Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee (Mr. Rogers) regarding the funding of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for that encouraging comment. I appreciate very much the gentleman's commitment to the extraordinary work advanced by the Commission. The Helsinki Commission remains at the forefront of many of the cutting issues in the OSCE region, a region with vital interests to the United States. From the Balkans to the Baltics, the Helsinki Commission continues to provide important leadership in advancing democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. We do it in a completely bipartisan way.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy about the funding levels of the bill for the Helsinki Commission. The Commission's budget this year included unobligated funds from previous years, per the understanding of the conference committee. Do I understand correctly that the chairman and others on the committee will work together in the conference to ensure that the Commission has the necessary resources to continue operations at the current level of activity and staff?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 611.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, while I have great sympathy and even supported the desire to boost the funding level for the patent office, it is the offset, the slashing of the U.S. public diplomacy programs and educational programs that leads me to oppose the Coble amendment. By cutting educational exchange programs in half, we severely undermine the training and the education of the next generation of leaders in developing countries throughout the world. Let me remind the Members through legislation such as the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 3427, which I offered last year along with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), which became law in last November, Congress strengthened the connection between our international exchanges and the promotion of human rights and democracy around the world. Many of our exchange programs are aimed at Nations that are burdened with impressive governments like China, Vietnam and Cambodia, whose people need continuing contact with the American government, its institutions, its educational venues and the like. It seems to me that public diplomacy gives us the ability and then especially the ability to catch the good infection about what democracy, about what capitalism is about. Congress, Mr. Chairman, has specifically provided scholarships for East Timorese students and for Tibetan and Burmese students who are in exile from their countries, as well as the exchange programs between the people of the U.S. and the people of Tibet. Exchange programs, Mr. Chairman, promote international development by bringing students from those developing nations to study in America, they learn so much, they bring it back, and hopefully we get a safer and a more sane world, especially over time. It is a great investment. It is a modest amount of money and the offset, again, notwithstanding the importance of funding adequately the patent office, this is the wrong offset. I strongly urge a no vote on the Coble amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from New York for yielding. Mr. Chairman, just let me ask my friend, is there any point in the pregnancy, any point in the 9 months, the normal gestational period, at which time the gentleman believes that child is sufficiently formed, sufficiently mature, that all the body systems are working, as we all know with ultrasound, is there any point where the child deserves protection?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is no denying a compelling yet somewhat underpublicized trend in America today: Americans in increasing numbers are profoundly disturbed over the killing of unborn children. 40 million babies have been killed to date, and Americans are rejecting in increasing numbers the violence of abortion. Americans, especially women, recognize that abortion is indeed violence against women. A recent nationwide Los Angeles Times poll, conducted just a few days ago in June, confirms that a significant majority of both men and women now recognize abortion to be the murder of an innocent and defenseless child. The LA Times poll found that in an astounding 61 percent--let me say that again--61 percent of the women of America say abortion is murder. Giving that finding, it is not surprising that the LA Times poll, a nationwide poll, found that support for Roe v. Wade, the infamous Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand, is declining in a big way. The headline of the LA Times story that appeared in my newspaper at home, the Trenton Times, said support for Roe v. Wade is softening. I hope as lawmakers and as politicians we recognize this trend that is staring us right in the face. In addition, the poll also found that only 43 percent of the respondents supported Roe v. Wade, and that compares with 56 percent back in 1991. In other words, my colleagues, there has been a 13 percent drop in support for Roe v. Wade over the last 10 years. Mr. Chairman, the word is getting out: Abortion is violence against children, and it hurts women. The inherent value and worth of a baby is in no way diminished because the child's mother happens to be incarcerated. Children, I believe, are precious beyond words. The lives of their mothers, likewise, are of infinite value. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize the killing of an incarcerated woman's child makes pro-life Americans accomplices, complicit in the violence against children. Mr. Chairman, I urge a very strong no on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think we have got to face the truth, a truth that this poll clearly suggests: abortion, whether it be dismemberment or the killing of a child by way of injections of salt poisoning which literally burns that child to death--we have to look at the methods and the act of abortion itself. What does it entail? High powered suction machines, 20 to 30 times as powerful as a vacuum cleaner, with razor blade tipped ends that slice and dismember the legs, the arms, the body, the head, and kill the baby in a very, very cruel fashion. That is the reality that the DeGette amendment says we ought to pay for. I, like many Americans, profoundly reject that. Let me also point out that the poll showed as well most Americans do not want their tax money being used to subsidize abortions. We have had, I say to my colleagues, this amendment before us before. It has been soundly rejected. I hope that we will have the wisdom of those previous votes. Hopefully we will look at the way the polls are going, because Americans are waking up. The megatrend, if you will, is in favor of life. Let us enfranchise both mother and baby, let us provide protection for both. Vote against this amendment, it will lead to more killing of more babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from New York, which would impose a one-year moratorium on the VA's implementation of the ``Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation.'' VERA, as this funding mechanism is known, was instituted in 1997 as a way to distribute VA resources fairly across the country. But the outcomes since then have not been equitable. The VERA formula punishes regions like the Northeast and Midwest by calculating need solely on the basis of the number of veterans served-- without any regard for the type of individualized or specialized care given to these patients. Veterans in the New York/New Jersey area (which makes up Veterans Integrated Service Network or VISN 3 in my district) for example, are older than former service men and women in other parts of the country. Because age is usually accompanied by more severe health problems, these veterans often require more extensive-- and therefore more expensive--care than veterans elsewhere. In addition, New York/New Jersey veterans have a higher-than-average incidence rate of Hepatitis C (HCV) and AIDS, which we all know are very costly treatments. As the VA continues to make HCV diagnosis and treatment a priority--which it should--the costs associated with these procedures will rise. A March, 1999 one-day prevalence study found that six percent of veterans who were tested for Hepatitis C tested positive; in VISN 3 that number was 13 percent--almost double the national rate. And the going rate for one Hepatitis C treatment cycle, for one patient, is between $15,000 and $20,000. Yet the VERA formula does not factor this treatment cost into its allocation. Finally, with the migration of veterans to the Sunbelt, those remaining in regions like the Northeast and Midwest often lack the money, if not physical condition, to move to a warmer climate. VERA should not penalize these neediest of veterans for remaining where they are. Mr. Chairman, the VERA issue is more than just abstract numbers and percentages on paper. For regions like VISN 3, the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation formula has not been equitable, and it has resulted in serious delays in health care delivery for area veterans. It has also forced these veterans to live under the fear that crucial specialty services offered by facilities like the VA clinic in Brick, New Jersey--located in my district--could be slashed. This nearly happened two years ago, when the VA responded to VERA-imposed budget cuts by seeking to close the clinic. I am still grateful for the efforts of Monmouth and Ocean County veterans who fought side by side with me to keep the facility open. If the Brick clinic were unable to provide rheumatology, podiatry, and a range of other services, these veterans would have had to take much longer drives for desperately needed treatment. As the vice chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have questioned VA officials about the VERA system, and the explanations I have received are not satisfactory. The solution is to adopt the Hinchey amendment and force the VA to halt the VERA formula, so that we can measure the full impact of this questionable system on veterans nationwide.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of passage of the Wu-Smith-Udall amendment which shifts $14.7 million to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation line item from the forest products line item within the budget of the U.S. Forest Service. Let me just say that I do believe that the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), has tried very hard within the budget constraints to allocate sufficient monies for programs within the jurisdiction of his subcommittee. It is a very tough balancing act--as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations I found how hard it was to write our bill. Last year the Congress passed my State authorization bill which is now law and it too was a balancing act--287 pages of desperate provisions and allocations. So I emphasize. But in response to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), there is more money not less, but more federal dollars, as my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), just pointed out. The pending legislation includes an additional $10 million more than the President's request for the Forest Service line item, the timber sales management program. Our amendment retains that plus up but shifts another $14.7 over to the fish and wildlife programs. It is a reasonable and environmentally sound redirection of scarce resources. It is fiscally prudent. And it deserves support. Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service through their fish and wildlife conservation program manages 192 acres of public lands, ensuring that animals such as elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, waterfowl, and song bird enjoy the habitat they need to remain viable and productive. Over 360 threatened and endangered species live in National Forests and the Forest Service works in this program to provide ecological conditions that provide for the plant and animal community diversity which will allow these species to survive and to thrive. Mr. Chairman, yes, this a difficult choice, but, again, we are talking about redirecting a modest amount of resources from this account that has already been plussed up, and we are looking to take some of that and put it in the area where we think it will do the greatest good. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, President Putin of Russia continues to maintain a heavy schedule of international visits. Among the several destinations, he is scheduled to visit Moldova later this week. The Republic of Moldova is located principally between the Prut River on the west and the Dniestr River to the east, between Romania and Ukraine. A sliver of the country, the ``left bank'' or ``Transdniestria'' region, extends beyond the Dniestr River and borders with Ukraine. The 4.3 million population in Moldova is 65 percent ethnic Romanian, with significant Ukrainian and Russian minorities. Gagauz, Bulgarians, Roma, and Jews constitute the bulk of the remainder. While Moldova and Romania were united between World Wars I and II, following seizure by the Soviets in World War II, Moldova became a Soviet ``republic.'' When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Moldova gained its independence and is now an internationally-recognized sovereign state, a member of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and a host of other international organizations. When Moldova became independent, there were approximately 15,000 Soviet troops of the 14th Army based in the Transdniestria region of Moldova. In 1992, elements of these troops helped pro-Soviet elements establish a separatist state in Transdniestria, the so-called Dniestr Moldovan Republic. This state, unrecognized and barely changed from the Soviet era, continues to exist and defy the legitimate authorities of Moldova. Meanwhile, elements of the former Soviet army, now the Russian army, remained in Transdniestria after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Renamed the Operational Group of Forces, they presently number about 2,500. The Moldovan Government has wanted the troops to leave, and the Russians keep saying they are going to leave. The Moldovan and Russian Governments signed an agreement in 1994 according to which Russian forces would withdraw in three years. Obviously, that deadline has passed. Russia was supposed to remove her forces from Moldova as a part of the Council of Europe accession agreement in February 1996. In fact, language in the declaration of the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit insists that Russia remove its military arsenals from Moldova by December 2001 and its forces by December 2002. This latest OSCE language enhances language included in the 1994 Budapest document and the 1996 Lisbon document calling for complete withdrawal of the Russian troops. Mr. Speaker, there is no legitimate security reason for the Russian Government to continue to base military forces on the territory of a sovereign state that wishes to see them removed. This relatively small contingent of troops is a vestige of the Cold War. I would add also that the United States Government has agreed to help finance some of the moving costs for the Russian equipment. I would hope President Putin will assure his hosts in Moldova that the Russian forces will be removed in accordance with the OSCE deadline, if not earlier.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, an international accord whose signing represents a milestone in European history. As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, I have been privileged to be associated with the Helsinki process and its seminal role in advancing human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. I am pleased to be joined by my fellow Helsinki Commissioners Representatives Hoyer, Wolf, Cardin, Salmon, Slaughter, Greenwood, Forbes and Pitts as original cosponsors. A companion resolution is being introduced today in the Senate by Helsinki Commission CoChair Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. The Helsinki Final Act and the process it spawned has been instrumental in consigning the Communist Soviet Empire--responsible for untold violations of human rights--into the dustbin of history. With its language on human rights, the Helsinki Final Act, for the first time in the history of international agreements, granted human rights the status 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 affirm the inherent dignity of men and women and are not privileges bestowed at the whim of the state. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, 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 Groups in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, and similar groups in Poland and Czechoslovakia, 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. Western pressure through the Helsinki process--now advanced in the forum of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe-- greatly contributed to the freeing of the peoples of the Captive Nations, thus bringing an end to the Cold War. The Helsinki Commission, on which I have served since 1983, played a significant role in promoting human rights and human contacts. The congressional initiatives such as hearings, resolutions, letters and face-to-face meetings with representatives of Helsinki signatories which violated human rights commitments, encouraged our own government to raise these issues consistently and persistently. The Commission's approach at various Helsinki meetings has always been to encourage a thorough and detailed review of compliance with Helsinki agreements. Specific cases and issues are cited, rather than engaging in broad, philosophical discussions about human rights. With the passage of time--and with the leadership of the United States--this more direct approach in pressing human rights concerns has become the norm. In fact, by 1991 the Helsinki signatory states accepted that human dimension commitments ``are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state concerned.'' With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the OSCE region has changed dramatically. In many States, we have witnessed dramatic transformation and a consolidation of the core OSCE values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. 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. The OSCE, which now includes 54 participating States, has changed to reflect the changed international environment, undertaking a variety of initiatives designed to prevent, manage, and resolve conflict and emphasizing respect for rule of law and the fight against organized crime and corruption, which constitute a threat to economic reform and prosperity. The Helsinki process is still dynamic and active, and the importance of a vigorous review in which countries are called to account for violations of their freely undertaken Helsinki commitments has not diminished. This resolution calls on the President to issue a proclamation reaffirming the United States' commitment to full implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. All signatory states would be asked to clarify that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democratic principles as well as economic liberty, and the implementation of related commitments continue to be vital elements in promoting a new era of democracy, peace and unity in the OSCE region. In the twenty- five years since this historic process was initiated in Helsinki, there have been many successes. Mr. Speaker, the task is still far from complete, and we must continue to do our part in championing the values that Helsinki espouses.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, two days ago, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I am honored to chairman, held a hearing entitled ``The Putin Path: Are Human Rights in Retreat?'' I was pleased to be joined on the dais by my colleagues on the Commission, Co-Chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Senator Tim Hutchinson, Ranking House Member Representative Steny Hoyer, and Representative Matt Salmon. As part of the hearing, the Commission had also planned to feature a video-conference with Moscow-based Radio Liberty journalist Andrei Babitsky. As Members are aware, Mr. Babitsky was arrested by Russian authorities for allegedly ``participating in an armed formation,'' as a result of his reporting from besieged Grozny last year. Subsequently, as a civilian, Babitsky was ``exchanged'' to Chechen forces in return for certain captured Russian military personnel, and is not permitted to leave Moscow. Unfortunately, technical problems precluded the possibility of the videoconference, but Mr. Babitsky provided a written statement for the hearing record. Mr. Babitsky was recently awarded the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's prize for journalism, and as head of the U.S. Delegation to the OSCE PA, I hope that he will be able to attend the award ceremony at the Assembly's annual meeting in Bucharest this July. Tuesday's hearing was one of a series of hearings the Commission has held to examine human rights issues in the States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The mandate of the Commission is to monitor and encourage compliance with the provisions of the Helsinki Accords and successive documents of the OSCE. As I have noted on previous occasions, Russia is no longer the dictatorial, closed society that it was during the Soviet period, and certainly there are countries around the world where human rights are in much more perilous straits. I have yet to hear of a working church in Russia being destroyed by bulldozers and wrecking cranes, as was the case last November in Turkmenistan. And we know that in China religious believers of many faiths are thrown in jail for simply desiring to worship without government interference. Indeed, under the administration of President Yeltsin, human rights activists were able to achieve significant gains in making respect for human rights, if not a standard, at least a consideration in public policy. There is growing concern, however, that Russia's development in the area of human rights is taking a turn for the worse under recently- elected President Vladimir Putin. The testimony of Igor Malashenko, First Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors of Media-Most and President of NTV, summarized how their offices were the target of the infamous raid by government agents on May 11 last. Mr. Malashenko described how the agents carted away documents, tapes, computer discs and equipment, and subsequently issued ``contradictory and unsatisfactory justifications'' for this raid. Moreover, he provided extensive information on several other less- publicized examples of violence and intimidation toward media outlets and journalists throughout Russia. General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, and a man of exceptional expertise in things Soviet and Russian, noted that Russia is a ``weak state'' and suffers from a lack of institutions capable of providing the level of civil society and economic development that we had hoped would follow after the collapse of the Soviet Union. General Odom also suggested that the United States should not treat Russia as a major power, or think that much of Russia's internal problems can be solved by ``ventriloquism'' from the West. Professor Georgi Derluguian of Northwestern University asserted that President Putin is the product of the KGB network that survived the collapse of the Soviet Union. In order to seek a distraction from the Chechen quagmire, suggested Professor Derluguian, Putin will most likely launch a massive anti-crime campaign. I would note that when Yuri Andropov and his KGB began to assume power in the twilight of the Brezhnev regime, part of the crackdown on political dissent at that time was under the guise of cracking down on corruption. Ms. Rachel Denber, Deputy Director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch, testified that in Grozny, ``the graffiti on the walls reads `Welcome to Hell Part Two.' The bombing campaign has turned many parts of Chechnya into a wasteland even the most experienced war reporters we, have spoken to told us they have never seen anything in their careers like the destruction of the capital Grozny.'' Ms. Denber also described summary executions of civilians, including the death of three generations of one family shot to death in the yard of their own home. One of the brighter aspects of civil society under President Yeltsin was the expansion of NGO activity. However, Professor Sarah Mendelson of the Fletcher School of Diplomacy and Law at Tufts University noted that there is in Russia today ``an atmosphere that is hostile to civil rights activists, and in fact, anyone with opinions that differ from the Kremlin's. While ``the treatment of Andrei Babitsky in January and February was shocking and disturbing, and the FSB raid on MediaMost in May was brazen,'' she testified, this is ``part of a larger pattern of harassment that has grown steadily worse over the last year and a half.'' In this connection, I would like to point out another proposal made by Professor Mendelson in her testimony. She suggested that President Clinton, while in Moscow next month at the Summit with President Putin, should meet with activists who are promoting human rights and democracy in Russia today. This gesture, she notes, ``would send a signal not only to those in Russia who care about democracy but to those in Russia who do not.'' I believe this idea is right on target. In fact, Mr. Hoyer and I have written to the President noting that this year is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Accords. We have encouraged the President to meet with the surviving veterans of the Soviet-era human rights struggle, and with their contemporary colleagues, in both Moscow and in Kyiv, where the President plans to meet with President Kuchma following his Moscow visit. I hope that President Clinton will take this advice, as I believe such a gesture would give new impetus to the struggle for human rights and democracy in two pivotal nations of the international community. In closing, I would call attention to a resolution to be introduced by our colleague Mr. Lantos and House International Affairs Committee Chairman Ben Gilman, regarding the issue of free media in Russia. I am pleased to join as an original cosponsor of this resolution, which among other provisions, calls upon the President, the Secretary of State, and other officials and agencies of the United States Government to emphasize to Russian government officials our concern and preoccupation that official pressures against the independent media are incompatible with democratic norms. I am pleased to co-sponsor this resolution, I hope my colleagues will join us, and I hope that President Clinton will heed this call when he meets with President Putin in Moscow next month.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the 1992 presidential campaign, Mr. Clinton accused his opponent of coddling the dictator of China and promised that, if he was elected, he would deny MFN to China ``as long as they keep locking people up.'' Today China is locking people up and torturing them big time. Faced, in the spring of 1993, with a vote that was likely to strip China of MFN, President Clinton preempted congressional action with the issuance of an Executive Order that gave the PRC one more year to reform. For MFN to continue, significant progress in human rights was established. The President said in May 28, 1993, ``Starting today, the U.S. will speak with one voice on China policy.'' We are here today because the American people continue to harbor profound concerns about a range of practices by China's Communist leaders. The President went on. He said that ``the core of the policy will be a resolute insistence upon significant progress on human rights in China.'' ``Whether I extend MFN next year'', the President went on, ``will depend on whether China makes significant progress in improving its human rights record.'' I had nothing but praise for the President, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize at the time that we had been had. As the probationary year progressed, profound doubt concerning the President's commitment to his own policy emerged. So midway through that probationary period in January of 1994, I led a human rights mission to China and was shocked and dismayed to be told by high Chinese officials with whom I met that the Clinton administration would continue MFN without conditions, and that his human rights linkage was pure fiction meaningless and political. It turns out the President was bluffing. The fix was in, and the Chinese dictatorship knew it. A terrible setback for human rights, democracy, the environment, and security issues. Let me just point out, Mr. Speaker, once that delinking took place, the hard-liners knew for sure that as long as the Clinton administration was in place, there would never be a change. This administration and some in Congress will fight hard to protect intellectual property rights and copyright infringement. Sanctions for the protection of CDs are wise public policy but are deemed impermissible to employ in the effort to protect Chinese men, women and children from government abuse. Torture, forced abortion, all kinds of human rights abuses, all of them taken together warrants no sanctions whatsoever. Steal some of our CDs, and we will bring the full brunt of those sanctions against you. Sometimes I think we got our priorities wrong. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom testified before the Committee on International Relations and made it very clear that there has been a marked deterioration in religious freedom in China and admonished Congress not to confer PNTR on the PRC. I ask Members to read the 77- page State Department Woman Rights report replete with human rights abuses. Mr. Speaker, to date there has yet to be any serious credible linkage of trade and human rights. Yet today we are being asked to forgo any possibility of linkage in the future. Deny China PNTR today--require them to make progress in the direction of reform and protection of human rights. Mr. Speaker, in the 1992 Presidential Campaign, Mr. Clinton accused his opponent of coddling the dictators of China and promised that he, if elected, would deny MFN to China ``as long as they keep locking people up.'' Today Clinton is locking people up--and torturing them-- big time. Faced in the spring of 1993 with a vote that was likely to strip China of MFN, President Clinton pre-empted Congressional action with the issuance of an executive order that gave the PRC one more year of MFN. For MFN to continue, ``Significant Progress'' in human rights was established as the new standard. The president said in a speech on May 28, 1993: Starting today, the United States will speak with one voice on China policy. We no longer have an Executive Branch policy and a Congressional policy. We have an American policy. We are here today because the American people continue to harbor profound concerns about a range of practices by China's communist leaders. We are concerned that many activists and pro-democracy leaders, including some from Tiananmen Square, continue to languish behind prison bars in China for no crime other than exercising their consciences. We are concerned by the Dalai Lama's reports of Chinese abuses against the people and culture of Tibet . . . The core of this policy will be a resolute insistence upon significant progress on human rights in China. To implement this policy, I am signing today an Executive Order that will have the effect of extending Most Favored Nation status for China for 12 months. Whether I extend MFN next year, however, will depend upon whether China makes significant progress in improving its human rights record. I had nothing but praise for the president. I didn't realize at the time that we had been had. As the ``probationary year'' progressed, profound doubt concerning the President's commitment to his own policy emerged. So, midway through the ``probationary period,'' in Jan. of 1994, I led a human rights mission to China and was shocked and dismayed to be told by high Chinese government officials with whom I met, that President Clinton would continue MFN without conditions and that his brand of human rights linkage was pure fiction, meaningless and political. Turns out the President was indeed bluffing, the fix was in, and the Chinese dictatorship knew it. A terrible setback for human rights, democracy, the environment and security issues. In a breathtaking capitulation, the Administration officially de- linked human rights and trade in the Spring of 1994--and the Chinese hardliners then knew for absolute certain that for this Administration profits trump respect for human life and that sanctions were to be reserved exclusively for commercial concerns, such as intellectual property rights, copyright infringement, and the pirating of CDs and video cassettes. Then, and only then, would this Administration mount up on its hind legs to fight and employ the credible threat of sanctions to ameliorate Beijing's behavior. In an article in the Washington Post in June 9, 1998, we get this insight, ``A few months after President Clinton de-linked MFN from progress on human rights, there was a meeting at the White House to assess the effects of the Administration's new China policy. At the meeting, president Clinton announced, ``I hate our China policy. I wish I was running against our China policy. I mean, we give them MFN and change our commercial policy and what has changed?'' So reports the Washington Post. As Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee, I have chaired 18 hearings and markups on human rights abuses in China. Not only has nothing changed for the better with our defacto de-linking policy, human rights abuses have changed for the worse. The delinkage policy experiment which will be made permanent today if this legislation passes--will worsen the situation. Human rights abuses have gotten progressively worse in virtually every category. At a hearing this morning with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Rabbi Saperstein and two commissioners testified that there was a ``. . . sharp deterioration in freedom of religion in China during the last year. The Commission believes that an unconditional grant of PNTR at this moment may be taken as a signal of American indifference to religious freedom. The government of China attaches great symbolic importance to steps such as the grant of PNTR, and presents them to the Chinese people as proof of international acceptance and approval.'' Rabbi Saperstein admonished Congress to vote ``No'' on PNTR. I urge members to read the 77 page State Department report, which details pervasive torture, forced abortion, and new, frightening crackdowns on dissidents and religious believers. The U.S. State Department Report states: Abuses included instances of extra judicial killings, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and denial of due process. Prison conditions at most facilities remained harsh. In many cases, particularly in sensitive political cases, the judicial system denies criminal defendants basic legal safeguards and due process because authorities attach higher priority to maintaining public order and suppressing political opposition that to enforcing legal norms. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. The Government tightened restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press, and increased controls on the Internet; self-censorship by journalists also increased. The Government severely restricted freedom of assembly, and continued to restrict freedom of association. The government continued to restrict freedom of religion, and intensified controls on some unregistered churches. The Government continued to restrict freedom of movement. The Government does not permit independent domestic nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to monitor publicly human rights conditions. Violence against women, including coercive family planning practices--which sometimes include forced abortions and forced sterilization; prostitution; discrimination against women; trafficking in women and children; abuse of children; and discrimination against the disabled and minorities are all problems. The Government continued to restrict tightly worker rights, and forced labor in prison facilities remains a serious problem. Child labor persists. Particularly serious human rights abuses persisted in some minority areas, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang, where restrictions on religion and other fundamental freedoms intensified . . . . . . Police and other elements of the security apparatus employed torture and degrading treatment in dealing with detainees and prisoners. Former detainees and the press reported credibly that officials used electric shocks, prolonged periods of solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, beatings, shackles, and other forms of abuse against detained men and women . . . The Chinese dictators--our business partners--excel in the torture chamber business and even the internet in China is used against its users. The State Department points out that: The Government increased monitoring of the Internet during the year, and placed restrictions on information available on the Internet. The Government has special Internet police units to monitor and increase control of Internet content and access . . . Web pages run by Falun Gong followers were targeted specifically by the government as part of its crackdown against the group that began in July. The repression of human rights in general and the barbaric forced abortion policy is having a devastating impact on women's lives. The State Department Human Rights Report says that 500 Chinese women commit suicide each and every day. Mr. Speaker to date there has yet to be any serious, credible linkage of trade and human rights, yet we are being asked today to forgo any possible linkage in the future. This is a real vote--the dictatorship will actually lose something they want. Deny China's PNTR today-- require them to move in the direction of reform and the protection of human rights.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that Members understand that there is a profound difference between the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, which was formed back in 1976 to implement the Helsinki Final Act to which the USSR and the Warsaw Pact nations and others were a party to. They signed on the dotted line. The commission that is contemplated in this legislation is a watchdog commission. It is like any other commission that might be formed, but there is no participation by China or any of the other countries in Asia, so there is a major difference. So I would hope we would no longer somehow compare it to the Helsinki Commission. There is no real comparison between the two.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think the bottom line question we all need to ask, Mr. Speaker, is, is there anything that the dictatorship in Beijing can do that would lead to a loss of support for PNTR that Beijing so desperately wants? They need to know, as my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), said, up front what the consequences will be. If pervasive torture, religious persecution, Laogai labor, a lack of press freedom, and worker rights and other human rights abuses are not enough, I sincerely hope that war with Taiwan is sufficiently egregious to trigger a loss of support for PNTR.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to be an original sponsor of the Veterans and Dependents Millennium Education Act [H.R. 4268]. the chairman and ranking members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and others, have worked tirelessly to craft this important bill in a collaborative and bipartisan fashion. Passage of the Veterans and Dependents Millennium Education Act will benefit more than 500,000 people immediately, and its increase of Montgomery G.I. Bill [MGIB] benefits will go a long way toward recruiting--and retaining--more young Americans to serve our country in uniform. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to honor those who have died in service to our country on Memorial Day, we must also remember our obligation to help those who continue to defend our country. Increasing education benefits for those who have responded to the call of duty is the least we can do. Under this legislation, Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits for full-time students will rise from $536 to $600 per month on October 1, 2000, and to $720 per month on October 1, 2002. The bill also authorizes proportional increases for part-time students. Similarly, H.R. 4268 increases survivors' and dependents' educational assistance for full-time students from $485 to $600 per month at the start of fiscal year 2001, and to $720 per month at the beginning of fiscal year 2003. Importantly, today's bill makes these benefits retroactive to the date of the veteran's service-connected death or 100 percent service-connected disability rating. It is worth noting that H.R. 4268 also provides an annual cost-of-living adjustment for survivors' and dependents' educational assistance, which is currently available only for MGIB benefits. The veterans and Dependents Millennium Education Act also fills an important gap in our military's education assistance program for some 137,000 active duty personnel. For these service men and women who either turned down an earlier opportunity to convert to the Montgomery G.I. bill program, or who have no funds in their Vietnam-Era Veterans' Education Assistance Program [VEAP] account--the educational assistance program in place before MGIB--a payment of $2,700 enables them to receive full MGIB benefits. This important provision will be a major help to many senior non-commissioned officers who, after leaving the service, often attend college part time while working. Finally, H.R. 4268 accommodates students who attend a college or university that has extended breaks, by permitting MGIB or similar benefits to be paid between intervals of up to 8 weeks. The Veterans and Dependents Millennium Education Act provides added flexibility by permitting these benefits to be used for civilian occupational licensing or a certification examination. I would like to point out that the legislation which we are considering today is deficit-neutral. By reauthorizing programs already in place that either save or generate revenue--such as the VA home loan fee of \3/4\ of 1 percent--we can provide these improved benefits to veterans and their families. I urge my colleagues to support the Veterans and Dependents Millennium Education Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to PNTR, and tonight I especially urge the remaining undecided Members to look at China's ever-worsening human rights record and look long and hard at the compelling threat that PRC poses to Taiwan on both the short and intermediate term as they build up with U.S. missile and computer technology and Russian ships, and the threat to the U.S. itself. The VFW and the American Legion have taken a long look at this issue and they have urged a ``no'' vote on PNTR. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), who takes the view that is contrary to my own, rightly called China a dictatorship. Our business partners, Mr. Chairman, in Beijing indeed are dictators, and they are directly responsible for heinous crimes against humanity, including the systematic use of torture, the laogai or slave labor, where hundreds of thousands of people, thousands of gulags or laogai are used to make goods that are then exported to the United States. And the MOU that we have with them is not even worth the paper it is printed on. They have given new meaning to the word union busting. Those brave Chinese who speak up and try to organize are thrown into jail and they too are beaten. As a result of the one child per couple policy, brothers and sisters are illegal. Forced abortion, properly construed as a crime against humanity by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal are going on in China on a massive scale today. There is no toleration of dissent in the PRC. I have had 18 hearings, Mr. Chairman, in my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations. We have looked at this at every angle. Another commission is nice, but it should not be done in lieu of substantive action. Let me also point out that I too chair the Helsinki Commission. This does not look like the Helsinki Commission. Let me just remind Members that the U.S.S.R. and the Warsaw Pact nations all signed the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. It was a process. China is not going to be signing this pact. Let me also point out that MFN was denied to the U.S.S.R. while we had this accord called the Helsinki Final Act. And, finally, we have commissions. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has come out unanimously admonishing Members of Congress to vote ``no'' on PNTR because of the deteriorating situation on religious freedom. Let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman. My colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), said nothing is permanent. If they misbehave, he said, maybe something could be done. Let me just point out the fact is that this dictatorship is misbehaving on a grand scale. It does beg the question, is there anything that they can do, any abuse they can perpetrate that does not lead to the loss of PNTR? I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today we honor Pope John Paul II, who in his 20 years as leader of the Catholic Church has become pastor to the world, boldly proclaiming the Gospel--the Good News of Jesus Christ--and its message of love, hope, and reconciliation. The Holy Father walks the path to peace that surpasses understanding, the road that leads to Heaven. How appropriate it is that we honor him with a Congressional Gold Medal, as he just celebrated his eightieth birthday last week. Even after eight decades of doing the Lord's work here on earth, the Pope's charisma and steadfast faith shine brightly, giving hope to millions of people of all faiths. During his pontificate the Holy Father has made an astonishing 176 visits to 117 different countries, he speaks some eight languages, and has written 13 incisive encyclicals. He is truly a world leader, and an unparalleled champion of those who cannot speak for themselves: the poor, the unborn, those condemned to death, and those whose basic rights as children of God are trampled upon by oppressive regimes. He waged an unrelenting crusade against the forces of atheistic Communism, and continues to preach the message of life, hope, and love amid the oppressive tide of the culture of death. Pope John Paul II's encyclical ``The Gospel of Life'' (Evangelium vitae) reminds all of us--especially those in public service--that the gift of human life is so precious, so full of dignity, that it must remain inviolable and be defended against all manner of violence. The Pope writes in that important document that: This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people--even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the ``right'' ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. And elsewhere in Evangelium vitae Pope John Paul II states in unambiguous terms: Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection . . . In the case of intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ``take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.'' In the Kingdom of God, that civilization of life which John Paul II has so fervently sought to build, there is no place for the systematic killing of unborn children. My family and I have had the awesome privilege of meeting the Holy Father: in Newark, New Jersey, in the crowd in 1979 at New York's Shea Stadium, and most recently in Guatemala. I have personally witnessed and been inspired on numerous occasions by his power that comes from being so rooted in God, and so devoted to the service of others. Pope John Paul II is truly the Vicar of Christ on earth, a man who has, and continues, to faithfully and courageously walk in the shoes of the Fisherman, Peter. It is said that the Holy Father has had no personal bank account since being ordained a priest over 50 years ago. He has truly stored up treasure in heaven, and we are all better people for his untiring work here on earth.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say two things. I think the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) stated it very well when she pointed out how the VFW and the other veterans groups are very much opposed to PNTR. I think what came across in our press conference, I would say to my good friend from Michigan, and he chaired that, was the intensity factor on the part of the veterans. They were very, very strong and bold about the security implications of conveying, without the annual review, permanent normal trading relations and the human rights issues. I have had 18 hearings in my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. I have been there three times. It does not make me an expert but I think I have some insights and they are shared by so many who have done likewise. Torture is commonplace in the PRC. If one is arrested as a religious believer or a democracy promoter, they get tortured and we are doing business with their torturers. I think when we look at every area in human rights they have gone from bad to worse over the last 10 years, and I think we need to say enough is enough, and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), for having this special order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Sanchez amendment is to facilitate the destruction of unborn babies by dismemberment and chemical poisoning. Of course, my friend and colleague from California does not present her case to us in this way, my friend instead sanitizes a terrible reality. The difficult unavoidable consequence of enactment of her amendment is to facilitate the violent death of babies. Mr. Chairman, with each passing day, more Americans in their heart of hearts know that abortion is violence against children. The stark, horrific reality of partial-birth abortion has shattered forever the unsustainable myth that abortion procedures are somehow benign and benevolent acts. The scrutiny that partial-birth abortion has received has helped peel away the layers upon layers of euphemisms, disinformation and lies to show abortion for what it is, child abuse and violence against children. Mr. Chairman, the most commonly procured method of abortion in America today and most likely to be facilitated by this amendment is the dismemberment of babies. The Sanchez amendment will prevent razor blade tipped suction devices 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average household vacuum cleaner to be used in military health facilities to pulverize the child's arms, legs, torso and head. The baby who gets killed in the hideous fashion is turned into a bloody pulp. This is the uncensored reality of what choice is all about and a vote in favor of Sanchez will result in more kids being murdered in this way. Abortion methods also include injecting deadly poisons, including high concentrated salt solutions, into the child's amniotic fluid or into the baby. That too would be facilitated by Sanchez. This barbaric type of child abuse usually takes 2 hours for the baby to die, and anybody who has ever seen a picture of a child killed by a saline abortion quickly takes note of the red/black badly burned skin of the victim child. The whole baby's body is badly burned from the corrosive action of the high dose of salt, but the palms of the child's hands are white, because the baby grips and clenches his or her fist because of the pain. That's not child abuse? That's not violence against children? I strongly urge Members to vote no on the Sanchez amendment. Don't turn our medical facilities overseas into abortion mills. Make them places of healing and nurture.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--the Helsinki Commission--I fully support this resolution. Ten years ago, a waive of political pluralism swept East-Central Europe, including Croatia and the other republics of the former Yugoslavia. Multi-party elections and open expression of political views allowed those unhappy with the existing Yugoslav federation to work for change in their government. Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, nationalism was a strong part of this effort, in part to enhance the power of certain leaders and the ruling circles around them. That is exactly what Franjo Tudjman and his Croatian Democratic Community, or HDZ, did in Croatia. The people of Croatia wanted change, including independence, and they had to endure hardships for it. First, the 1991 conflict left thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced as Serb militants occupied major portions of the country. The retaking of this territory in 1995 led to further displacements. Subsequently, until 1999 those in power in Croatia fanned the flames of nationalism, evident not only in the unwillingness to allow Serbs from Croatia to return, but in the efforts, sometimes violent, to form a Croatian enclave in neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina. For Those who disagree with this nationalist approach, the authorities marginalized them with controls on society, especially in the media. As Croatian citizens grew confident in their country's independence and stability, however, they opted not for nationalism, isolation and corruption, but for democracy, tolerance and economic progress. They had enough of the past; they wanted to move forward. This was reflected in the strong turnout for the parliamentary and presidential elections held earlier this year, and in the results of those elections. Croatia has now been accepted as a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace. It is moving forward in its quest to be integrated fully into European affairs. The prospects for the return of displaced Serbs originally from Croatia has increased, along with cooperation with the International Tribunal prosecuting war crimes and the international community's regional efforts as a whole. As I have been critical of developments in Croatia in the past, now I must join those who welcome the progress that has fully been made. We should, of course, monitor the situation closely, to make sure the promises made by the new Croatian leadership are kept. At the same time, we should also encourage Croatia by acknowledging positive movement when we see it.