Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution calling on the Government of Azerbaijan to hold free and fair parliamentary elections this November. After a series of elections marred by irregularities, the upcoming election will help define the country's political orientation and its international reputation. Is Azerbaijan developing towards Western- style electoral democracy or mired in the Soviet pattern of controlled voting results? The answer to that question is important for the United States, which has significant strategic and economic interests in Azerbaijan. At age 77, Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliev is the most experienced politician in the former Soviet space. Since returning to power in 1993, he has created a semi-authoritarian political system that features highly centralized, hands-on presidential rule, with constant positive coverage in the state-run media. President Aliev controls all branches of government and the state's instruments of coercion. His implicit bargain with Azerbaijan's citizens offers stability in return for unquestioned predominance. While Azerbaijan's constitution enshrines separation of powers, neither the legislature, judiciary, press nor opposition parties may challenge President Aliev's hold on power. Indeed, in an interview published in last Sunday's New York Times, he openly said, ``I will always be president here.'' Opposition parties function, publish newspapers and have some representation in parliament. But they have no access to state media, which portray them negatively, and their opportunities to influence the political process--let alone actual decision-making--are carefully restricted. With respect to elections, Azerbaijan's record has been poor. The OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) monitored the 1995 and 1998 parliamentary and presidential elections, and concluded that they did not meet OSCE standards. Council of Europe observers harshly criticized the first round of the local elections in December 1999, though they noted some improvements in the second round. These flawed elections have exacerbated the deep distrust between the government and opposition parties. On May 25, the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, held hearings on the upcoming election, in which Azerbaijani Government representatives and opposition leaders participated. At that time, the main bone of contention between them was the composition of the Central Election Commission. During the hearing, a government spokesman announced that Baku was prepared to let government and opposition members veto the other side's nominees for the Commission posts set aside for independents, a major step forward. In fact, that assurance subsequently turned out to be not entirely reliable when the hard bargaining began in Baku, with the mediation of the ODIHR. Nevertheless, the agreement eventually reached did give opposition parties an opportunity to block decisions taken by the pro-presidential majority and was acclaimed by ODIHR as a fair and necessary compromise. Since then, unfortunately, the process has collapsed. Azerbaijan's parliament passed an election law on July 5 that did not include amendments recommended by the ODIHR to bring the legislation into accord with OSCE standards. The law excludes an opposition party registered in February 2000 from fielding a party list; other problematic aspects include territorial and local election commissions which are effectively under government control, the restriction of voters' rights to sign petitions nominating more than one candidate or party, and the right of domestic observers to monitor the election. President Aliev claims that he proposed modifications to the election law but parliament refused to accept them. This assertion, considering his hold on the legislature--where a loyal, pro-presidential party controls over 80 percent of the seats--is simply not plausible. In any case, if he did not approve of the law, he could have vetoed it. Instead, he signed it. On July 7, the ODIHR issued a press release ``deploring'' shortcomings in the election law. Opposition parties refused to participate in the work of the Central Election Commission unless the law is changed. In response, parliament amended the Central Election Commission law, depriving the opposition of the ability to block decisions. On July 20, 12 political parties, among them the leading opposition parties, warned that if parliament refuses to amend the election law, they will boycott the November ballot. Most recently, the State Department issued a statement on July 24, regretting the recent actions of Azerbaijan's parliament and urging the government and parliament in Baku to work with ODIHR, the opposition and non- governmental organizations to amend the election law in accordance with OSCE standards. Mr. Speaker, this turn of events is extremely disappointing. The last thing Azerbaijan needs is another election boycott by opposition parties. The consequences would include a parliament of dubious legitimacy, deepened distrust and societal polarization, and a movement away from electoral politics to street politics, which could threaten the country's stability. November's election offers a historic opportunity to consolidate Azerbaijani society. It is essential for the future development of Azerbaijan's democracy and for the legitimacy of its leadership that the election be free and fair and the results be accepted by society as a whole. This resolution calls on the Administration to remind President Aliev of the pledge he made in August 1997 to hold free and fair elections, and urges Azerbaijan's Government and parliament to accept ODIHR's recommendations on the election law, so that it will meet international standards. I hope my colleagues will join me, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Pitts and Mr. Cardin in this effort, and we welcome their support.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, which organized what has become known as the Helsinki or OSCE process, a critical venue in which the United States has sought to advance human rights, democracy and the rule of law. With its language on human rights, the Helsinki Final Act granted human rights of a fundamental principle in regulating international relations. The Final Act's emphasis on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is rooted in the recognition that the declaration of such rights affirms the inherent dignity of men and women and are not privileges bestowed at the whim of the state. The commitments are worth reading again. Among the many pages, allow me to quote from several of the documents: In the Helsinki Final Act, the participating States commit to ``respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.'' In the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the participating states declared, ``Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings, are inalienable and are guaranteed by law. Their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of government.'' In the 1991 Document of the Moscow Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, the participating States ``categorically and irrevocably declare[d] that the commitments undertaken in the field of the human dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the States concerned.'' In the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the participating States committed themselves ``to build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations.'' The 1999 Istanbul Charter for European Security and Istanbul Summit Declaration notes the particular challenges of ending violence against women and children as well as sexual exploitation and all forms of trafficking in human beings, strengthening efforts to combat corruption, eradicating torture, reinforcing efforts to end discrimination against Roma and Sinti, and promoting democracy and respect for human rights in Serbia. Equally important, the standards of Helsinki, which served as a valuable lever in pressing human rights issues also provided encouragement and sustenance to courageous individuals who dared to challenge repressive communist regimes. Many of these brave men and women--members of the Helsinki Monitoring and affiliated Groups in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, and similar groups in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere, Soviet Jewish emigration activists, members of repressed Christian denominations and others-- paid a high price in the loss of personal freedom and, in some instances, their lives, for their active support of principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act. Pressure by governments through the Helsinki process at various Helsinki fora, thoroughly reviewing compliance with Helsinki commitments and raising issues with Helsinki signatory governments which violated their freely undertaken human rights commitments, helped make it possible for the people of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to regain their freedom and independence. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the OSCE region has changed dramatically. In many of the States, we have witnesses widespread and significant transformations and a consolidation of the core OSCE values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Unfortunately, in others, there has been little if any progress, and in some, armed conflicts have resulted in hundreds of thousands having been killed and in the grotesque violation of human rights. Mr. Speaker, this milestone anniversary presents the President an appropriate opportunity to issue a proclamation in recognition of the obligations we and the other OSCE States have committed to uphold. It is important to keep in mind that all of the agreements of the Helsinki process have been adopted by consensus and consequently, each participating State is equally bound by each document. In addition to committing ourselves of the faithful implementation of the OSCE principles, the President should encourage other OSCE signatories as all of us have recognized that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democratic principles, economic liberty, and the implementation of related commitments continue to be vital elements in promoting a new era of democracy and genuine security and cooperation in the OSCE region. Each participating State of the OSCE bears primary responsibility for raising violations of the Helsinki Final Act and the other OSCE documents. In the twenty-five years since this historic process was initiated in Helsinki, there have been many successes, but the task is far from complete. Mr. Speaker, we can look at OSCE's past with pride and its future with hope, keeping in mind President Ford's concluding comments at the signing of the Helsinki Final Act: ``History will judge this conference not by what we say here today, but by what we do tomorrow-- not by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), my good friend, for yielding the time to me. Madam Speaker, the House has before it today a piece of legislation that will go a long way towards helping veterans and their families file claims for VA benefits. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) rightly summarized it. The idea behind this bill is to make the VA more veterans user-friendly, so that the benefits that we owe to those who serve this country can be accorded to them. very happy and I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), my good friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for their good work in crafting this legislation. Madam Speaker, as things now stand, it is up to veterans to prove that they are entitled to receive a particular benefit. This is how the Veterans Court of Appeals interpreted, last October, the requirement that a veteran's claim be well grounded before the VA consider it. Once determined to be well grounded, the VA must help obtain evidence related to the claim's actual merits. The preliminary process approving eligibility for a claim can be an onerous one for veterans, as well as for their families. Take, for example, the claims for service-connected disabilities. Veterans must, one, present evidence that they sustained a disease or injury during military service. We all know from our case work how often the St. Louis fire comes up. Two, a diagnosis of a current disability; and three, a medical opinion stating that the in-service injury or disease caused the current disability. The reality is that many veterans are unable to secure the medical records and other documents that they need because of poor health, difficult economic circumstances or an unfamiliarity with how to navigate a very complex Federal bureaucracy system, and thus have their legitimate claims dismissed outright as not well grounded. Or, they just get deterred in the process. We all know again through our case work how often a veteran will come to one of our offices or a town meeting or one-to-one meeting and say, ``I am just exhausted, will you please help me?'' Under H.R. 4864, the VA would have to help the veterans obtain service records and a medical examination if the former serviceman or woman has symptoms of a current disability or evidence of an injury or disease sustained during medical service. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 would also require other Federal agencies to furnish service records to the VA at no cost to the claimant. Today's bill reassures veterans and their families that the country they served in uniform is on their side when it comes to getting assistance that they have more than earned. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), my good friend, for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, one might excuse Vice President Al Gore for not knowing that a 1994 Federal law prohibits Federal executions of pregnant women, but not State. Last week on NBC's Meet the Press, Mr. Gore did not have a clue, and even laughed nervously in response to the question. A day later, however, all indecisiveness was gone. Mr. Gore came down in earnest in favor of executing children, as long as the convicted mother chose it. He said, and I quote, ``The principle of a woman's right to choose governs in that case.'' According to Mr. Gore, the baby is property, mere chattel of no inherent worth, possessing no inherent dignity. If the mother is to be punished with death for the commission of a crime, the Vice President believes she can take her unborn child to the gallows with her. Madam Speaker, Mr. Gore's position, in my view, is breathtakingly insensitive, callous and punishes an innocent baby, or babies if twins are involved, with electrocution or lethal injection. Madam Speaker, as a Member of the Congress for the past 20 years, I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty, and I was before I came to Congress. Yet I respect those who take the contrary view and acknowledge that the argument of punishing heinous crimes like premeditated murder with death, and the requisite due process rights afforded to the accused, makes the argument in favor of the death penalty credible, but for me it is not convincing. Yet, I would be less than candid if I did not say that I have no respect whatsoever for Mr. Gore, and those who take the position to permit the execution of children. Mr. Gore's child death penalty is totally contrary, Madam Speaker, to internationally recognized human rights principles. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states clearly in article VI that the sentence of death shall not be carried out on pregnant women. I would remind my friends that this was the international covenant that was touted again and again on the Chinese debate on MFN and PNTR, because they had signed it, but not ratified it, and people talked glowingly about that very important human rights covenant. And yet it states in article VI that the sentence of death shall not be carried out on pregnant women. Why? I think it should be obvious. Notwithstanding the gross distortion of caring and compassion and logic that has been forced on society and politicians by the abortion rights movement, it is self- evident that unborn children are human and alive and worthy of respect. The abortion efforts have a curious and I would suggest an unreasonable need, obsession is more to the point, to deny the unborn child any recognition or respect whatsoever. Can we at least today, Madam Speaker, assert that protection for unborn children from the death penalty would be a prudent action to take?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say in answer to the previous speaker, opposition to abortion funding has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Such charge is insulting today, we seek, to the maximum extent possible, to safeguard human rights for unborn children who cannot defend themselves. Let me also say that every time we deal with pro-life text including language that proscribes funding for abortion, the issue, we are told is never about abortion. When we deal with the D.C. approps bill, it is about home rule. When we deal with the Hyde amendment on the health and human services appropriations bill, it's rich versus poor, rather that subsidizing the extermination of poor children by abortion. Our opponents on the issue always try to muddy the water suggesting that the debate is about something other than abortion. And today we're told it is a matter of Federal employees benefit packages. Sorry--that argument just doesn't cut it. Abortion is not a health benefit--it's the killing of a baby. Regrettably, the gentlewoman is offering an amendment today that would strike current law, that is to say, law that has been in effect this year, last year, every year except 2 years since I first successfully offered this back in the early 1980s. So let me emphasize my hope that Members will reject this misguided, anti child amendment. Mr. Chairman, with violence so commonplace nowadays, with our sensibilities accosted and numbed almost every day of the week by yet another outrageous act of violence at home or abroad or both, perhaps it is any wonder why we, as a society, continue to live in denial, for some it is very deep denial, about the inherent violence of abortion. Abortion, Mr. Chairman, is not some benign act designed to cure or to mitigate a disease. I will never forget, I read a paper some years ago by Dr. Cates from the Center for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance Unit, and it was entitled ``Pregnancy, the second most prevalent sexually transmitted disease.'' Mr. Chairman, that is sick. A pregnancy, a maturing, living unborn child is not a disease. He or she is not a wart or a cancerous tumor or something that should be excised. Every one of us once were unborn children. We should look at birth as an event that happens to each and every one of us, it is not the beginning of life. Unborn children when they are sufficiently mature and developed move on to a new address. Life is a continuum; birth is not the beginning but an event along the way. But here is the CDC abortion surveillance authority demanding of everyone's early months calling pregnancy a sexually transmitted disease. I think that is as Orwellian and downright stupid as it gets. Abortion, Mr. Chairman, is the antithesis of compassion and of nurturing. Abortion methods are acts of violence imposed on innocent boys and girls for whom the womb should be a place of refuge, hope, sanctuary--not an execution site. Abortionists kill their human prey by either injecting poisons into their bodies directly or by putting high concentrated salt water into the amniotic fluid to snuff out the child's life. High concentrated salt solutions injected into the baby's amniotic sac is barbaric--child abuse. The baby breathes in the caustic salty liquid, dies a slow, excruciatingly painful death. It usually take about 2 hours to kill the baby. The mother then goes into delivery and gives birth to a dead and very badly scalded body as a result of the corrosive effects of the salt. These are commonplace abortions, and it would be paid for if the DeLauro amendment is approved. Let me also remind Members that the most common method of child killing is dismemberment. A few minutes ago my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) showed us this picture, of a 2-year-old victim of the revolutionary united front the RUF, who had her arm sheared off by thugs. This was a horrible deed by the RUF in Sierra Leone. Abortionists do the same to children in the womb every day in America. Amazingly, there are a few lucky ones who survive. Not so long ago The New York Post featured this picture of Ana Rosa Rodriguez, almost 2 years old, with her arm sliced off. Although the abortionist tried hard he did not kill her, she survived. She is one of those fortunate ones who somehow evaded the abortionist's deadly scalpel. She is a survivor, sans an arm. Of course, all of us are aware of what happens in a partial birth abortion, which is child abuse in the light of day. Yet, such brutality too could be paid for if the DeLauro amendment is successful. Mr. Chairman, since 1973, over 40 million children have been slaughtered mostly by dismemberment or chemical poisoning in America. That is the equivalent, Mr. Chairman, to the entire populations of 22 States in America combined from Connecticut to Maine to New Hampshire to Oregon. If we want to look at the bigger more populus States 40 million abortions is the equivalent of the entire populations of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey combined. Such staggering loss of children's lives should sound alarm bells--not foster denial or acquiescence. Clearly abortion has been sanitized. The cover up of abortion take the prize for ``most euphemisms.'' It has been marketed with great skill, cleverness, and deceit by the abortion lobby. The result 40 million dead children in America. 40 million kids, Mr. Chairman, who have had every hope and dream, every aspiration, every possibility of living obliterated by abortion. Their mothers too have been very much wounded by abortion. I have been working in the pro-life movement for 28 years. I work with crisis pregnancy centers. There has been an increase in healing outreaches, Project Rachel reaches out to women in distress, who have had abortions, who are in great need of healing and reconcilliation. Many of those women are the walking wounded. Abortion hurt them physically, emotionally and psychologically. Since 1973, Mr. Chairman, 40 million kids killed by abortion will never know the thrill of a sunset, the simple joys of life, like eating and drinking or sleeping in on a Saturday morning, a snow day. They will never have that. They have been terminated. They will never know the joy of playing sports, soccer or baseball. They will never know what it is like to date or marry or raise kids or to give of oneself for others. They will never know the power of prayer, or power of faith in God to usher in his will on earth, as it is in heaven. All of this and more has been denied these kids because of abortion. The so-called right to choose robs children of their birthright and a lifetime of meaning and challenges have been snuffed out as a result of abortion. Mr. Chairman, the other day in Middlesex County, New Jersey, I attended a crisis pregnancy dinner. Two of the ladies got up to the microphone and thanked the director of that center who helped them avert abortion through love and genuine concern. Both women were going in to get abortions. But both of them had the child instead. They gave very strong and compelling comments on what it was like to be reached out to and to love. What I found to be unexpected was that just a few moments later, two young teenage girls stepped up to the microphone. They too thanked the director of that crisis pregnancy center and their moms who had just spoken, because their lives had been saved from certain death. They were articulate. Both had dreams and hopes, all because they were alive. Abortion Mr. Chairman takes the life of a child. There are alternatives--crisis pregnancy centers, adoption--so let us help you. If we subsidize abortion and facilitate abortion girls like those two potential victims are less likely to survive and are more likely to be aborted. I do believe, Mr. Chairman, that some day, researchers, sociologists and historians and others will marvel how the best and the brightest of our day, many of those in positions of power in government, our judiciary, the media, the medical profession, and academia, could have embraced the killing of 40 million children and demanded that it not only be sanctioned, and regarded as a woman's right, but paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. Just as we look at the pro-slavery crowd of yesteryear, and say ``how could they'' they too will be aghast at our moral obtuseness and callousness. With the bill before us today, at least we can take a stand against funding the killing of unborn babies. The underlying language that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) would strike continues, as I said at the outset, current law that proscribes the Federal employees health benefits program from subsidizing most abortions. I respect each Member on the other side of this issue but find it extremely disappointing and vexing that you fail to understand the terrible wrong you do to children and their mothers. Vote no on DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that both sides have an additional 5 minutes each, 10 minutes equally divided.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the 15 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4118, the Russian-American Trust and Cooperation Act of 2000. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure, which was introduced by my good friend from Florida, Representative Ros-Lehtinen, in March of this year. The point of this bill is clear: United States taxpayers should not have to subsidize espionage activities directed against them, or help to fund the repressive Castro dictatorship. Right now, more than 1,500 Russian engineers, technicians, and military personnel are stationed at an intelligence base in Lourdes, Cuba where they are using tracking dishes, satellites, and other equipment to intercept telephone calls, faxes, and computer communications within the United States. This espionage facility--the largest operated by Russia outside the former Soviet Union--was used to obtain sensitive military information during Operation Desert Storm, and is now being used to collect personal information about U.S. citizens. The Russian government has spent more than $3 billion to modernize and operate that base. The Lourdes spy base is also a large source of revenue for the Castro regime. The Government of Russia pays Fidel Castro somewhere between $100 to $300 million per year to lease the facility. The bill before us today makes clear that the United States does not want to underwrite this highly improper and destructive activity. The bill prohibits the President from forgiving any bilateral debt owed by Russia to the United States until he can certify that Russia has closed down the Lourdes spy base. It also requires that the President report to Congress on actions taken by Russia to terminate its activities at Lourdes, and on U.S. efforts to verify those actions. The bill also grants the President authority to waive the debt forgiveness prohibition if he determines that such waiver is in the national interest of the United States. If the government of Russia wants the United States to forgive its debts, then it should first stop squandering its limited resources on efforts to spy on U.S. citizens, and to prop up the bankrupt dictatorship in Havana. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I rise to urge the enactment of H.R. 2909, the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Intercountry Adoption Act, which is necessary to implement the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The Convention was adopted in 1993 and signed by the United States in 1994. It will enter into force for the U.S. when the Senate gives its advise and consent and the President ratifies it. Senator Helms, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has indicated his intention to schedule a committee vote as soon as both Houses of Congress have enacted this implementing legislation. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Hague Convention and of this implementing legislation is twofold. The first purpose is to facilitate international adoptions whenever they are in the best interest of the child by eliminating unnecessary confusion, expense, and delay resulting from differences among certain laws and practices of nations. The second and equally important purpose is to ensure transparent and fair regulation of international adoptions so that adoptions that are not in the best interest of the child, whether they involve gross abuses such as baby stealing and baby selling or other abuses that result in placing children in inappropriate settings, will not take place. The legislation now before us establishes a framework for fulfilling both these essential goals. It charges the Secretary of State and the Attorney General with overseeing a process of accreditation and regulation of agencies and persons involved in international adoptions while avoiding unnecessary Federal encroachment on the regulatory authority long exercised by State governments. It sets minimum standards for this process of accreditation and regulation, all of which are designed to protect the best interests of children by promoting their adoption into appropriate family settings by agencies whose employees have the requisite skill, experience, and good judgment. And it ensures that courts and other competent authorities in the United States and in the adoptive children's countries of origin, as well as prospective adoptive parents, will have the information they need to make intelligent, life-affirming decisions. Mr. Speaker, just let my say, throughout my 20 years in Congress, I have worked tirelessly on behalf of adoption and always in a bipartisan way. In the late 80's, I introduced the OMNIBUS Adoption Act--which had as its centerpiece, a $5,000 tax credit for nonrecurring expenses. That's low today. Now I've introduced an updated measure designed to boost the credit to $10,000. That too is a bipartisan bill. The text in H.R. 2909 as it is presented on the floor today, is again a result of a tremendous amount of bipartisan work on the text. Let me also point out, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with this commitment of protecting children, during the long and painstaking process of preparing this bill for enactment, I have at various times expressed concerns about provisions in preliminary versions of the legislation. Particularly, I have been concerned that the new regulatory scheme not facilitate ``end runs'' around legitimate laws and policies of States and foreign countries designed to protect the best interests of children. Again I am happy to say that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and I and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and many others have worked on legislation, with a text we could all agree to. I join my colleague in thanking the professional work of our respective staffs especially Joseph Rees, who is general counsel and chief of staff of my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for yielding me this time and for his kind remarks. I have the highest respect for Mr. Rohrabacher,--a true champion of human rights. Mr. Speaker, in 1994, President Clinton decided to conduct an experiment. He decided to delink most favored nation status for China with human rights on the theory that more trade and investment with the United States would be the quickest way to persuade the government of China to treat its own people as human beings. At the same time, the Clinton administration gave up its power to use even the threat of the loss of MFN as a lever against Beijing's military aggression against Taiwan and other neighboring countries, and its military threats against the United States as well. Mr. Speaker, we are now 6 years into these two risky experiments with the lives of 1.2 billion people who are unfortunate enough to live under a cruel dictatorship and with the national security of the U.S. and the whole free world hanging in the balance. Nobody can seriously argue that either experiment has been a success. Instead, it has brought the people of China 6 more years of torture, forced labor, forced abortion, and sterilization, the crushing of the free trade unions, the denial of fundamental rights of freedom of religion, of expression of assembly, and of the press. The Chinese Communist regime is not only threatening to invade Taiwan, its senior military leaders have also threatened to attack the United States of America. These are our great business partners. Mr. Speaker, here is what Wei Jingsheng, the father of the Chinese democracy movement and long-time prisoner of conscience said in 1999 about the practical effects of MFN on the everyday lives of political and religious prisoners in China: ``The attitude of prison authorities toward political prisoners is directly related to the amount of pressure being exerted by the international community. When international pressure was high, the number of dissidents sent to prison declined drastically and prison conditions for political prisoners somewhat improved. In 1998, condemnation of China's position was abandoned entirely. The direct consequence of this easing of pressure was that, not only did the government crack down on activists attempting to organize an opposition party, but they also cruelly suppressed nonviolent demonstrations by ordinary people.'' Mr. Speaker, that is not me talking, that is Wei Jingsheng. When the U.S. turns up the economic pressure of Beijing, the beatings and the torture are less severe and are imposed on fewer people. When the pressure lets up, the repression gets worse. But, Mr. Speaker, Members do not have to take Wei's word for the fact that Beijing responds to strength rather than weakness. All we have to do is watch what happens when Beijing does something that the Clinton administration and big business really hate, such as tolerating software piracy. When that happens, Mr. Speaker, do the constructive engagers follow their own advice? Do they decide to just grin and bear it, go on trading and investing in China in the hope that eventually the Chinese Government will see the light? No, they do not. Instead, they threaten to impose trade sanctions, the very sanctions they say are inappropriate or ineffective when it comes to stopping torture and other human rights abuses. Talk about misplaced priorities. Mr. Speaker, the threat to withhold trade privileges works to persuade Beijing to respect international copyrights because the Chinese dictatorship values the U.S. as a market for their expanding economy. So when we threaten their access to our market, they respond by respecting international copyrights. Why should that not also work when it comes to stopping or at least mitigating torture of religious prisoners and political prisoners? Maybe there is a reason, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Chinese Government is more attached to torture than they are to software piracy, but maybe not. Let us try and do an experiment, a more promising one than the failed experiment of delinkage. Let us hold out the hand of friendship to Beijing, as Ronald Reagan did to Gorbachev, but make it clear that American friendship and American largesse are conditional on Beijing's observing certain minimum standards of human decency. Let us convince them that good things will flow to them from the United States if and only if they stop threatening to invade Taiwan and to shoot missiles at Los Angeles. Mr. Speaker, the constructive engagers continually want us to give up our power and try any strategy except their own 6-year-old experiment which is looking more and more like a miserable failure. Since our May vote on PNTR, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported that the Beijing regime has intensified its repression of Uighur Muslims, the Tibetan Buddhists. It has intensified its crackdown on Falun Gong as well as to Catholic and Protestant leaders. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on the measure offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, a moment ago we heard the golden rule espoused, ``do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' Well, let me just suggest that what we are trying to do with our foreign policy is to have a consistent ethic of life, of protecting mothers and babies and not sacrificing the children. To treat ``others'' with respect, dignity and compassion. And that includes unborn babies. You can't cherry pick the gold rule. Earlier the word brutalizing was used by my friend from Pennsylvania. It is the baby, I would respectfully submit, who is brutalized in an abortion. Again, we are trying to promote a consistent ethic that affirms both mother and child. I take a back seat to no one, as a Member of this body for the last 20 years, in promoting maternal health care both domestically and abroad. As a member of the Committee on International Relations, I have offered amendments to boost spending to help women be healthier in the developing world. Earlier, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) talked about the Mexico City Policy as being antiwoman. Nothing could be further from the truth. This policy is pro-life, pro-mother, and pro-child, and absolutely not antiwoman. Such a charge is absolutely ludicrous. If Mrs. Maloney's charge was accurate, then the majority of the women in America are antiwoman. The LA Times poll that I mentioned earlier, found that 61 percent of all the women in America believe abortion to be murder, 61 percent of the women in America are not antiwoman. It just does not follow logic, and I think hurling such statements at us, it degrades the level and caliber of our debate. Mr. Chairman, advocates of this pro-abortion amendment keep telling us over and over again that we should subsidize foreign abortionists and abortion lobbyists so long as they do not use U.S. dollars for the actual abortions and the actual lobbying. But this ignores the real effect of subsidizing the international abortion industry. These groups are the partners and the representatives of the U.S. Government in the countries where they operate. Do my colleagues think the average poor person in Peru or Nigeria has any idea what the financial records look like from these organizations? All they know is that these groups are representing the United States and they are performing and promoting abortions. They have no way of knowing which dollars are paying for which activities. They do not ask for an accounting exercise. So they get the strong message that the U.S. family planning program is about exporting abortion on demand, pushing abortion on poor people around the world. Mr. Chairman, this is not just a hypothetical possibility. These are the facts on the ground in country after country throughout the developing world. The largest U.S. population grantees are also the most prominent and vigorous advocates of abortion on demand. What a profound tragedy. The Greenwood amendment would make this situation even worse by removing any limits at all on U.S. subsidies for the international abortion industry. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire if the only remaining speaker will be the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) after myself.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I do not think so.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me just say there is at least, hopefully, only one government per country, whereas there is a myriad of NGOs--a large number of NGOs, NGOs that are trying to lobby governments to topple pro-life laws. That is what we are talking about. Way back in 1984 we accepted a compromise to fund countries, again, because there is only one government per country. But when we talk about a nongovernmental organization, if this nongovernmental organization does not take the money, another will step up to the plate and procure the grant.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief and just say that the eloquence of the minority leader and his comments are something that many of us agree with. But he was speaking to the issue of AIDS not the pending pro-abortion amendment. HIV/AIDS certainly is a devastating scourge on the planet. To date it has claimed the lives of millions of victims and we must find a cure. When Mr. Gephardt talked about the $8 for medicine it's worth pointing out that I raised the issue myself at the Committee on International Relations over a year ago. Thankfully, some of the drug companies have offered to provide certain AIDS drugs at cost to foreign governments and NGOs in an effort to mitigate the transference of AIDS to newborns. Since then I have requested our Agency for International Development to make money available to purchase those kinds of drugs to ensure HIV- free babies. Mr. Gephardt really spoke to amendments that will follow this, although he did make a passive reference to the pending legislation. Mr. Chairman, let me just also say that this vote is not about family planning, it is about abortion promotion and the performance of abortion. Our hope is to continue the wall of separation between the taking of human life by abortion and the prevention of human life. And that policy, which was in effect for 9 years during the Reagan-Bush years worked extremely well. During those years--and now--the United States was and continues to be the largest donor to family planning programs in the world. As a matter of fact, no one even comes close. The current policy is both pro-family planning and pro-life. Because many of us believe that the most elemental of all human rights is the right to life, that babies should not be subjected to the violence of abortion, to dismemberment, to chemical poisoning and other methods of battering. The ugly face of abortion, the cruelty of the methods is often masked and sanitized by the advocates of abortion. They do not want to talk about what is done to the baby to procure ``fetal demise.'' It is too ugly. I believe, however, that we need to face the brutal truth of what abortion does to a baby. And the wounds it inflicts on the mother. It is violence against children. I urge a no vote, a no vote on the pending amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.