in all of the meaning that that word has. He was an outstanding Member of Congress, and I salute his fearless leadership, his long service and I salute him for his humility, something you do not hear about too often in this place. He could do great deeds, and he was the last person who would ever tell you about it.

He was just a tremendous human being, and is a tremendous human being, and this, plus all of the other accolades that he gets and should get, is just one more that says, ``Bob, we love you, we thank you for your service, and you deserve this.''

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for his sensitivity and his foresight in naming this outpatient clinic in honor of our very distinguished former leader, Bob Michel.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

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