Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 30 minutes in opposition.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 40 seconds to respond briefly. The plain text and the implementation by the Clinton administration and by the Reagan-Bush administrations proves that the Mexico City Policy has nothing whatsoever to do with counseling for abortions. That is not on the table, it is not being considered. As much as I would rather it be the case, it is not part of this amendment. Secondly, the Mexico City Policy does provide for abortions for rape, incest, or life of the mother with their own funds. Finally, the Policy reflects our intent that every effort to treat a woman suffering from an incomplete abortion be done and is fully authorized by this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday this House voted 416 to 1 to defend the Vatican from a vicious campaign of anti-Catholic bigotry by major pro- abortion organizations. The list of groups who seek the Vatican's ouster from the U.N., which includes the International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Pathfinder, to name a few, reads like a Who's Who list of groups lavishly subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. Many of these groups, Mr. Chairman, aggressively promote abortion on demand in foreign countries. Members will recall that about 100 countries around the world protect the lives of their unborn children from the violence of abortion. If only the family planners would stick with family planning alone, we would not be here arguing this issue today. I think we should make no mistake about it, this debate is about fat subsidies to the abortion industry. This debate is about how Congress dispenses grant money. This is grant money, I say to my colleagues. There is no entitlement spending involved here. This is grant money. This is discretionary funds. We have an obligation and a duty, I would respectfully submit, to put conditions on if we feel that it is warranted, and many of us, hopefully the majority of us, will feel that it is indeed warranted. Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence against children. Earlier one of my colleagues talked about human rights. The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life, to be free from violence. Chemical poisoning a child with a lethal injection or dismembering an unborn child by ripping his or her arms off the body, which is commonplace in abortion, is anything but benign and compassionate. It is violence against children. It is a gross violation of human rights. That is what this is about today. Members will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the Mexico City policy is named after a U.N. Population Conference held in Mexico City in 1984. It was there that President Reagan announced that he would no longer contribute to organizations that perform or promote abortions. In its most effective and purest form, in place during the Reagan and Bush years, we generously supported family planning but withheld funds from organizations that promote or perform abortions. The language in this bill is not the full Mexico City policy. I wish it were. The language in this bill is a compromise, and it is current law. From the pro-life perspective, this legislation is far from perfect. Although it begins by incorporating the pro-life Mexico City policy that was in force for 9 years under Presidents Reagan and Bush, it then gives the President the right to waive these conditions for some recipients. If the President chooses to exercise the waiver, up to $15 million in U.S. population assistance can go to foreign organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas. The good news is that the remaining $370 million of our population assistance must either go to sovereign countries or NGOs that practice genuine family planning and not abortion. Mr. Chairman, American taxpayers do not want their money going to groups that advertise themselves as family planners but in fact are performers and promoters of abortion around the world. Let us not forget, just a month ago there was a Los Angeles Times poll. It found that among all the women in the United States, when asked the question about abortion, 61 percent, of all women said that abortion was murder. We hope through this legislation to put a very modest but necessary wall of separation between abortion and family planning, and restrict most U.S. funding of the abortion industry overseas. Another part of the compromise, Mr. Chairman, transfers $12.5 million to high-impact child survival programs if the President authorizes money for the abortion groups. This provision will have a direct impact on saving children's lives. It will be spent on immunizations for polio and diphtheria, oral rehydration therapy for children at risk of death from diarrhea, and other easily preventable and treatable diseases that currently kill hundreds of thousands of children annually in developing countries. In other words, this is a moderate, reasonable compromise in which each side gets something but each side also has to give something up. Frankly, some of us on the pro-life side had seriously considered offering the original Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy. I certainly wanted to do it. I've done so each year since the mid-sixties. But the fact that this is current law--a sustainable compromise--we felt on balance was the best way to proceed. Again, this is a compromise. This moderate amendment, Mr. Chairman, is already in the bill offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). So everyone understands the process, the effect of the Greenwood amendment would be to allow unlimited funding of international abortionists and the abortion lobbyists. Indeed, the amendment would not only strike the pro-life restrictions, it would eliminate the $385 million cap on U.S. spending for population assistance. This means that the administration could use any amount it wanted from the $1.3 billion development assistance account for taxpayer subsidies to the international abortion industry. Mr. Chairman, advocates of international abortion rights have once again dredged up the tired old argument that the Mexico City policy is a gag rule that violates free speech. But even if U.S. constitutional provisions applied to foreign organizations doing business on foreign soil, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that they do not, the fact of the matter is free speech would not give these organizations a right to Federal dollars. Organizations that represent the United States in foreign countries are analogous to our ambassadors. They are our people on the ground. They are surrogates for U.S. foreign policy. Their advocacy in these countries on issues closely related to the U.S. programs they administer, as well as to their other activities, such as the actual performance of abortions, is highly relevant to whether they can effectively administer these programs. The United States, I would submit, has no obligation to administer these programs through agents who fundamentally disagree with this goal. For the same reason that we would not hire casino lobbyists to run international anti-gambling campaigns, or a distillery to run an anti-alcohol campaign, it makes no sense to hire abortionists or abortion lobbyists to run programs that they claim are aimed at reducing abortions. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying supporters of the Greenwood amendment argue that our family planning grantees should be allowed to perform and promote abortion so long as their abortion- related activities are carried out with ``their own money'' rather than U.S. grant money. Mr. Chairman, this is a bookkeeping trick. It ignores the fact that money is indeed fungible, and that when we subsidize an organization we inevitably enrich and empower all of its activities, as well as enhancing the domestic and international prestige of the organization by giving an official U.S. seal of approval. Let me be clear on the important point: The Mexico City policy does not weaken international family planning programs. On the contrary, it strengthens them by ensuring that U.S. funds are directed to those groups that provide family planning but do not perform or promote abortion. I urge a strong ``no'' on the Greenwood amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of both the Helsinki Commission and the House International Relations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Human Rights, I am particularly supportive of many portions of this Foreign Operations bill for Fiscal Year 2001. The section on ``Assistance to Eastern Europe and the Baltic States'' is one of the items in which I have a strong interest. This assistance has made a difference in many countries. Given the fact that the bill leaves FY 2001 assistance at FY 2000 levels, I want to state that, in southeastern Europe, our priority list should begin with a focus on the need for democratic change to Serbia. The people of Serbia deserve it; right now they are facing a major crackdown by the Milosevic regime on their basic rights and freedoms. Democratic change in Serbia is in the U.S. interest. Building democracy and prosperity throughout the region, including in Kosovo and Bosnia, would then be easier, making our assistance there more effective. Until Milosevic is stopped, we face the possibility of more conflict in the region, and the need for additional millions of dollars for humanitarian aid, reconstruction and possibly military intervention in both a peacemaking and a peacekeeping capacity. In addition to helping initiate a long-needed democratic transition in Serbia, this assistance could bring support for Montenegro, Macedonia, and Croatia, now that the relatively new governments of these republics have learned the value of embracing multi-ethnic cooperation and tolerance, along with cooperation with the international community. Mr. Chairman, we should prioritize assistance to those who seek to make the right decisions. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee report language states its support for the funding levels requested by the President for Montenegro, as well as the allocation of $350,000 for an OSCE effort to facilitate contacts with democratic forces in Serbia and Montenegro. In the near future, the International Relations Committee should mark-up similar provisions as part of H.R. 1064, the Serbia and Montenegro Democracy Act of 2000, which I introduced in early March of last year. I thank the Committee for this report language.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, on July 16th 1990, the Supreme Soviet (parliament) of the Ukrainian S.S.R. adopted a far-reaching Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine. The overwhelming vote of 355 for and four against was a critical and demonstrative step towards independence, as Ukraine was at that time a republic of the Soviet Union. The Declaration, inspired by the democratic movement Rukh whose key members were veterans of the Helsinki movement seeking greater rights and freedoms, proclaimed Ukraine's state sovereignty and stressed the Republic's intention of controlling its own affairs. Ukraine and its people were identified as the sole source of state authority in the republic, and they alone were to determine their own destiny. The Declaration asserted the primacy of Ukraine's legislation over Soviet laws and established the right of Ukraine to create its own currency and national bank, raise its own army, maintain relations with foreign countries, collect tariffs, and erect borders. Through this Declaration, Ukraine announced its intention not to use, possess, or acquire nuclear weapons. Going beyond Soviet leader Gorbachev's vision of a ``renewed'' Soviet federation, the Declaration asserted Ukraine's sovereignty vis-a-vis Moscow, a move that only a few years earlier would have been met with the harshest of sanctions. The Declaration's assurances on the protection of individual rights and freedoms for all of the people of Ukraine, including national and religious minorities, were extremely important and viewed as an integral aspect of the building of a sovereign Ukraine. The Declaration itself was the outcome of emerging democratic processes in Ukraine. Elections to the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet--the first in which noncommunists were permitted on the ballot--had been held only a few months earlier, in March 1990; one-third of the new members elected were representatives of the democratic opposition. Even the Communist majority voted for the Declaration, reflecting the reality that the Soviet Empire was steadily unraveling. A year later, on August 24, 1991, the same Ukrainian parliament declared Ukraine's independence, and in December of that year, on the heels of a referendum in Ukraine in which over 90 percent voted for independence, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Mr. Speaker, since the adoption of the Declaration ten years ago Ukraine has witnessed momentous transformations. Independent Ukraine has developed from what was, for all practical purposes, a colony of the Soviet empire into a viable, peaceful state with a commitment to ensuring democracy and prosperity for its citizens. It has emerged as a responsible and constructive actor in the international arena which enjoys good relations with all its neighbors and a strategic partnership with the United States. Obviously, the heavy legacy of communism and Soviet misrule has not yet disappeared, as illustrated by stifling corruption, and inadequate progress in rule of law and economic reforms. However, the defeat of the communists in last November's presidential elections, and the appointment of genuinely reformist Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko have given grounds for renewed optimism, which is supported by evidence of growth in some sectors of the economy. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for the Ukrainian people to strengthen and ensure independence by redoubling their efforts to build democracy and a market economy, thereby keeping faith with the ideals and goals of the historic 1990 Declaration on Sovereignty.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I think it needs to be pointed out that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has put $834 million into the Child Survival and Disease program, and it is a significant increase, but the explosion of AIDS certainly makes it an issue that requires more attention. We know that there is very little being done in the area of shelters, of helping those people who have the disease to get a longer and a higher quality of life. Much of the focus has been on prevention, and surely much of the focus should be on prevention. But for those who have it, those who have the ``slims,'' as they call it in Africa, need to be helped through their terrible ordeal, and there is much more that we could be doing to help in that way. I commend my friend for offering the amendment. I am glad to be one of the cosponsors, but, again, I do think it should be underscored there is $834 million in here for child survival and diseases. This is a tweak, but it is an important tweak.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for yielding to me, and just let me say I am very much supportive of this language and the intent. The $2.5 million is really a small amount of money, and it does highlight an often neglected part of this whole trafficking problem and tragedy that we face, and that is, that the locally based indigenous organizations like Miramad in Russia or LaStrada in the Ukraine do not get much funding if they get funding at all, and they are in the front line when women are either trafficked out of the country and they are intercepted in some way, often through some good law enforcement, or when they are returned after being abused. In order to break the cycle, these NGOs are right there providing treatment, providing psychological counseling and rescuing women.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief since I think we have come to the conclusion, but just to remind the body and I think it is important that this House on May 9th did pass the comprehensive legislation that would impose very, very tough new criminal penalties, up to life in imprisonment on those who traffic people into the United States or any part of that process and also to prevent automatic deportation, a protection for the women so that they can be helped while they are here. Eventually many of these women will get back to their country or at least some of them, I will not say many, and they will need protection when they get back, and that is what I think the gentleman's amendment and my amendment seeks to do. We had authorized in that legislation $10 million for victims, and this is a modest down payment on that authorization. So I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and I think his word is his bond and I think we are off to a good start here.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I hope that every Member of this body will join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 253, which I introduced last February along with 37 other cosponsors. This resolution puts the Congress on record as being strongly against the current anti-Catholic effort to expel the Holy See from the United Nations by depriving it of the Permanent Observer status that it has held for 35 years. The proponents of this effort make no secret of the fact that what really irritates them about the Holy See is its consistent position regarding the sanctity of life and family. Mr. Speaker, the Holy See is more than entitled to this status that it holds at the United Nations. It is the governing body of the sovereign State of Vatican City. It has an internationally-recognized legal personality that allows it to enter into treaties and to send and to receive diplomatic representatives. Its diplomatic history stretches back more than 1600 years, a millennium and a half longer than most U.N. Member states have been in existence. The Holy See currently has formal diplomatic relations with more than 169 nations, including the United States, and it maintains 179 permanent diplomatic missions abroad. If anything, the Holy See deserves a more permanent role at the United Nations. As our own State Department concluded and I quote, ``the United States values the Holy See's significant contributions to international peace and human rights.'' The Holy See has been an active participant in a wide range of U.N. activities since 1946. Mr. Speaker, the removal of the Holy See's Permanent Observer status would constitute an absolutely unjustifiable expulsion of the Holy See from the United Nations as a State participant. Just like when there was an anti-Semitic effort some years back to expel Israel, if this anti-Catholicism succeeds, we will take all appropriate actions I am sure in this House, and we and the President and the Senate will to take a second look at our own participation in the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, I hope every Member of this House will join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 253, which I introduced in February of this year along with Mr. Hyde, and which has 37 other bipartisan cosponsors. This resolution puts Congress on record as strongly against the current anti-Catholic effort to expel the Holy See from the United Nations by depriving it of the Permanent Observer status it has held for over 35 years. The proponents of this effort make no secret of the fact that what really irritates them about the Holy See is its consistent positions concerning the sanction of the family, opposition to efforts to create an international right to abortion. Rather than answer the arguments raised by the Holy See in honest and open debate, these pro-abortion groups want to silence the voice of dissent in the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, this House must take a stand in favor of the free exchange of ideas, and we must also stand against the thinly veiled religious intolerance that lurks behind this effort. Last year, a number of pro-abortion groups announced what they called the ``See Change'' campaign. This campaign is an attempt to pressure the U.N. into expelling the Holy See as a state participant. Frustrated by the success of the Holy See at cooperating with other delegations to defend the sanctity of life and the integrity of the family against radical proposals at U.N. international conferences, those organizations decided to try a new tack. They are now trying to subvert free discussion by a sovereign state on these topics in the future by depriving the Holy See of its rightful place at the table. Mr. Speaker, the ``See Change'' proposal is an ideological power play, motivated by pro-abortion and anti-Catholic sentiment. ``See Change'' supporters have attempted to justify their claim that the Holy See does not deserve a seat at the United Nations by comparing the Holy See to EuroDisney and to the Soviet Politburo. I hope and expect that many Members from both sides of the aisle will want to join me in denouncing these offensive remarks--especially in light of the amount of time this House has spent examining far flimsier allegations of anti-Catholicism in the recent past. In response these vicious insults against the Holy See, more than 1,000 nongovernmental organizations from 44 countries around the world have organized their own, much larger ``Holy See Campaign,'' which opposes the ``See Change'' proposal and supports the longstanding Permanent Observer status of the Holy See at the U.N. This effort is not just Catholic. Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Mormon leaders-- among others--have also raised their voices in support. Even those who may disagree with the Holy See on life issues should support H. Con. Res. 253. This resolution is about maintaining the integrity of the United Nations and supporting international pluralism. If ideological preferences are allowed to trump neutral principles of sovereignty--as the See Change activists desire--it will have grave consequences for the U.N. and for the world. Who might be next on the expulsion list? Israel, or some other nation, with whom someone may disagree. The Holy See is more than entitled to the status it holds at the United Nations. It is the governing authority of the sovereign state of Vatican City. It has an internationally recognized legal personality that allows it to enter into treaties and to send and receive diplomatic representatives. Its diplomatic history stretches back more than 1,600 years--a millennium and a half longer than most U.N. member states have been in existence. The Holy See currently has formal diplomatic relations with 169 nations, including the United States, and it maintains 179 permanent diplomatic missions abroad. If anything, the Holy See deserves a more prominent role in the U.N. As the State Department has explicitly stated: ``The United States values the Holy See's significant contributions to international peace and human rights.'' The Holy See has been an active participant in a wide range of United Nations activities since 1946 and was eligible to become a full member state of the U.N. But it chose instead to become a nonmember state with Permanent Observer status in 1964. Because of this choice, unlike the governments of other geographically small countries such as Monaco, San Marino, and Liechtenstein, the Holy See does not possess a vote in the U.N. General Assembly. The removal of the Holy See's Permanent Observer status would constitute an unjustifiable explusion of the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant. It is the full legal equivalent of a state, and its expulsion would seriously damage the credibility of the United Nations by demonstrating that its rules of participation are manipulable for ideological reasons rather than being rooted in neutral principles and objective facts of sovereignty. It would also seriously damage relations between the United Nations and member states that find in the Holy See a moral and ethical presence with which they can work effectively in pursuing humanitarian approaches to international problems. The United Nations operates largely by consensus. In the final analysis, the activists behind the ``See Change'' campaign would like to circumvent that process by silencing a voice they oppose. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this shameful eruption of anti- Catholic bigotry, and submit the following communication for the Record. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC, July 11, 2000. Hon. Christopher H. Smith House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Smith: I write to express our gratitude for your support for maintaining the Holy See's status as a Permanent Observer at the United Nations, a status it has held since 1964. The Holy See, a state with formal diplomatic relations with more countries than any other sovereign state, has long been an active and valuable non-voting participant in the work of the United Nations. Since the United Nations was founded, the Holy See has offered strong moral support for this unique global institution, the ideals for which it stands, and may concrete ways in which it seeks to implement these ideals. The Holy See has not only been a responsible participant in the practical work of the United Nations, it has provided a critical moral voice that has helped ensure that the United Nations remains an effective means of protecting basic human rights, promoting authentic development for the world's poor, and encouraging peaceful resolution to violent conflicts around the world. It is unfortunate that, despite the strong support the Holy See enjoys in the international community, its status at the United Nations has become a matter of ideological and partisan debate. I hope that the Congressional approval of the resolution you have introduced will reaffirm the strong support for the Holy See's role at the United Nations that it enjoys among the community of nations. Sincerely yours, Most Rev. Joseph A. Fiorenza, Bishop of Glaveston-Houston, President, NCCB/USCC.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 253.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 253) expressing the sense of the Congress strongly objecting to any effort to expel the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant by removing its status as a Permanent Observer.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. 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. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the sponsors of this bill, for H.R. 4528, which creates a new scholarship program to assist low-income students' studies overseas. As I think my colleagues know, it is now called the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarships. During mark-up in our subcommittee, through which it moved in a bipartisan manner, we were very happy to name it after the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of our committee. This will help a number of low-income students who very often can get the money for the tuition but do not have the means to get to the country of destination. This will facilitate that. So I think it is an excellent bill, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his leadership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio-Bass amendment. This amendment eliminates the proposed increase in funding for the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Wildlife Services' predator control programs. Regrettably, the USDA has participated in some needless and particularly harsh predator control methods. The DeFazio-Bass Amendment highlights this problem and ensures that the USDA is not rewarded for a program that is wasteful, ineffective and unnecessarily cruel to animals. This cost saving and compassionate amendment reduces funding for the Wildlife Services program to the Administration's budget request. This amendment will not cripple our Wildlife Services predator program nor will it impede USDA efforts to protect public health and safety. The DeFazio-Amendment simply reduces the program in a way that will allow the USDA to place its operations in alignment with public values. Mr. Chairman, I believe Americans would be outraged to learn that their hard earned tax dollars are being used to set out Steel-Jaw Leghold Traps on our public lands. These devices are banned in 89 countries and a number of states, including my state of New Jersey, because they are a cruel and unusual form of animal punishment that cannot discriminate. Probably the most egregious predator control practice is ``Denning.'' Federal Wildlife Service employees, who practice ``Denning'' smoke coyote pups from their dens and then kill the pups by clubbing them with shovels when they emerge. Mr. Chairman, American's tax dollars should not be subsidizing these activities. It is unthinkable that we are spending so much money to kill so many animals by such cruel means. While our Wildlife Services predator program has been effective in some areas, such as controlling bird populations around airports, its lethal predator control activities in western states are unacceptable. Reducing funding for the Lethal Predator program by $7 million will target its most wasteful and needless activities, allowing the USDA to concentrate on more effective compassionate measures. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes good fiscal sense and it is environmentally sound. Taxpayers should not subsidize the western livestock industry, and we should not subsidize killing animals in indiscriminate and cruel ways. I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on the DeFazio-Bass amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me begin by saying that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my friend and colleague, misstated--was in error--when she suggested that any amendment to H.R. 1304, constituted a poison pill crafted by the insurance industry to destroy the bill. As a strong and longstanding cosponsor of the Campbell bill, and as one speaking in favor of the pro-life Coburn amendment, nothing could be further from the truth. Our only intent in proposing this amendment is to protect innocent babies and their mothers from the violence of abortion. Abortion isn't health care--it is the dismembering and poisoning of fragile children. Mr. Chairman, let us make no mistake about it, pro-abortion groups have long had as their goal complete assimilation of abortion into the Nation's health care system. It is clear that absent Coburn abortion providers could certainly use the exemption created by H.R. 1304 to pressure private group health plans to cover abortion. It is appropriate then, and I think it is a vital duty of this Congress, to adopt the Coburn abortion-neutral amendment if we are going to grant physicians the significant leverage in negotiations over benefits and other important issues permitted under the legislation. But we certainly should not, however unwittingly or inadvertently, permit more abortions as a consequence of this measure. The Coburn amendment, which would simply maintain the status quo, would only exclude negotiations over abortions. That is all it would do. In other words, current antitrust law would remain in place if organizations and health care providers tried to leverage expansive abortion coverage from insurers. Opposition to the Coburn amendment could only come from those who want abortion advocates to use this special antitrust exemption granted by H.R. 1304 to expand coverage of abortion. That is why the National Right to Life is in favor of Coburn. That is why NARAL and other pro- abortion organizations are against it. It could not be clearer. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a positive vote in favor of the Coburn amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Specifically, page 611 constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and is, therefore, in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI of the House. Let me just point out for the Members that section 611 provides that earmarks, limitations or minimum funding requirements contained in any other act shall not be applicable to funds appropriated under this act. This provision purports to render ineffective any earmark limitation or minimum funding requirements contained in any act. The effect of this provision is very, very far reaching. For example, the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act, which was signed into law last year and which went through my committee, went through the full committee, and was on this floor for the better part of a week, and obviously went through the same process on the Senate side, and it has a number of minimum funding requirements with respect to programs that would be declared null and void. So I would ask the Chair that this section be declared out of order.