Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the U.S. sent a representative to Vietnam to conduct a human rights dialog with the government there. At the conclusion of the dialogue the Vietnamese government issued a statement essentially denying that the U.S. had any right whatsoever to concern itself with human rights outside of its borders. However, less than 2 weeks later, with the obligatory dialogue out of the way, the U.S. sent another representative to Vietnam, and this time we signed an agreement in principle to give MFN, or normal trading status to Vietnam, sending a clear message to the Hanoi dictatorship that they can safely ignore everything else we say about human rights and still get what they want from our government. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on one thing. There is no freedom of immigration from Vietnam. If there were, there would be no need for this waiver. The administration could simply certify that Vietnam complies with the Jackson-Vanik freedom of immigration requirement. Instead, by waiving the requirement, the administration has conceded that there is no such freedom. Mr. Speaker, the only significant human rights concession the Vietnamese Government has made in order to get the waiver was to finally begin letting us interview people under the rover program. Now I happen to be a very enthusiastic supporter of this program, and for the Record Members will recall that I was the prime sponsor of the amendment on this floor that stopped us from doing what I think would have been very, very cruel, and that would be to end the CPA, the Comprehensive Plan of Action, to just send the people back without giving them any opportunity to get re-reviewed after some bogus reviews were done, or interviews. The refugee program, the rover program, works when there was a real push, and the ambassador, Pete Peterson, did do a good job in pushing when he had the effort of ourselves holding up the waiver. 13,000 people were cleared, but as soon as the waiver was granted, the clearances slowed right back to a trickle. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the prisoners of conscience; let us not forget the Catholic priests and the Buddhist monks. The religious persecution situation has gotten worse since last April when additional restrictions on exercise of religion was put on those people. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the gentleman from California's (Mr. Rohrabacher) resolution. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the United States sent a representative to Vietnam to conduct a ``human rights dialogue'' with the government there. At the conclusion of the dialogue, the Vietnamese Government issued a statement essentially denying that the United States had any right at all to concern itself with human rights outside its own borders. Less than two weeks later with the obligatory dialogue out of the way, the United States sent another representative to Vietnam. This one signed an ``agreement in principle'' to give Most Favored Nation status to Vietnam--sending a clear message that the Hanoi dictatorship can safely ignore everything we say about human rights, and still get what it wants from our government. Because the waiver of the Jackson- Vanik freedom of emigration provisions is a prerequisite to MFN, the communist regime--and its victims--are watching today's vote very closely. Let use be clear, Mr. Speaker, on what this vote is about. It is about U.S. taxpayer subsidies for one of the worst dictatorships in the world. And let's be clear on one other thing: there is no freedom of emigration from Vietnam. If there were, there would be no need for a waiver. The Administration could simply certify that Viet Nam complies with the Jackson-Vanik freedom-of-emigration requirement. Instead, by waving the requirement, the Administration has conceded that there is no such freedom. Yes, the government allows some people to leave, when it is good and ready. But for many thousands who have been persecuted because they were on our side during the war, Vietnam is still a prison. Finally, I hope my colleagues understand that this is not a vote about free trade. It is about subsidies--corporate welfare for Communists. Since the President gave the waiver in March of 1998, the U.S. taxpayers have been paying for Eximbank and OPIC subsidies of trade and investment in Vietnam. Many of these taxpayer dollars subsidize ventures owned in large part by the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Overregulation and widespread corruption make Vietnam a terrible place to do business. Starting this year, foreign businesses in Vietnam are no longer allowed to hire Vietnamese employees directly, but must go through the government. No only does this practice encourage corruption, it also excludes victims of persecution from what for many is the only potential source of employment available to them. In addition, according to a recent Ministry of finance audit, 5.8 billion dollars--one third of Vietnam's total civil service assets--are unaccounted for. Most of the money reportedly was spend on luxury items for high-ranking communist officials. So U.S. taxpayers are now forced to compensate businesses for the greed and inefficiency of their partners in Hanoi. The only significant human rights concession the Vietnamese Government made in order to get the waiver was to finally begin letting us interview people under the ``ROVER'' program (Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees). Now I happen to be an enthusiastic supporter of this program was prime sponsor of the amendment to ensure that the Boat People refugees weren't sent back. ROVR was the compromise, it provide a new interview for people who managed to escape Vietnam but were forced back--althought many were refugees. They were promised that as soon as they got back, the U.S. would interview them and resettle them if they were eligible for our protection. But of course the Vietnamese government broke its promise. For over a year and a half they hardly let us interview nobody. Finally, when we really held their feet to the fire, they cleared 13,000 people. But as soon as the waiver was granted, the clearances slowed back to a trickle. In fact, the emigration situation has become worse since the waiver. In the last year, communist officials reportedly have been demanding much larger bribes in exchange for access to U.S. refugee programs. An average emigrant must pay about one thousand dollars in bribes--more than three times the average annual salary of Vietnamese workers. In some cases, government officials have demanded tens of thousands of dollars from eligible refugees. Finally, we must not forget the prisoners of conscience. Hanoi imprisons Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, pro-democracy activists, scholars, and poets. Last April, the regime placed additional restrictions on religious exercise and permanently appropriated properties that it had confiscated from different churches. When we complain to the Vietnamese Government, they just respond that ``we have a different system.'' They need to be persuaded that a system like this is not one that Americans will subsidize. The lesson is obvious: the Vietnamese Government has no trouble clearing refugees for interview when it really wants to. But once they get what they want from us, they have no interest in allowing people to leave. So we should disapprove the Jackson-Vanik waiver at least until the government allows all the refugees to leave: not only the returnees who are eligible for the ROVR Program, but also those who never left Vietnam and are still trapped there, including longterm re-education camp survivors and former U.S. Government employees. Many of these people are members of the Montagnard ethnic minority who fought valiantly for the U.S. and have suffered greatly ever since. The list of human rights violations goes on and on. Vietnam enforces a ``two-child per couple'' policy by depriving the parents of ``unauthorized'' children of employment and other government benefits. It denies workers the right to organize independent trade unions, and has subjected many to forced labor. The government not only denies freedom of the press, but also systematically jams Radio Free Asia, which tries to bring them the kind of broadcasting they would provide for themselves if their government would allow freedom of expression. Mr. Chairman, the Vietnamese Government and its victims will both be watching this vote. We must send the message that economic benefits from the United States absolutely depend on decent treatment of Vietnam's own people. We may not be able to insist on perfection, but we must insist on minimal decency.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip of the majority party.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, it does.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Israel does permit abortions.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Sure. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, we faced that back in 1984 when the Mexico City policy was first crafted, that there is only one government per country, whereas there are a multitude, a myriad of NGOs to whom we could provide money. And if a certain NGO said it wanted to promote abortion and lobby to bring down the right-to-life laws, we could find another NGO that wanted only to do family planning.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond briefly. Mr. Chairman, in the previous amendment we made very clear to all our colleagues--all of the sponsors of the amendment, and there were several--that we were not reducing family planning by one penny. Our amendment says we have got to get out of the promotion of abortion overseas. Regrettably, many of the so-called family planning organizations in some countries are the primary engine trying to topple right-to-life laws. That is cultural imperialism. It certainly puts the unborn and their mothers at risk. And as Planned Parenthood has said, and I can give Members the quote, ``When abortion laws are liberalized, the number of abortions skyrocket.'' That is their word, skyrocket. So if we want more abortions, liberalize the laws.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the House has just made a very strong statement in favor of women and children around the world by passing the pro-life Foreign Families Protection Act offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and myself. I believe if we stand firm now, we have a chance not only to make a statement but also to make a difference. Even though the Greenwood amendment, the pending amendment, does not alter our amendment one iota--the two would lay side by side, I do urge my colleagues not to dilute the pro-life, pro- family, pro-child message by passing the amendment now pending. Mr. Chairman, the Greenwood amendment is an empty shell. I say that with all due respect to my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. It has a tremendous amount of surface appeal, but that is all it has. Its supporters try to portray it somehow as a pro-life amendment. Look at it. I have had Members come up and say, ``What's wrong with this? It looks like a right-to-life amendment.'' But I would say again with all due respect that they, the Members offering this amendment today, are the leadership of the abortion rights movement here in this Congress. They are certainly entitled to their deeply held opinions, and we can respect those opinions. But I think we should be skeptical about whether their amendment is really a pro-life amendment. Mr. Chairman, if I ever stand up on this floor and suggest to Members that I am offering a pro-abortion amendment, I hope that my colleagues would be equally skeptical, and I hope that they would look at the fine print. I make the same strong recommendation in this case. When the leadership of the abortion rights movement say they are offering an amendment with all kinds of seemingly pro-life language in the amendment, we need to read the fine print. The fire print says this, Mr. Chairman: There is nothing whatever in the Greenwood amendment that would alter current policy, which today provides millions of dollars to foreign nongovernmental organizations that are aggressively working to overturn the laws of other countries on abortion. If we go back and look at history, the reason for the Mexico City policy--and we have only offered half of that policy in the previous vote, the President has a waiver for the performance part but not on the promotion part--was that the current policy was found to be so infirm. It was not doing the job. Foreign nongovernmental organizations were setting up shop in one country's capital after another and then they would network and begin trying to topple the right-to-life law. I believe that is cultural imperialism, especially when we are the major donor in many cases to those various nongovernmental organizations. Under the Greenwood language, U.S. taxpayers would still subsidize foreign pro-abortion organizations. You just have to flip on and go through the Internet. Bring up the Irish Times. There was a piece just the other day about how the Irish Family Planning Association is going to be spearheading a big effort to undermine the pro-life laws in the Republic of Ireland. That is happening all over the world. The gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed out earlier that this has never been law, but it was the policy under the Reagan and Bush years. We provided a maximum amount of money for family planning, we were the major donors during those years, but we had a fire wall between family planning (contraception) and abortion, believing that the latter destroys the life of an unborn child. The language in the amendment of my good friend from Pennsylvania is actually weaker than current law, because he restricts lobbying only when it is a ``method of family planning.'' Planned Parenthood has said in their statements that there is no such thing as a birth control abortion. They would say it is a health abortion. Roe v. Wade says ``health,'' includes emotional and mental health. So we have a situation where virtually any abortion would be permitted and no lobbying would be precluded under my friend's amendment. Again, I think it tries to look like a pro-life amendment. I looked at it and had to look at it very carefully. I do hope we will vote it down and I hope that in conference the real McCoy, not the counterfeit, will be accepted.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun). (Mr. RYUN of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I offer this on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia); the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick); the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen); the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows); the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Let me begin by telling Members what this is not about. The amendment before us is not about family planning funding. The bill before us provides up to $385 million for international family planning programs. If the amendment passes, this amount will remain exactly the same, $385 million for family planning. The amendment does not cut that amount by one penny. Second, the vote on this amendment is not about some of the cartoon illustrations that have been conjured up in some of the faxes and fliers being put out by pro-abortion organizations. This amendment already has a track record. It is substantially identical to the antilobbying provision of the Mexico City Policy, which governed all U.S. foreign family planning programs from 1984 until 1993. During those 9 years, the antilobbying provision was interpreted according to a rule of reason. We gave population assistance to literally hundreds of organizations during those 9 years, and we never cut off funding to a single organization because an officer of the organization gave a speech. Not even once. In fact, during the whole 9 years, only 2 organizations were ever denied Federal funding under the Mexico City Policy, and it was because they themselves refused to agree not to perform or actively promote abortion except to save the mother's life or in cases of rape or incest. That is what this vote is really all about. The question is simple: Do we want our chosen representatives in foreign countries to do family planning and only family planning, or do we want them working overtime trying to topple pro-life laws in those countries? Mr. Chairman, in over 100 countries around the world, the lives of unborn children are still protected by law. But in country after country, we find that the biggest U.S. population grantees are also the most prominent advocates--sometimes the only prominent advocates--of legalizing abortion on demand. Mr. Chairman, the abortion promoters never tire of reminding us that they promote abortion with what they call ``their own money,'' but this argument deliberately misses the point. First, it ignores the fact that all money is fungible. When we pay an organization millions of dollars, we cannot help but enrich and empower all of that organization's activities, all that they do, even if the organization keeps a set of books that says it uses its money for one thing and our money for something else. Even more important, this argument totally ignores what it means to be an agent of the United States in a foreign country. When we choose our representatives abroad, we have a right, and I would submit we have a duty, to ensure that certain minimum standards are met. I would just point out to my colleagues that overwhelming numbers of Americans support the rights of unborn children, and we do not want our agents acting in such a way as to promote something that we find so offensive, the killing of unborn children on demand. Mr. Chairman, if the United States decided--and I just say this as an example--to give a grant for an antismoking campaign directed at children in a developing country, it might decide not to give the grant to a tobacco company that also planned to run pro-smoking advertisements in that same country, even if the company promised to use its own money for the cigarette ads. Mr. Chairman, it is exactly the same way with abortion and family planning. If the reason we fund family planning programs in a foreign country is really to provide contraceptives and counseling in order to reduce the number of abortions in the country, then we are well within our rights if we choose not to run the program through an organization that is also working hard to increase the availability of abortion in that same country. Everyone has a right of freedom of speech, but nobody has an absolute and unconditional right to represent the U.S. overseas or to receive multimillion dollar subsidies in exchange for that representation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to try to increase the amount of money in the refugee account. As I think my colleagues know, I chair the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. Just a few days ago we passed legislation that significantly enhanced the money provided for refugee protection, some $750 million. My amendment today, regrettably, does not even come close to realizing that. I understand that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), my good friend and colleague, has an enormous difficulty with the budget constraints in providing the necessary funds. But this amendment--and I will be withdrawing it, but reluctantly--has the support of all of the major refugee organizations, including the Catholic Conference, the Council on Jewish Federations, Church World Services, U.S. Committee for Refugees, and others. But my hope is, and I would ask the distinguished chairman if he could at least try, when conference does occur, to try to restore this $20 million to the migration and refugee account. I do have every confidence he will make every effort.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New York, the chairman of our full committee, and just to say a couple of words. What were they thinking, lending money to a government like China to move people around involuntarily? I was looking at an internal World Bank document and I cannot believe this. One of the people that they have hired will be working on an involuntary resettlement action plan. Involuntary. Not voluntary, involuntary. I think the amendment is timely and important. This is not the first time, I say to my colleagues, in recent years that the bank's arrogance has resulted in tragedy for helpless citizens of a brutal regime. An Indonesian human rights advocate at one of my subcommittee hearings during the last days of the Suharto regime said that ``the people of Indonesia had nothing to say about creating that large debt but the World Bank is determined to democratize its repayment.'' The bank was warned that it was subsidizing corruption throughout and yet continued to do so. Here we have a mass transmigration of people against their will--and again, this is involuntary. I hope the gentleman from New York's amendment will prevail.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, every day 33,000 children die from preventable causes. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has done hard work on this over the years. I have worked on this. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) just mentioned a moment ago, 15 years ago. A little over 15 years ago, I joined with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and Gus Yatron not only in providing money for child survival, but in saving it. It was going to be zeroed out, and I offered the amendment to put it at $50 million that passed and went on to become law. But that is past. We now know that there is so little money going to some of the most important aspects of child survival, and we need to make sure that there is a fire wall. Yes, money can be drawn down, the $385 million, and used in a way that works side by side with child survival money, but this very small amount of money--support for immunization, $25 million, that is all that is in this budget. Kids are dying from preventable diseases every day and we put a mere $25 million into that budget. That is outrageous. These kids are dying. I would hope that we would at least make sure that from this scarce fund, these what we call direct impact programs, get this modest amount of money. Yes, it can work side by side with the family planning money, but let us not use or divert any additional moneys that could be used to immunize a kid from tetanus, from all of these preventable diseases, and also the oral rehydration salts that can save a child from diarrhea which is the leading killer of children around the world. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania has a very, very laudable amendment. It says there are different funds. Why should we put at risk this minimal amount of money, this modest amount of money used for these important goals? We have got the other money in the other spigot for family planning. I urge support for the Pitts amendment.