Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman a question if she would return to the microphone. She mentioned a moment ago that this program will be run exclusively by the UNFPA. Is that her statement?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but who is running the family planning/population program?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Just let me remind the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) regarding his statement earlier, we provide about $385 million to nongovernmental organizations and governments. Hopefully it will have the Mexico City conditions attached to it. But that money goes for contraception and for family planning. We also provide AIDS money and child survival money. There is an enormous amount of humanitarian aid and I support much of that aid. Let me also point out, Mr. Chairman, that Amnesty International recently did a report on coercion in China. They pointed out with an absolute, declarative sentence, this is something that many of the human rights groups have pointed out, including the State Department in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Here is Amnesty's statement: ``Birth control has been compulsory in China since 1979.'' There is no right to choice on birth control. That includes, by the Chinese government's definition, abortion. It is estimated that in excess of 10 million abortions are performed in China every year, 90 percent of which are coerced in some way. Brothers and sisters, I say to my colleagues, are illegal in China. It is a one-child-per-couple policy. That is not family planning. That is Big Brother control. I would hope my colleagues would realize that the means to implementing that just happen to be IUDs, abortion, things that many people in this Chamber, particularly on the other side of this issue, have no problem with. But when it is coerced, when that line of demarcation is crossed and forced abortion, which was properly construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, is looked at by the UNFPA year in and year out as being a voluntary program, that is where we have to draw the line and say, ``Wait a minute. The judgment of this organization is suspect.'' It is a very coercive program. Read the State Department's report. It is replete with examples and statements about how coercive it truly is. And read Amnesty's report. These are human rights organizations that have come out and said it is coercive. I hope that we can draw the line and withhold this $20 million because an organization that does this kind of thing does not deserve it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), my good friend.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to ask the gentleman from California, in a Dear Colleague dated July 15 signed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) he points out as a truth UNFPA manages its own program in China. Does he stand by that statement?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the point I am trying to make is that in a Dear Colleague that was sent to every Member on the Hill, every House Member, the statement has been made that the UNFPA manages its own program in China. That is demonstrably false. As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, the United Nations Population Fund on January 7, 1998, assigned by Dr. Sadik what will be the role of the U.S. government or the Chinese government was the question. The answer: The Chinese government at the central and provincial levels would be in charge of coordination in terms of monitoring, guidance, and evaluation. It also points out that the local government; that is, the Chinese government, will be in charge of the actual implementation of project activities at the county level. The UNFPA will not be managing this program, so that it is false and misleading, and I hope Members will take that into consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. First of all, I believe and I hope the House will believe and vote that the Campbell amendment trivializes forced abortion and coercive population control. The Amnesty International report made it very clear that birth control, and I quote again, ``has been compulsory since 1979.'' Get this, this is right out of the report: ``Women must have official permission to bear children.'' The government has to tell them when and if, by issuing, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) pointed out earlier, these coupons, these certificates that say that you can have a child. Who is the Chinese government to say that? And then the UNFPA comes in and says it is a voluntary program. It is anything but a voluntary program. Let me also point out, again from Amnesty International's reporting, that what happens in China constitutes cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees and restricted persons by government officials. They hold women. They put them into cells until they have their abortions. This is outrageous, and the UNFPA has given its good housekeeping stamp of approval year in and year out to this egregious practice. Mr. Chairman, the supporters of the Campbell amendment, which is really a killer amendment, have made some arguments tonight. I would respectfully submit they are wrong, and most of them are internally contradictory. First, they argue that the UNFPA program in China is a force for good, that it helps the women and children in China and not the brutal PRC program of population control. But here is what Wei Jingsheng, the great Chinese democracy advocate, had to say about that argument, and I quote: ``When the United Nations gave the Chinese government its population control award, the Chinese people were flabbergasted. UNFPA,'' he goes on to say, ``extended extensive help to the Chinese Communist Government. By doing that, it has set itself on the opposite side of the Chinese people.'' That is Wei Jingsheng talking, not Chris Smith or the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). That is the leading democracy activist who spent years in the laogai because of his beliefs. UNFPA's argument that they are not involved in the coercive aspects of the Chinese program, that just by being there they might make it more free and voluntary, is exactly what they argued in 1986 when the UNFPA supporters sued the Reagan administration for finding that the UNFPA, and I quote, ``supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion.'' Here is what Judge Abner Mikva, who later became President Clinton's White House counsel, had to say. He and two other judges found that AID's, and I quote, ``careful explanation of how the UNFPA's activities in China aid the aspects of China's program that Congress condemned amply supports his conclusion that funding UNFPA is prohibited.'' In other words, Judge Mikva, again he was the counsel for the White House and he was a judge, upheld the determination that UNFPA supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion. The second argument made by supporters is that UNFPA is not about forced abortion. It is about opposing female genital mutilation and other violations of rights of women and children. Mr. Chairman, this is an argument born of desperation. UNFPA is trying to reinvent itself in order to deflect attention from the real issue of UNFPA's complicity in the Chinese forced abortion program. Mr. Chairman, when this argument started to surface, I asked my staff to find out how much the UNFPA spends on female genital mutilation. But despite repeated inquiries by my staff and other congressional staff, they absolutely refuse to give us any statistics on what, if anything, it has spent on anti-FGM projects. The only mention of FGM in UNFPA's 1998 annual report is a single sentence describing the efforts of a super model who serves as a volunteer public relations worker for the UNFPA. The budget document that accompanied the report contained not a single mention of FGM. Dozens, I would point out to my colleagues, of international organizations and NGOs do work on female genital mutilation and other good works as well. We must help those organizations, but we do not need to fight this evil by giving millions of dollars to an organization that collaborates with an equally egregious evil. Finally, Mr. Chairman, look at what the Campbell amendment would actually do. Contrary to the claims of some of its supporters, it is not really a cutting amendment. Let us dispense with that. It starts out by increasing UNFPA's funding from zero, which is what is in the fiscal year 1999 budget, to $25 million; then it reduces the increase by $5 million. So the net effect is that if their amendment passes, it would give the UNFPA $20 million more next year. It cries crocodile tears over the victims of Chinese forced abortion, but its net effect is to give a $20 million reward to the principal international collaborator with that program. Mr. Chairman, if someone proposed that we give millions of dollars to an organization that actively assisted in the management of a prison program in which prisoners were routinely tortured, what would we do? Would we say fine, you can have $25 million, but first we are going to subtract $5 million because that is what you actually contributed to the torture program? No, Mr. Chairman. I believe we would cut off that organization without a dime. We would want to disassociate ourselves completely from the torturers and their accomplices. But even more important, we would want to impose a severe punishment, and more importantly, a deterrent against possible collaboration in a program that included torture, because we want to put an end to torture. And the way to stop a bad practice, I would submit, whether it be torture or genocide or, in this case, forced abortion, is not to give $20 million to its collaborators. Vote ``no'' on the Campbell amendment and ``yes'' on Smith-Barcia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds. I respect the previous speaker very much, and when he says every Member deplores what is going on in China, I believe that. The problem is the UNFPA does not deplore it. They have been fronting and whitewashing crimes against women for 20 years and they continue to do so. It speaks volumes of an organization when it says there is no coercion, when every human rights group and every Member of Congress says that there is.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who has sponsored this amendment calling for a study of the role of diplomacy regarding the Kosovo conflict, and I want to thank him for his very thoughtful amendment. Everything he does is thoughtful, and this is just another example. I personally voted against military action, Mr. Chairman, and history will someday give us a clue and perhaps some real answers as to whether or not diplomacy before the conflict was working and whether diplomacy during the conflict was responsible for ending the conflict. I support the notion of an independent panel to examine this. We have ample reason for concern that a report by the administration about its own policies would simply be a defense or an apology for those policies and little more. This administration certainly has a record of paying, at best, lip service to congressional initiatives in foreign policy. I would also like to say that the report must, in addition to considering the question of diplomacy versus military intervention, assess the situation on the ground in Kosovo to which the international community was seeking to respond. The ideas of conflict resolution, preventive diplomacy, and negotiated settlements are theoretical concepts, and they do not incorporate the notion that one side might not have had one ounce of good will and instead had a clear willingness and desire to commit genocide instead. Finally, diplomatic initiatives are supposed to be motivated by good intentions, and most are, but the report should consider that not all motivations are good. Having just returned from St. Petersburg session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, many of us were subject to a heavy dose of Russian propaganda which, among other things, alleged that there was no dissent here to the administration's policies. That is obviously false, and I must say I would not want to see Russian initiatives to have been considered well intentioned just because they were diplomatic. As a critic of the NATO action, I do not want to see a report which would simply vindicate my own beliefs. It must also assess whether diplomatic alternatives in dealing with a regime with a track record like that of Slobodan Milosevic might have made a just solution to the Kosovo crisis all the more elusive. Otherwise, the report would be no different than the latest administration proclamation of the wisdom of its ways. Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's thoughtful amendment and I recommend the full House adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who has done yeoman's work on diplomacy related to this with the Duma.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, and I know of no opposition to this, but I would ask to claim the 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations for a very, very fine amendment. I would hope the Committee on the Budget would not object, but it looks like they may. We need safe embassies now, Mr. Chairman, and our diplomatic personnel overseas need and deserve that security. Moreover, the image of the U.S. should not be one of easy vulnerability. Where our posts are not secure and cannot be made secure, we need to build safe posts as soon as we can. The fastest way to build them is for the private sector to put up the money and build them. We then lease-purchase over the years. The current rule requires us to score the whole multi-year lease-purchase in the first year. This amendment, instead, allows us to score only the annual expenditure. This change will expedite the necessary and urgent construction of safe posts without increasing any costs. The scoring of lease-purchase properties on an annual basis was already included in the Foreign Relations Act for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, yet the administration has opined otherwise. So I support this amendment of my colleague from Nebraska. It is a good amendment, it is common sense, and we should support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by urging all of our colleagues to support H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act, and I just want to say how pleased I am to have introduced this legislation, along with my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), the ranking member of our subcommittee. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) and I held four subcommittee hearings. We heard from all those interested in the components of this bill, including a very, very important hearing that we had on March 12, at which time we heard from Admiral Crowe who headed up an accountability review board. He made a passionate and very strong statement as to why in fiscal year 2000 we need to provide $1.4 billion to try to beef up our security at our embassies, especially in light of the devastating attacks in Africa on two of our embassies, and the ongoing threat to all our embassies. In our hearing, Admiral Crowe said, and I will just quote very briefly, that throughout the proceedings the boards were most disturbed regarding two interconnected issues. The first was the inadequacy of the resources to provide security against terrorist attacks and the second was the relatively low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. Government by the Department of State, other agencies in general, and on the part of many employees both in Washington and in the field. Admiral Crowe also pointed out that he found very troubling--again, this is quoting Admiral Crowe--the failure of the U.S. Government to take the necessary steps to prevent such tragedies in the interim, since the time when Bobby Inman made his recommendations back in the 1980's. There was so little done by all--the Congress, the White House--and now it is time to redress that. We also heard from David Carpenter, the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, for the Department of State. He pointed out--and I think this bears underscoring and putting an exclamation point after it--the terrorist threat is global, lethal, multidimensional, and growing. Our analysts estimate that during the past 12 months, there were over 2,400 threats or incidents against U.S. interests overseas. Their estimate for the same period a year ago is approximately 1,150 such threats or incidents. This is an increase of over 100 percent in the past year. The threat is generated by indigenous terrorists and transnational anti-American groups and by state sponsors of terrorism. We also heard, Mr. Chairman, from Mr. Daniel Geisler, who is the President of the American Foreign Service Association, speaking on behalf of those who would be most affected: The Foreign Service officers overseas, their families, all of those who are on the front line at our missions and consuls abroad, who, while they do not want to shrink, as he pointed out, they never want to develop a bunker mentality, but he did point out, and I would like to quote him, he said to us that he had grave concerns that this failure will be corrected; that is to say the failure of funding to beef up our embassy security. He went on to say our doubts are heightened by the administration's grossly inadequate request for funds to build safer embassies. The fiscal year 2000 budget request does not have a single penny, he went on, for construction funds, even though the State Department had proposed that OMB request $1.4 billion for worldwide security. We would agree with the State Department on this bill. My colleague and I worked, during the work of this markup, both subcommittee, full committee. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) lent a mighty hand in regard to embassy security, and the bottom line is we have the $1.4 billion. Hopefully, it will pass; and hopefully, the appropriators will provide an identical amount for embassy security. I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that several other provisions in this legislation promote our American values by promoting freedom and democracy around the world, and it does address a number of urgent humanitarian needs. Section 106 of the bill will ensure that a fair share of U.S. contributions to international organizations be directed to the organizations that do the most good in the most effective way. This section does not increase the amount we will contribute to international organizations but does set aside $5 million of this amount for the world food program; $5 million for the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; $5 million for the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor. This section also sets aside $240,000 to the OAS for a Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression in the Western Hemisphere, of which at least $6,000 is to be spent investigating violations of freedom of expression by the Government of Cuba. Section 106 also carries forward an important provision of current law that addresses the human rights and humanitarian needs of the people of Burma. This provision requires the U.S. to withhold from its contributions to the UNDP an amount equal that will be spent in Burma unless the President certifies that all UNDP activities in Burma meets four conditions. First, these activities must be focused on the needs of the poor. Second, they must be undertaken only through private and voluntary organizations independent of the Burmese dictatorship. Third, the President must certify that they do not benefit the dictatorship. Finally, they must be carried out only after consultation with the democratic leadership of Burma, the people who won, I might remind my colleagues, the 1988 election and then were forced into exile or worse by the military regime. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2415 contains a permanent authorization for Radio Free Asia, which would otherwise have to close its doors on September 30 of this year. It also provides an authorization that will allow increased broadcasting beyond the current 2 hours per day to Vietnam and to North Korea. This is particularly important in the case of Vietnam, where the Hanoi regime currently jams Radio Free Asia broadcasts. The jamming costs the dictatorship about the same amount per hour as it does our broadcasts, and maybe even more. Let me also point out the need that some of this will get through, and our hope is that the message of freedom and democracy will pierce that veil. Mr. Chairman, the bill also ensures the survival of one of our great freedom broadcasting services, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, by formally repealing a 1994 ``sense of Congress'' provision that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty should receive no U.S. Government support after Fiscal Year 1999. The 1994 provision is inconsistent with the administration's budget request and with the bipartisan Congressional consensus that freedom broadcasting continues to deserve U.S. support as the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union and its former satellites struggle to develop their own thoroughly free and thoroughly professional broadcast services. The bill also increases from $75 million to $80 million the annual funding cap for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in order to permit necessary expenditures for Radio Free Iraq, Radio Liberty broadcasts to Iran, and necessary security upgrades in response to credible threats of retaliation to those broadcasts. Mr. Chairman, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is still irreplaceable, and this bill ensures its continued good work into the 21st Century. Mr. Chairman, section 202 of the bill requires the President to report on the extent of international narcotics traffic through or to Cuba, as well as the extent of the involvement by the Cuban Government, its agencies and entities, and the United States' actions to investigate or prosecute such acts. We have seen a few newspaper stories lately that suggest that the Castro regime would actually like to help us stop drug trafficking. I am informed, however, that our government is aware of substantial evidence that the regime itself has been involved in such trafficking. This report will help set the record straight one way or the other. Section 205(a) continues a requirement enacted last year for periodic reports on outstanding claims by United States firms against the Government of Saudi Arabia. This amendment is necessary to help U.S. firms which have completed extensive work for the Saudi Government but have had no success in getting their due compensation. For example, Gibbs and Hill, Inc., of New Jersey has outstanding claims for $55 million for work on a desalinization plant completed in 1984. Section 205(c) continues a report requiring the Secretary of State to report on the extent to which the Government of Vietnam is cooperating with the U.S. on the fullest possible accounting of POWs and MIAs, has made progress on the release of political and religious prisoners, is cooperating on requests by the U.S. to obtain full and free access to persons for interviews under the Orderly Departure and Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees programs, has taken efforts and actions to end corrupt practices in connection with exit visas, and is making efforts to interview and resettle former reeducation camp victims and other persons. But, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, not all of the problems with the Vietnamese refugee program are caused by the Vietnamese Government. I am ashamed to say that some of our former allies and their families have been left behind, or even forcibly returned to Vietnam, because of compassion fatigue or outright cynicism on the part of the people who work for the U.S. Government. Section 274 of the bill is an attempt to get the attention of the State Department to this problem and to ensure that, if we are going to spend more money on diplomatic presence in Vietnam, we spend it, or at least part of it, on keeping our commitments to the people who stood by us and who have suffered because they share our values. This section prohibits the use of funds authorized by the act to support an increased number of personnel assigned to U.S. posts in Vietnam unless the President first certifies to Congress that the Vietnamese in-country refugee processing program meets certain conditions and standards. The conditions that will require modification of the State Department plans to phase out U.S. refugee programs in Vietnam in order not to abandon allied war veterans and other Vietnamese who have been persecuted on account of their wartime associations with the United States. This provision has been endorsed by the American Legion, the U.S. Catholic Conference, Refugees International, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and numerous other human rights organizations. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about a lot of people here, a few thousand compared to millions of refugees who have been resettled in the United States over the years; but it is important to complete this program in the same generous spirit with which it was begun. Mr. Chairman, section 207 establishes a human rights fellowship program within the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The fellows would be selected on the basis of their human rights expertise and recruited for specific projects or assistance needed by the bureau. I think it is a useful way to bring some of the much-needed fresh air into the State Department. Our foreign policy needs the perspective, not only of diplomats, but also of people who have devoted their whole lives to the pursuit of human rights. Section 321 of the bill establishes a Foreign Service Star, an award for civilian employees of the United States assigned to an official mission overseas who are killed or wounded in government service. Section 408 requires the Secretary of State to take all appropriate steps to ensure that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are not participants in any program of educational or cultural exchange or training through the National Academy Program at Quantico, Virginia, unless and until the President certifies a complete, independent, and transparent investigation of the murders of Rosemary Nelson--whom my colleagues will remember appeared before our committee and said she feared the RUC--and Patrick Finucane have been initiated by the government of the UK. There are 41 amendments, some of which will be en bloc. This is a good bill which deserves the support of my colleagues.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Meal Tax Reduction Act. This legislation, which I also introduced in the last session of Congress, is designed to alleviate some of the tax code inequities that hurt the food service industry. As many of my colleagues know, the food service industry is the only business specifically excluded from normal business expense deduction rules. My legislation is aimed at restoring fairness to current law. The Meal Tax Reduction Act would partially restore the deduction permitted for meals and entertainment expenses to 80 percent. While I believe we should eventually reinstate the meal tax to 100 percent, this legislation takes the first steps to gradually restore the tax to at least the pre-1993 level of 80 percent. Under the Balanced Budget Act, transportation workers can already deduct a higher percentage of their meal expenses than other workers, and transport workers will eventually be able to deduct 80 percent of their food expenses. My legislation would simply extend the deductions already put in place for the transportation industry, so that fairness is ensured for everyone. This important legislation would eventually allow someone starting a small business, working away from home on a construction job, or traveling away on business to take a reasonable tax deduction for food expenses. Since the law was changed in 1993 to a 50 percent meal tax deduction there has been a notable has had a negative effect on the restaurant sector of our economy. And the restaurant industry employs millions of people. Restoring the meal tax deduction would help create new jobs in our economy, often for people who are trying to enter the workforce for the first time. If welfare to work is to be fully implemented, we need to create the kind of entry level positions and entrepreneurial opportunities that are often the first steps up the ladder to the American Dream. In addition, law penalizes and de-legitimizes the food service. The Meal Tax Reduction Act would begin moving the restaurant industry toward parity with other businesses. The act immediately increases the meal tax deduction to 60 percent next year, and eventually to 80 percent by the year 2008. My legislation gradually fixes the meal tax inequity. Lastly, I want to note that since the introduction of my legislation last year, that support for meal tax equity has been steadily increasing. In fact, Chairman Bill Archer of the Ways and Means Committee has included meal tax reductions in his comprehensive tax plan tat are very similar to legislation for which I have been advocating. There is nothing like an idea whose time has come.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just let me make a couple of points. I respect the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). We recently traveled to Macedonia and Albania, we talked going and coming, and I think we struck up a very good friendship during the course of that trip. Regrettably, I believe the gentlewoman engaged in some very real hyperbole on the floor tonight. First, the mandate that is in this bill, that is in existing law, remains the same. What I am offering is a conscience clause, a real, honest-to-goodness conscience clause. Frankly, I am amazed. I said it earlier. I am very, very disappointed that those who take the view that abortions are okay, but for purposes of this language we are talking about chemicals that induce an early abortion, they want carriers to jettison their conscience. A carrier, obviously, is a group of people who form a corporation. Say it is Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser Permanente, NYL Care. Name the carrier, and say it does not have people behind it, it does not have a board of directors, it does not have people who might have a very strong sense of conscience regarding these things that is not related to their religious beliefs. Moral convictions and religious beliefs, as I pointed out earlier in the U.S. Code, usually go hand in hand. Why the exception when it comes to abortion chemicals? I am truly dismayed by this, that the conscience of those people who have a moral objection that is not rooted in religious beliefs, they may not have any, religious faith, there are a lot of agnostics out there, and some atheists out there who might have strong beliefs based on moral conviction why they do not want to proceed with this. If they collectively say, through a vote of board of directors, that they do not want to have abortion chemicals being provided, they should be able to object as a matter of moral conviction. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), an imperfecting amendment, to use what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said earlier, undermined that and suggests that moral convictions don't count. I would respectfully submit to all of my colleagues that moral convictions should count, and they should count equally with religious beliefs. Equally. Again, I think it trivializes those people who do not have religious beliefs to say their moral convictions should be thrown over the side simply because we do not happen to agree with them. Let me just also say once again, that my language comports with several existing statutes. It is very important. I will put all of them that I have compiled so far into the Record and ask my colleagues to take a look at it. Let me just read the language of my amendment just so everyone is very clear. It talks about a conscience clause for any existing or future plan if the carrier for the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions. Very simple and straightforward. The Lowey amendment strikes moral convictions. Again, I think that is a very, very serious imposition on those who have moral convictions that are not based on religious beliefs. Again, we are not talking here about what our conscience would suggest in this. We are providing a framework for other people to exercise their consciences. Why this idea of forcing people to all march down the same road if they have a moral conviction and sense they should go in the other direction? Again, that is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the Lowey amendment. It is antithetical to the purported belief on choice on the other side. A man and woman, collectively as a plan, a carrier, does not have a choice anymore. Big brother in Washington is going to tell them they have to do this under pain of not being within the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. So let me just conclude by saying this is a conscience clause. Let me say it again. It is a conscience clause that is good, solid. It is rooted in boilerplate language that we find in other parts of the U.S. Code. I urge a strong no vote on the Lowey amendment and a yes vote on the Smith amendment. Federal Statutes Protecting Moral and Religious Convictions 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(g). Bond and conditions for admission of alien excludable on health-related grounds. The Attorney General may waive the application of ... subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii) of this section [requiring documentation of having received vaccination against certain diseases] in the case of any alien ... under such circumstances as the Attorney General provides by regulation, with respect to whom the requirement of such a vaccination would be contrary to the alien's religious beliefs or moral convictions.... 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3597(b). Excuse of an employee on moral or religious grounds. No employee of any State department of corrections, the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, or the United States Marshals Service, and no employee providing services to that department, bureau, or service under contract shall be required, as a condition of that employment or contractual obligation, to be in attendance at or to participate in any prosecution or execution under this section if such participation is contrary to the moral or religious convictions of the employee. In this subsection, ``participation in executions'' includes personal preparation of the condemned individual and the apparatus used for execution and supervision of the activities of other personnel in carrying out such activities. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848(r). Refusal to participate by State and Federal correctional employees. No employee of any State department of corrections or the Federal Bureau of Prisons and no employee providing services to that department or bureau under contract shall be required, as a condition of that employment, or contractual obligation to be in attendance at or to participate in any execution carrier out under this section if such participation is contrary to the moral or religious convictions of the employee. For purposes of this subsection, the term ``participation in executions'' includes personal preparation of the condemned individual and the apparatus used for execution and supervision of the activities of other personnel in carrying out such activities. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7(b). Prohibition of public officials and public authorities from imposition of certain requirements contrary to religious beliefs or moral convictions. The receipt of any grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 6000 et seq.] by any individual or entity does not authorize any court or any public official or other public authority to require-- (1) such individual to perform or assist in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if his performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions; or (2) such entity to---- (A) make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, or (B) provide any personnel for the performance or assistance in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or abortion by such personnel would be contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7(c). Discrimination prohibition. (1) No entity which receives a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 6000 et seq.] after June 18, 1973 may---- (A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or (B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel, because he performed or assisted in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion, because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of such a procedure or abortion on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of the procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting sterilization procedures or abortions. (2) No entity which receives after July 12, 1974, a grant or contract for biomedical or behavioral research under any program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services may---- (A) discriminate in the employment, promotion, or termination of employment of any physician or other health care personnel, or (B) discriminate in the extension of staff or other privileges to any physician or other health care personnel, because he performed or assisted in the performance of any lawful health service or research activity, because he refused to perform or assist in the performance of any such service or activity on the grounds that his performance or assistance in the performance of such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting any such service or activity. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7(d). Individual rights respecting certain requirements contrary to religious] beliefs or moral convictions. No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a-7(e). Prohibition on entities receiving Federal grant, etc., from discriminating against applicants for training or study because of refusal of applicant to participate on religious or moral grounds. No entity which receives, after September 29, 1979, any grant, contract, loan, loan guarantee, or interest subsidy under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act [42 U.S.C. Sec. 6000 et seq.] may deny admission or otherwise discriminate against any applicant (including applicants for internships and residencies) for training or study because of the applicant's reluctance, or willingness, to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with the applicant's religious beliefs or moral convictions. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395w-22(j)(3)(B). Conscience protection. Subparagraph (A) [prohibiting interference with provider advice to enrollees] shall not be construed as requiring a Medicare + Choice plan to provide, reimburse for, or provide coverage of a counseling or referral service if the Medicare + Choice organization offering the plan--(i) objects to the provision of such service on moral or religious grounds; and (ii) in the manner and through the written instrumentalities such Medicare + Choice organization deems appropriate, makes available information on its policies regarding such service to prospective enrollees before or during enrollment and to enrollees within 90 days after the date that the organization or plan adopts a change in policy regarding such a counseling or referral service. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396u-2(b)(3). Construction. Subparagraph (A) [protecting enrollee-provider communications] shall not be construed as requiring a medicaid managed care organization to provide, reimburse for, or provide coverage of, a counseling or referral service if the organization (i) objects to the provisions of such service on moral or religious grounds; and (ii) in the manner and through the written instrumentalities such organization deems appropriate, makes available information on its policies regarding such service to prospective enrollees before or during enrollment and to enrollees within 90 days after the date that the organization adopts a change in policy regarding such a counseling or referral service. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2996f(b). Limitations on uses. No funds made available by the [Legal Services] Corporation under this subchapter, either by grant or contract, may be used . . . (8) to provide legal assistance with respect to any proceeding or litigation which seeks to procure a nontherapeutic abortion or to compel any individual or institution to perform an abortion, or assist in the performance of an abortion, or provide facilities for the performance of an abortion, contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such individual or institution. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time. First, Mr. Chairman, let me point out again, as was noted by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), that the parameters of the compensation package, including the health package, are established not by the collective bargaining procedure, not by the Office of Personnel Management but by the Congress. That goes for the entire spectrum of benefits, whether it be the money, the health benefits, the retirement package--so we are right and this is the proper place to deal with this issue and to come to a conclusion on it. I do rise in very strong opposition to the DeLauro amendment. This is not the first time we have dealt with this. For the last four appropriations bills that have been signed into law, this language has been rejected and the underlying pro-life language which proscribes funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother has been put into law. This was also in effect from 1984 through 1993, and hopefully in fiscal year 2000 it will be again. Let me remind Members, as well, that 72 percent of the money that is used towards the purchase of the health plan comes from the taxpayer, not from the premium payer. The remainder comes, about a quarter of it, from the premium payer, but almost three-fourths of the money is a direct subsidy from the United States taxpayer. This amendment would strike the Hyde amendment of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Again, I hope that Members will vote against it. Mr. Chairman, let me also point out, it is bad enough from our perspective on the pro-life side that abortion on demand is the Supreme Court-imposed policy of our land. It was not voted into policy by the Congress, nor by the States. It was imposed upon us--forced on America--by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. But we do not have to pay for it. That is the issue squarely before this body today. Many of us have profound, conscientious objections to abortion. We believe it is killing. We believe it is the taking of an innocent and defenseless human life. We believe abortion exploits women, and hurts them both emotionally and physically. The pro-life language in this bill ensures that all of us who believe that abortion is killing and dangerous to women will not be complicit, will not be party to the taking of that innocent, unborn child's life. Let me remind Members as well that more and more people in America, and the polls clearly reflect this, are coming to the inescapable conclusion that abortion methods are acts of violence against children, against little kids. Abortion, rather than the language in the bill, abortion itself is discriminatory against children who cannot defend themselves, boys and girls of all races who cannot say, ``Hey, wait, what about me?'' I think at a time when we know more about the unborn child's life in fetology, at a time when we have a window to the womb with ultrasound and can watch with incredible clarity an unborn child moving, sucking his or her thumb at the very earliest stages, to turn around and say that we can poke holes in that child and stab that child and kill that child, I think, is unspeakable. I have spent my 19 years in Congress working on human rights issues. I believe this is the most egregious human rights abuse on the planet, because it is so often disguised and masqueraded as somehow being a right is abortion. It is indeed violence against babies. I would just ask Members, remember what abortion methods are actually done. As soon as we get into the rhetoric of choice and all of the numbing rhetoric that makes us look askance rather than at the reality of abortion, then we are able to put it out of mind, put it under the table and fail to realize that dismemberment and chemical poisonings are terrible things. And that is what abortion is. Look at dismemberment abortions--commonplace all over America. A loop-shaped knife is hooked up to a hose, into a suction device that is 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average vacuum cleaner, and then that child's body is literally hacked to death. That is violence, I say to my colleagues. One of the Members on the pro-abortion side just threw her arm as if to say I should go jump in a lake. But this is the reality whether you like it or not. I have viewed the ``Silent Scream'' produced by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist, who wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, ``I've come to the agonizing conclusion that I have presided over 60,000 deaths,'' and then he quit doing abortions. This is a man who founded NARAL, a group that is backing the DeLauro amendment. He gave up doing abortions and now supports life. One of the things that made him give it up was that he saw that abortion in America and healing are schizophrenic. In some operating rooms physicians desperately try to save unborn children, in other operating rooms they hack off their limbs and decapitate babies. He produced a video called The Silent Scream and another video that followed it in which he used real-life ultrasound. He used the ultrasound and chronicled an abortionist hacking that baby to death. And, as my colleagues know, I have been in the movement, the pro-life movement, for 25 years. Until I saw that, it did not even hit me as to how hideous this process, this violence against children, really is. So dismemberment is not a pretty thing--it doesn't get any uglier-- and to pay for it on demand because the child is, quote, unwanted, and then reduced to an object that can be thrown away and be treated as junk, is inhumane. Then look at the saline abortions. High concentrated saltwater is injected into the baby's amniotic sac. The baby swallows that water and dies a slow, excruciatingly painful, death. It takes 2 hours for the baby to die from the caustic effects of saline abortions. It is legal; it is being done. If the DeLauro amendment passes, my colleagues and I in this Chamber will have to pay for it, and that is outrageous. And then partial-birth abortions. In recent years, finally, Members have begun to see the reality of abortion when we talked about partial- birth abortion where the baby is more than half born, legs outside the mother's womb, literally in view, plain view, and then the brain is punctured with scissors, and the brains are literally sucked out. That is the reality. We can talk all about choice and use all the sophistry from here to kingdom come, but the reality of what the abortionist does when he plies his or her craft is the killing of innocent human life. That is violence against children. That is a human rights abuse. Someday, I do not know when, someday I believe there will be an overwhelming consensus that we should not have been doing that for so long. We have 40 million kids in this country who have died from abortions since 1973. That is more than the combined populations of many of our States who have been killed by dismemberment, chemical poisoning or some other hideous means. To tell us we have to fund it goes beyond the pale. I urge a strong no vote on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind Members that the language in the bill constitutes the Hyde amendment of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. On average, approximately 72 percent of the money that is in the federal health plan system comes from the U.S. taxpayers, and the premium payers donate the remainder of that amount of money. An earlier speaker spoke about violence. So let me remind you that many women are dying from so-called safe and legal abortions, as well. There are many of them. One recent mother-victim is the woman who was butchered by an abortionist in Arizona. This woman who died of a botched abortion by a totally legal, so-called reputable abortionist. She bled to death, so both mother and baby were the victims of that violence. Let me again remind Members that approximately 40 million children have died from abortion in this country, a staggering loss of babies through dismemberment, chemical poisoning, and other types of poison shots. Do not make us subsidize any more child killing.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for managing this rule, and I also thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his statements as well. I also wish to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the full Committee on International Relations; the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, both of whom have been very instrumental in working on this bill. And my thanks also to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney), who is a cosponsor of this legislation. She is the ranking member of our subcommittee, and we have worked very cooperatively on this legislation as well. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the prime sponsor of H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act. This legislation is the result of four hearings that we held, several days of markup in both subcommittee and full committee, and several weeks of negotiations with our friends on the other side of the aisle. Virtually every member of the committee had some input, had provisions that he or she thought should be included. We worked very, very hard during a lengthy process. And Joseph Rees, my chief of staff and general counsel, and other members of the full committee on the other side of the aisle all worked in a cooperative way to try to craft a bipartisan bill. The bill's unifying theme is about the promotion of American values. I am particularly proud that the bill authorizes $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 in security upgrades for our missions and for our personnel around the world. This is the worldwide security budget recommended by Admiral Crowe's commission, which was charged with investigating the terrorist bombings of our embassy in Kenya and Tanzania and determining how to protect our embassies and overseas personnel from future attacks. Unfortunately, the administration recommended only $290 million for embassy security in its fiscal year 2000 budget, about one-fifth of the Crowe recommendation, and a fifth of what Congress appropriated last year. So without this bill, we would have faced an 80 percent cut from the recommendation in security of our overseas missions and personnel. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that if our Congress has one single responsibility with respect to foreign policy, and to me this is the most important, it is the protection of our people who work overseas in our embassies, our consulates, and other missions. They have to be our priority number one. This bill reflects that concern. Let me also point out that we held, as part of those hearings, a hearing on March 12 on the security of U.S. missions abroad. Admiral Crowe testified, and I would like to just quote him briefly in talking about security, ``the Boards were most disturbed regarding two interconnected issues,'' he said. ``The first of these was the inadequacy of the resources to provide security against terrorist attacks, and the second was the relatively low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. Government and by the Department of State.'' He also pointed out, and I just want to continue quoting him, that he found it very ``troubling,'' the failure of the U.S. Government to take the necessary steps to prevent such tragedies, talking about the time since Bobby Inman's report on terrorism. We also heard, Mr. Speaker, from David Carpenter, the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security at the United States Department of State, and he pointed out, and I quote briefly, ``The terrorist threat is global, lethal, multidimensional and growing. Our analysts estimate that during the 12-month period, there were over 2,400 threats or incidents against U.S. interests overseas. Their estimate for the same period for a year ago,'' he goes on, ``is approximately 1,150 such threats or incidents. This is an increase of over 100 percent in the past year.'' We also heard at the hearing, Mr. Speaker, from Daniel Geisler, who is the President of the American Foreign Service Association, and he pointed out that our core message to the committee, to the Congress, to all of us is that we must commit ourselves to never again suffer needless loss of life from terrorism and directed violence. He pointed out in his testimony that he had ``grave doubts,'' and I am quoting him now, ``that this failure will be corrected. Our doubts were heightened by the administration's grossly inadequate request for funds to build safer embassies. The fiscal year 2000 budget request,'' he goes on, ``does not have a single penny for construction funds, even though the State Department has proposed that OMB request $1.4 billion for worldwide security.'' This legislation meets that commitment of $1.4 billion, and I think it is very important. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) had a hand in this, and we all are working to make sure that that happens. We hope the appropriators will do likewise. The bill also promotes American values by promoting human rights and protecting refugees. We authorize a modest increase for refugee protection, bringing the total to $750 million. And at a time when the world seems awash in refugees, we must do our fair share. I think it is worth noting that year after year the State Department has requested and gotten a raise for its own operating expenses, while at the same time cutting the budget for refugee protection. Our bill includes special provisions for protection of refugees from Kosovo, Tibet, Burma, Viet Nam, and Sierra Leone, as well as refugees resettling in Israel. We also single out the grossly underfunded Human Rights Bureau for an increase as well. This bureau of the State Department is charged with ensuring that the protection of fundamental human rights is afforded its rightful place in our foreign policy; yet it has only 65 employees, about half the size of the Office of Public Affairs and about the same size as the Office of Protocol. Mr. Speaker, the $7 million the Department now spends on human rights in its bureau is only slightly more than half the amount, and that is $12 million, it plans to spend on public relations next year. If human rights matter, we ought to be putting more not less resources into the bureau charged with seeing to it that our embassies abroad and also the reporting and our message is that human rights do matter. The bill further promotes American values by permanently authorizing Radio Free Asia, which would otherwise be required to close its doors on September 30 of this year. It continues the effort to ensure 24-hour freedom broadcasting into the People's Republic of China, and will also make possible additional RFA broadcasts to the people of North Korea and Vietnam. It also ensures the survival of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty into the next millennium and increases funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. Mr. Speaker, these relatively small programs are among the most cost effective of efforts to promote freedom and democracy around the world. H.R. 2415 also directs that our international exchange programs be conducted in a way that again promotes American values and fundamental beliefs. It authorizes carefully targeted exchange programs for the peoples of Tibet, Burma, East Timor, and sub-Saharan Africa. It requires that all of our exchange programs be administered so as to prevent them from being taken advantage of by spies and thugs from totalitarian governments and to include more people who are genuinely open to the principles of freedom and democracy. There are a number of amendments that will be offered. There will be an amendment that will get an hour's time on the United Nations Population Fund. I continue to believe that until the U.N. Population Fund gets out of China and stops its complicity with the most brutal and barbaric programs that have been used against women that we should stop our funding, as we did last year, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way. The current law for fiscal year 1999 that was signed by the President says no money to the UNFPA, and our language says no money again unless they get out of China. And we will have that debate, of course, when that amendment is offered next week. This is a bipartisan bill. I support the rule, as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Omnibus Adoption Act of 1999. I am pleased that my friend and colleague, Congressman Jim Oberstar, is joining me in introducing this key piece of legislation, which seeks to promote and raise awareness about adoption. As someone who has been a passionate advocate for helping families and children through adoption, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important proposal, because adoption is truly a loving option for women and families who find themselves in less than optimal circumstances. The existing evidence shows that adoption generates overwhelmingly positive benefits to all persons involved in the process--including the birth mother. In fact, some research indicates that those women who choose to make a adoption plan for their child are less likely to live in poverty, more likely to complete high school, and less likely to have additional unplanned pregnancies. Adoption also provides a child who might otherwise face a bleak or difficult childhood the prospect of having loving parents, a stable home, a higher standard of living and enhanced career opportunities as the child matures into adulthood. Adoption also provides adoptive parents who desperately want to raise children and form a family the opportunity to fulfill that dream. It is estimated that about 1 million children in the United States live with adoptive parents, and that between 2% to 4% of American families include an adopted child. The statistics about adoption reveal a downward trend away from this life-affirming choice made by women who face an unplanned or difficult pregnancy. For instance, the estimated number of annual adoptions by couples who are not related to the birth mother has been as high as 89,200 in 1970 to an estimated 60,000 in 1998. The number of children placed with relatives, known as kinship care, is estimated at 200,000 clearly, the benefits of adoption as they pertain to non-familial placement are for being clearly articulated to women in American today. We can and should do more to help women with difficult pregnancies as they seek life-affirming alternatives. The Omnibus Adoption Act takes a three pronged approach to this important issue. First, it assists the birth mother who chooses to make an adoption placement for her child by providing her with the resources that she will need during and after her pregnancy. The bill authorizes new vouchers that can used for maternity homes, nutrition counseling and job training. Secondly, the bill assists the adoptive parents with the financial costs that come with an adoption by raising the current $5,000 tax credit for adoption expenses to $10,000. And, finally, it enhances the ability of non-profit organizations, such as maternity homes, who work with both birth mothers and adoptive parents by providing services to the birth mothers, including room and board and medical care, as well as advising and facilitating adoptions in many cases. The Omnibus Adoption Act contains the following 12 titles: Title I: Expansion of Adoption Tax Credit from Current Level of $5,000 to $10,000. Title II: Family Leave Equity for Adoptive/Foster Families--Provides leave benefits to employees who need leave for the care of a newly placed son or daughter through foster care or adoption. Title III: Adoption Counseling for Public Health Grant Recipients: Requires adoption counseling training for staff in certain federally- funded clinics including Title X recipients and Section 330 health centers. Requires certain federally-funded health clinics to provide non-directive counseling and referrals regarding prenatal care and delivery, infant care, foster care, and adoption. Title IV: Adoption Information for Members of the U.S. Armed Forces: Requires that the Department of Defense and its service branches, as well as the Coast Guard, make available to military couples information about adoption as well as information to unmarried female members of the military about adoption placement for their child if they are pregnant. Title V: Federal Prisons: Requires the Attorney General to make available information on adoption options available to pregnant female prisoners. Title VI: Adoption Counseling Accreditation: Requires states to accredit individuals or organizations who provide adoption services, as well as requiring states to establish standards for such adoption providers. Title VII: Adoption and Foster Care Data Collection: Within 6 months of enactment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit a report to Congress which would provide information on adoption and foster placement in the United States as contained in the Advisory Committee's Report to the Secretary put forth in 1987. States would be required to transmit data on adoption and foster care to the Secretary on a quarterly basis for future reporting. Title VIII: Refundable Tax Credit for Medical Expenses Associated With Pregnancy: Would provide a $5,000 tax credit for the medical expenses of pregnant women who give their child up for adoption. Title IX: Maternal Health Certificate Program: Pregnant women would be eligible for this program which could be used for maternity and housing services including room and board, medical care, counseling services, nutrition services and counseling, child and family development counseling, adoption counseling, vocational and educational counseling, and transportation services. Title X: Rehabilitation Grants for Maternity Housing and Services Facilities: Requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish a grant program for non-profit entities to rehabilitate structures for use as maternity housing and services facilities. These facilities could provide a variety of services including room and board, medical care, counseling (nutrition, health, prenatal, family, adoption, vocational/educational), and transportation. Title XI: Repeal of the National Clearinghouse on Adoption Information. Title XII: National Commission on Adoption: Establishes a commission to review all adoption programs, all activities pertaining to adoption in the United States including a focus upon how adoption is presented as an option to unmarried pregnant women and the extent to which prospective adoptive parents are made aware of children waiting to be adopted. Nine appointees (2-Speaker, 1-House Minority Leader, 2-Senate Majority Leader, 1-Senate Minority Leader, 3-President). Commission will report back to Congress within 3 years and will subsequently disband. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, The Omnibus Adoption Act brings to the table a solid package of provisions which would benefit children, their prospective parents, and their birth mothers. Any adoption legislation that Congress enacts must ensure that each of these groups is represented because they are all part of the adoption equation.