Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me be very brief. This should be and I hope it will be a noncontroversial amendment. Mr. Chairman, the effect of the policy enacted last year and carried over in this bill is to force health plans participating in FEHB to cover controversial abortifacients, such as the new ``morning after'' pill, Preven. Preven and some other new drugs, as we all know, destroy a developing embryo. They are really not contraceptives, but unfortunately they are included in this bill. While I oppose that mandate as bad public policy, I am not here today in an effort to strike it or even to limit it. Rather, I want to ensure that the conscience protection does what many already believe that it does, and that is to protect individuals in plans with moral or religious objections from the requirements of the mandate. This is a conscience clause. Right now the FEHB mandate lacks adequate conscience protection for some of the potential sponsors of health plans and individual providers who are opposed to providing such drugs and devices. As we know from the language of the bill, five religious plans are exempt by name as well as any existing or future plan if the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs. Left out is ``moral convictions.'' We believe, I believe, they should be protected as well. Finally, the conscience protection for individual providers also needs to be expanded and clarified to protect any health care worker--I repeat any health care worker--including physicians, nurses, pharmacists and physician assistants. The second part of my amendment provides conscience protection to everyone in health--all health care workers who might object on either moral or religious grounds to the contraceptive mandate. I would hope that this amendment would be agreed to. Point of Order

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard, I would very briefly say that this is not legislating on an appropriations bill but merely perfecting legislation permitted to remain.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to our colleagues that there are at least four laws, and I can give my colleagues all the citations, and I will put them in the Record, where plans organizations and institutions can raise objections on either moral or religious grounds. Why ``moral'' was left out is a gaping oversight, and I hope it was an oversight, and to suggest that people with moral convictions should not be able to express them and somehow manifest them, maybe through a vote of the board of directors or in some other way, would be wrong and would disenfranchise people, especially those who do not believe in God. Say someone is an agnostic, but has a strongly held conviction about a certain practice. To disenfranchise that person would be wrong. Let me also point out that the language of this amendment says, the underlying language says, the prescriber, the doctor that writes the prescription, does not have to do so if he or she, as a matter of moral conviction, does not want to prescribe an abortifacient, for example, an abortion-producing pill or drug. Well, everyone else in the line, including the dispenser, the person that actually gives the abortion chemical, cannot conscientiously object and say, ``Wait a minute, I'm all for family planning, but this crosses the line.'' And there is a case of that right now that just made the Associated Press, and it was in the San Diego Union Tribune, of five nurses who quit their positions at a county-run health clinic because they did not want to be compelled to dispense abortifacients. These are women who routinely counsel and provide family planning. They are all for family planning, but they felt that they hit their breaking point when a clinical administrator said that they had to cross this line, and this could be the beginning. Let us not compel people in the health care delivery service to do something against their deeply held convictions. This is a conscience clause. Unfortunately, we did not vote on anything comprehensive last year, as the membership will note. Much of this was done in conference. It is infirm as it exists today. We ought to make it a real conscience clause. Do not force people to do things they do not want to do. Please do not do that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is Orwellian double speak--a gross distortion of reality to somehow suggest that pro-lifers are imposing our view in proffering this amendment when we are carving out a conscience clause so women and men, or by extension, groups of people, collections of people, who make up plans and administrators of plans don't have a contraceptive/abortion chemical mandate imposed upon them against their moral convictions. The imposition by force of law is by the pro-abortion side. I happen to believe that people who object to abortion chemicals on a basis other than religious beliefs should not have their deeply held moral convictions overruled. Not all moral convictions are based on religions. Many of my deeply held beliefs on human rights, including for the unborn, were first arrived at that belief that the unborn child should be protected as a matter of human rights and moral convictions, not religion. Religion inspires a belief in the value of persons but others can value life absent religion. Dr. Nathanson, I mentioned him earlier in the debate, was an atheist who came to his view concerning the value of an unborn child not based on religious beliefs. He did not believe in God. He had no religious beliefs. He came to that as a matter of moral conviction buttressed by science and logic. This is an imposition of the contraceptive, but more importantly, from my point of view, the abortifacient, chemicals used early in pregnancies or early after fertilization to destroy the growing embryo. That is a terrible, terrible precedent to be set. It is outrageous, I say to my colleagues. Where is the choice of those people who say no, I do not want to be involved with this? I think this is outrageous. To strike moral convictions, Mr. Chairman, would set us back in terms of conscience clauses. Let me also point out to my colleagues that among the more recent conscience clauses enacted into law is legislation passed by Congress in 1996 to protect medical education programs from being required to provide abortion training. The exemption was provided regardless of whether their opposition was religiously or morally based. We recognize that abortion, the killing of an innocent human being, is simply not the kind of practice that should be forced on anyone. Let me also point out that some of our friends on the other side of the issue, including Senator Snowe, pointed out that institutions and individuals could be and should be protected. Let me also point out to my colleagues that in addition to abortion training conscience protection that I just described, Congress has provided conscience clauses for plans under Medicare Plus Choice, if the sponsoring organization offering the plan objects on, and I quote, ``Moral or religious grounds; not just religious ground, moral or religious grounds. Another section protects Medicaid managed care organizations from being required to provide reimbursement or provide for coverage of counseling and referral services if the organization objects to the provision of such service on moral and religious grounds. Moral and religious, they go hand-in-hand. But to just have one is to just have half a loaf. Also, in yet another section, Congress provided that the Legal Services Corporation fund could not be used to attempt to compel any individual or institution to perform an abortion or assist based on religious beliefs on moral convictions. I am amazed, I am shocked, I say to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), that she wants to strike moral convictions. Why should she impose her views on those who would otherwise not want to do it?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the language in the amendment says ``Any existing or future plan.'' I think it wise and provided the future to anticipate. I know of no plan at the moment to carried a plan may spent nor have I surveyed every plan but that does not mean it has not happened. That does not mean that sitting in the boardrooms around the nation men and women who offer specific plans haven't grappled with this and said, we have to provide this no matter what conditions it violates. We have to provide maximum freedom in regard to a moral conviction for people who manifest opposition and dissent, and to opt out. And again, let me also point out that I did say with regard to the future plan. There could be plans that would love to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan program but conclude wait a minute, there is a mandate there that violates our moral convictions. And that is why I would hope and believe this should be a totally noncontroversial amendment, unless its opponents have designs on using the coercive power of the state to force compliance not withstanding moral convictions.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all the gentlewoman from Connecticut, my good friend, is factually incorrect when she suggests that the underlying legislation which repeats language that has been in existence for a year, protects health care workers' right to conscience. Nothing could be further from the truth. The plan language that is in the bill, the plan language that has been on the books, for the last year, only says that the prescriber, the person that ``prescribes'' the contraceptives, or abortion chemicals--those drugs or devices that have the capacity to prevent implantation for example, have ``conscience'' protection. Every other health care worker--nurses, nurse practitioners and others--have absolutely no ``conscience'' protection whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has said she supports, expands conscience protection to all health care workers. There has been a serious omission in the current law and the proposal that is before the House tonight that is remedied by my amendment. Now, when we talk about a plan, a plan and a provider of a plan, the carrier is a collection of people. These plans--BlueCross or BlueShield for example--have a board of directors, a chain of command. They are made up of people. People who have religious beliefs are protected. But there are also some and maybe many who do not have religious beliefs. They may be agnostics or atheists or people for whom religion carries little weight, but have a moral conviction, individually or collectively, who object on moral grounds to the provision of contraceptives. They may feel, as a matter of moral conviction, that abortion chemicals have no place in their provision of health care. Ironically, there is no right to choose here contemplated by the gentlelady from New York. It would be wrong to force them to say they have got to provide it. That is using the coercive power of the Federal Government to make them do something that is against their ``moral conviction.'' This is about moral conviction. I am amazed and really shocked and disappointed that the gentlewoman from New York has offered this amendment to strike the words ``moral conviction''. It trivializes people who oppose certain practices on a basis other than their religious belief. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) pointed out so well, corporations do have consciences. There are mutual funds that are ``green,'' in other words, pro-environment. They only invest in that which is environmentally protective. There are mutual funds that do not invest in corporations dealing with the weapons industry because they feel that is wrong. That is their choice. They can do it. And I respect it. Disinvestment from corporations doing business in South Africa in the 80's sharpened the ``conscience'' of many corporations. Carriers, health plans and the like do have a conscience expressed through their board of directors and expressed perhaps through their shareholders. Any attempt to stifle moral conviction or repress it is absolutely wrong. And, again, I am really disappointed that some would force their moral convictions on those who want to say they have a moral objection to this. In terms of individual men and women who want to get abortion chemicals, there are a myriad of programs that provide that. Sadly. But it is not like there is a lack of provision of that kind of service. But do not tell everybody that they have to get in lockstep and provide this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, when information reached me that the Clinton administration is working hard at the United Nations to undermine and to utterly trash the role of parents throughout the world, I was outraged. Five years ago at the Cairo Population Control Conference Al Gore led an unsuccessful effort to get abortion on demand throughout pregnancy declared an international right. Now Bill Clinton and Al Gore's hand-picked negotiators at this week's 5-year follow-up meeting on the Cairo conference are at it again. They are formally pushing to delete from the proposed implementation document the only two references urging, quote, respect for the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents in the critical areas of sex education and reproductive care for adolescents. Ironically, while these anti-parent proposals are being aggressively pushed at the U.N., the House is poised to take up legislation to protect minor children from abortion through parental notification or consent. Despite broad support for the bill and wide recognition of the unique importance of parents, this administration is threatening to veto this legislation. Now, by their delegates' activities at the U.N., Bill Clinton and Al Gore are demonstrating that they are not satisfied with undermining parental rights at home. They want to impose this policy on foreign nations abroad.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for this excellent human rights pro-woman pro-family legislation, and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his expert guiding of this legislation through committee and for his commitment. Mr. Speaker, a majority of Americans now more fully understand that abortion is violence against children, that it is a horrible dismemberment or perhaps poisoning, one of the other methods frequently employed. It is an execution of children before birth. Americans want it stopped. The polls clearly show that. A recent survey by the Center for Reproductive Gender Equality, which is run by Faye Wattleton, the former president of Planned Parenthood, found that 70 percent of women want more restrictions on abortion; just women, that was their only universe, their only population polled, 70 percent want more restrictions. A recent CNN-Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans want most abortions made illegal. That is not what we are dealing with today, but a majority of Americans want to protect the lives of unborn children from this violence, dismemberment, poisoning, and partial birth abortion. In 1998 in the New York Times a survey was issued on point on what we are talking about today, parental consent. This would apply, of course, and provide integrity for the laws of States on both parental notification and parental consent, but on parental consent, the stronger of the two, it found that a whopping 78 percent of Americans want parental consent laws in their States. I think Americans adopt a reasonable standard when they say and when they report back with this. They understand that this legislation is very, very reasonable. Secretly transporting teenagers across State lines to procure abortions in a State with no parental notification or consent compounds the violence of abortion by exploiting the vulnerable minor. Mr. Speaker, when the partial birth abortion ban was debated in the last few years, many pro-abortion organizations said there were ``fewer than 500 partial birth abortions per year in the entire country.'' We now know that was an outright lie. It was repeated on this floor by one speaker after another. We know it is a lie now. That statement, like other statements, was proven to be false, and interestingly, it was a New Jersey newspaper, the Bergen Record, which has a very strong editorial slant in favor of abortion, that broke the story that one clinic, Metropolitan Medical Associates in Engelwood, did about 1,500 partial birth abortions every year. That is three times the number in the entire country in this one clinic. Now we also know that Metropolitan Medical Associates and other abortion mills in New Jersey advertise and market their business in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and use the fact that until just a couple of days ago, and that has changed, thankfully, we just got a parental notification law in New Jersey, but for many years they used the fact that we did not have such a thing to say, look, young teenagers, come across the State line and get your secret abortion. If Members look at this ad, abortions up to 24 weeks on demand, these are not rape abortions, these are on demand, because the baby is construed to be unwanted. These ads are telling young teens, we can end your baby's life and your parents need never know. It is a secret abortion. What happens when the complications set in, Mr. Speaker? There is a group called Mothers Against Minors' Abortions. It is not unlike MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a group of women who have come together to say, enough is enough. We need to protect our daughters from those who would exploit, this so-called trusted adult who can exploit their young daughter. A woman by the name of Eileen Roberts who testified, and perhaps members of the committee might remember her testimony, pointed out that, and this is her quote, ``Wondering why my daughter had become depressed, over the next 2 weeks my husband and I thought perhaps her boyfriend had introduced her to drugs, so we searched for answers.'' She goes on to say, ``Words cannot adequately communicate the Orwellian nightmare of discovering that your child has undergone an abortion.'' She said her daughter was depressed, and there were all kinds of consequences. Interestingly enough, as she points out in her testimony, when she went to get reparative surgery because of what happened in this legal abortion, but there were complications, she had to sign on the bottom line and give her permission. But when the baby was destroyed and when this intrusive surgery was done, she did not have to give either her consent and she was not notified. She asked no more secret abortions in her testimony. This legislation again does not impose, although perhaps it should, but it does not, a nationwide or Federal parental notification or consent. It just preserves the integrity of those State laws that say we want to protect our children from the exploitation of those who would do them harm. Please vote in favor of this legislation. Again I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her courageous leadership in offering this bill today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 2280, the Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 1999. I am particularly pleased this legislation includes the provisions of H.R. 690, legislation I have introduced to add bronchiole-alveolar carcinoma to the VA's list of diseases that are service-connected due to radiation exposure. I testified on behalf of H.R. 690 before the House Veterans' Affairs Benefits Subcommittee just three weeks ago and I had the opportunity recognize Joan McCarthy, a resident of New Jersey who first brought the need for this legislation to my attention ten years ago. This bill needs to be enacted as a matter of fairness. The provisions of H.R. 690 included in today's bill essentially state that if you were a veteran exposed to ionizing radiation in a government nuclear test, like those in Operation Wigwam (a nuclear test in Pacific during 1955), and you develop a rare form of lung cancer unrelated to smoking tobacco, our government will take care of you. Sadly, this is not the case today. For the families of veterans and for widows, like Joan McCarthy, the enactment of H.R. 2280 is necessary to ensure that America does not abandon those who suffered and died solely because of their selfless, faithful services in the United States Armed Forces. Joan's husband, Tom McCarthy, participated in Operation Wigwam, a nuclear test on May 14, 1955 which involved a deep underwater detonation of a 30-kiloton plutonium bomb in the Pacific Ocean, about 500 miles Southwest of San Diego, California. Tom served as a navigator on the U.S.S. McKinley, one of the ships assigned to monitor the Operation Wigwam test. The detonation of the nuclear weapon broke the surface of the water, creating a giant wave and bathing the area with a radioactive mist. Government reports produced by the Defense Nuclear Agency indicate that the entire test area was awash with the airborne toxins from the detonation. The spray from the explosion was described in the official government reports as an ``insidious hazard which turned into an invisible radioactive aerosol.'' Tom spent four days in this environment while serving abroad the U.S.S. McKinley. In April of 1981, at the age of 44, Tom McCarthy died of a rare form of lung cancer, bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma. This is an important point, because Tom was a non-smoker, and this illness is a non-smoking related lung cancer. Indeed, according to he American Cancer Society, 87% of all lung cancers are related to smoking. On his deathbed, Tom told Joan, his wife, about his involvement in Operation Wigwam and wondered about the fate of the other men who were also stationed on the U.S.S. McKinley and on the other ships in the area. As my colleagues on the committee will remember, Congress passed H.R. 690 at the end of the 105th Congress. Unfortunately, our Senate colleagues failed to take up this legislation before Congress adjourned. However, I am happy to report that our former colleague on the committee. Senator Tim Hutchinson is sponsoring this legislation on the Senate side and believe that our early consideration of H.R. 690 in the House will help in his efforts in the other chamber. The enactment of H.R. 690 is long overdue and I would like to thank Chairman Stump, Subcommittee Chairman Quinn, Ranking Member Evans, as well as the other members of the committee have lent their support as cosponsors of H.R. 690. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2280 so that the Senate may move expeditiously on this legislation and so that Joan McCarthy and the handful of widows around the United States who have lost their husbands to this cancer may finally receive the recognition and Disability and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits from the VA which they so rightly deserve.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Vice Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 34, a resolution recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It is a credit to the VFW that as they celebrate their centennial this year, they continue to be such a strong, successful advocate and service provider for our nation's heroes. In my own state of New Jersey, the role of the VFW cannot be overstated. Their willingness to speak out about the problems facing our veterans and bringing them to Congress' attention really helps the New Jersey Congressional delegation as it seeks to secure the funding needed for New Jersey's veterans. Having the insights, first hand knowledge, and research data of the VFW and its network of members is critical to our efforts as we prioritize federal programs in Congress and work to give America's veterans the benefits they earned. Since their founding in 1921, the VFW, with a membership of 63,926 in my state alone, has successfully underscored the principles of love of country, sacrifice in the line of duty, and our collective responsibility as Americans to ensure that our veterans and their dependents are never forgotten. Today, as we send our young men and women in uniform to Kosovo, Haiti, Korea, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf, just to name a few places where the United States has sent our troops abroad, the VFW strives to ensure that they are fully supported while in the field, as well as when they return home. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues today to join with me in passing H.J. Res. 34, and I congratulate the VFW on their anniversary. If the next 100 years of service are as successful as the first 100 years, our future veterans will be in good hands.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment today to praise Captain Michael Dougherty, presently the commanding officer at the Naval Air Engineering Station in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Sadly, we will be losing the fine leadership of Capt. Dougherty at Lakehurst on June 24th. As he moves on to his next assignment as head of the Foreign Military Sales Office at the Naval Aviation Systems Command at Patuxent River, I wish him the very best of success. Five years ago, Capt. Dougherty came to Lakehurst as the Project Coordinator for Support Equipment. He quickly rose to Head of the Aircraft Division Logistics Group, and in May 1997 after serving as Executive Officer, he assumed his current duties as Commanding Officer of the Naval Air Engineering Station at Lakehurst. In addition to his duties as Commanding Officer, Captain Dougherty is also a family man, and is married to the former Alice Scherer, who works as a school nurse for Independent Child Study Teams of Jersey City. He is the proud father of four children: Maureen, Jill, Claire, and Kevin. Maureen is a graduate of Ithaca College, and Jill is a Midshipman in the Naval Reserves, and a junior at Holy Cross. Claire and Kevin are both students at Monsignor Donovan High School in Toms River. Captain Dougherty took command of the base in 1997, in the wake of the Pentagon's unsuccessful attempt to close the Lakehurst Naval facility during the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) process. It fell to him to reassure Pentagon number crunchers, the BRAC commission and Congress that saving the base was indeed the best course for the Navy and American security interests. Captain Dougherty showed us the way. Almost immediately, Capt. Dougherty organized the Community Partnership Program with State, County, and business leaders to broaden and deepen public/private awareness of Lakehurst's unique capabilities. Consequently, Captain Dougherty invited countless businesses and local governments to come visit the base to learn ways they can work more closely together on issues of common interest. Lakehurst is a world-class facility with a priceless base of knowledge about engineering and advanced technologies relating to the successful operation of our aircraft carriers. Through his Community Partnering Program, Captain Dougherty has made available to the business community some of Lakehurst's technology, facilities, and personnel. For instance, under the program, if a business has a problem with a manufacturing process, they can come to Lakehurst for technical assistance in solving the problem. This has been a win/win situation for both the public and private sector. The local community now has increased access to advanced technological know-how and the base has expanded its solid reputation as a good neighbor. And in some instances the base has been able to reduce expenses as private contractors shared some of the operating costs. This is but a single example of Captain Dougherty's work to connect the local community to the base, and the base to the local community. Captain Dougherty's partnering initiatives are epitomized by the success of the educational partnering agreement with Rowan University's School of Engineering. This agreement will give students at Rowan University invaluable hands-on experience on how to solve real world engineering problems. Through the interaction with Lakehurst's staff expertise, unique facilities, and equipment related to aircraft platform interface technology at Navy Lakehurst, the agreement will certainly strengthen the quality of engineering students at Rowan who participate in this program. On the flip side, the Rowan-Lakehurst partnership helps Lakehurst to secure additional engineering talent from within the state to replace engineers at the base when they move on to other jobs or retire. The partnership also enables Lakehurst to tap into a huge network of expertise and knowledge at Rowan University, which will be vital if Lakehurst is to maintain its status in cutting-edge aircraft platform interace technology. This is yet another good neighbor, win-win situation adding to the list of successes Capt. Dougherty has brought to the base under his command. These successful efforts have produced tangible results. The Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Center is an important and integral part of the Ocean County economy and that of the surrounding region. Lakehurst is a $450 million dollar business, with about $10 million going directly to Ocean County. As the county's largest employer, the base provides jobs for 1,900 people. Captain Dougherty also has taken important steps to encourage the base to reexamine its purchases of many categories of goods and services, to see where it can expand its network of local contractors and service providers. On issue after issue of importance to naval aviation, Captain Dougherty has demonstrated real leadership. He has been an advocate, as I have been, for the construction of a new, state-of-the-art Aircraft Platform Interface (API) laboratory at Navy Lakehurst. In fact, just last week my fellow members here in this chamber joined me in authorizing a new ``superlab'' for Lakehurst. The $15.7 million in funding authorization for the construction of a new API laboratory will solidify Lakehurst's status as ``the heart of naval aviation.'' But this giant leap for the base did not occur in a vacuum, I assure you. It happened because of the dedication and hard work of people interested in the base and the critical work performed there--people like Capt. Dougherty. Mr. Speaker, throughout his command, Capt. Dougherty has had an impressive series of accomplishments for which he can be proud, in both his personal and professional life. It has been my privilege to work with him on the many initiatives that have put Lakehurst at the forefront of naval aviation, and will keep it there well into the twenty-first century. On behalf of the citizens of the fourth district who have benefited from the vital work he has performed while at Lakehurst, and on behalf of the country he has so diligently served, it is my pleasure to thank Capt. Dougherty for his fine leadership and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for an excellent bill that I think should get the full support of every Member here. I also want to especially thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for rejecting the Clinton administration's flawed and misguided proposal to gut administration's funding for our military construction through the Administration's phased funding scheme. Thankfully, that has been rejected. And I especially want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the superb work of Phil Grone for including the super lab for Navy Lakehurst. Nothing is launched from our aircraft carriers or recovered, the catapults and the arresting gear, unless it has first been prototyped and bugs worked out at Lakehurst. Lakehurst means safety for our pilots and the likelihood of a successful mission. Lakehurst has an impeccable record of success, of providing an expertise that keeps our aircraft capable. I am just so glad that this new superlab will be built and provide the synergism and take us into the next millennium. The superlab will give us that ability to continue to have a viable aircraft carrier force. The superlab is absolutely instrumental and important for that endeavor. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his great service to our nation. I urge support for it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend for yielding this time to me and congratulate him on his courage in embracing this important human rights issue. Let me begin by noting that I have the utmost respect for my friends on the other side of this issue, but in all honesty I continue to struggle with how so many bright and otherwise enlightened people can continue to demand a course of action that literally kills children and emotionally wounds so many of their mothers. As my colleagues know, the national debate on partial-birth abortion has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that abortion is violence against children. Can our friends on the other side of this issue not appreciate the inherent cruelty towards babies in sanctioning the stabbing to death of a partially born child followed by the suctioning of his or her brains and then calling that choice? I believe that such child abuse is beyond words, Mr. Chairman. As my colleagues know, abortion methods often involve the literal dismemberment of children with razor-blade-tipped curettes. They are really just knives hooked up to a hose, a suction device that is some 20 to 30 times more powerful than the vacuum cleaner my colleagues have in their homes today. Well, the baby's body is literally hacked apart. The arms and the legs are cut off. Next time my colleagues go home and look at their child, they should remember this. And they can make faces and roll their eyes, but that is what abortion actually entails; it hacks off the arms, it decapitates the head. I do not know if my colleagues have ever seen The Silent Scream put out by Dr. Nathanson, a former abortionist and founder of NARAL. He shows with ultrasound a baby being hacked to death, the commonplace abortion method that is utilized in this country. If the Sanchez-Meek amendment becomes law, it would facilitate that kind of cruelty towards children in our overseas military hospitals. There are chemical abortions where highly concentrated salt solutions and other kinds of poisons are literally injected into the amniotic sac or into the baby so as to procure that baby's death. That is child abuse. A humane and a compassionate society will embrace those children with prenatal care and love even when they are, quote, unwanted and would say that that kind of violence cannot be sanctioned. I chair the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. I have had about a hundred hearings in that Subcommittee and in the Helsinki Commission which I also chair, many of which have focused on torture. I have to tell my colleagues there is an unsettling similarity between the mangled badly bruised bodies of people who have endured torture and the victims of saline or salting-out abortions where they are covered with bruises. Very often the only part not bruised is the palms of their hands because it takes 2 hours for the baby to die, and the babies clench their fists because they feel the pain. Abortion is child abuse. The Sanchez-Meek amendment would allow and facilitate abortion on demand in our military hospitals, the ultimate violation of human rights. We need to stand for the innocent unborn children and for their mothers. The emphasis should be on prenatal care, not on a course of action that maims, chemically poisons, and otherwise destroys human beings. Please vote no on the Sanchez-Meek amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time allotted to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) during his brief absence.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out earlier in the debate 10 of the 11 studies on American women reported an increase on breast cancer when the women had an abortion. You may say there needs to be more studies. I say there needs to be more studies. Everybody says that. But when we get a preponderance of studies pointing in the same direction, I think we should alert women that there is a negative devastating side effect sometimes manifesting itself 20 to 30 years down the line that cannot be ignored and trivialized. When Janet Daling's study came out, which was National Cancer Institute-funded it received adequate coverage in the Washington Post for one day. Then all trace of the story was killed with spin from the abortion rights side.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I just want to respond briefly to the previous speaker. When I hear talk of the so-called anti-choice minority, I find that not only empirically unsound, because the data clearly shows America is moving increasingly toward the right-to-life position. But its insulting as well. Minority? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, two polls recently came out. One was done by Faye Wattleton's group, the former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. According to The Center for Gender Equality Survey, January of 1999: ``Seventy percent of women favor more restrictions on abortions;'' women, 70 percent. That doesn't sound like a ``minority'' to me. The survey also found fifty-three percent of women today favor banning abortion except for rape, incest, and life of the mother. Rape, incest and life of the mother is about two or three percent of all the reasons as to why abortions are procured. So most women want most abortions made illegal. Most of the 4,000 babies who die, each day in America from abortion would be saved if the opinions of a majority of women--if their sentiment--were enacted into law. The Coburn amendment does far less than what a majority of women want and we are not talking even remotely about banning abortion in this pending amendment. Yet, 53 percent of women today favor banning abortion, except for rape, incest, or life of the mother. The survey interestingly points out that that is up from 45 percent of women just 2 years ago. So there is a sea change occurring. Americans are beginning to wake up to the fact that abortion is violence against children. There is also a USA Today CNN Gallup poll that found that 55 percent of all men and women say abortion in America should be legal only under rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. So again, a majority of men and women and a majority of just women that have been found in the USA Today-CNN poll and the Center for Gender Equality survey that the majority is in favor of protecting the lives of innocent unborn children, except in the most extreme circumstances that, frankly, rarely, rarely happen. If we had legislation that protected those children, again, we would be saving most of the lives. When polled on funding, an overwhelming majority of Americans in every poll, and I ask Members to look at their own polls in their own districts, most will show clearly an overwhelming majority of Americans are against using taxpayer-funded monies to pay for abortions, except in the rarest of cases. This legislation, this amendment, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is the Hyde amendment of the FDA. Let us be very clear about it, it is the Hyde amendment being applied to testing of those drugs that are used to procure an abortion. I believe history and human rights observance are on our side, the pro-life side. Some day the viewpoint from the pro-abortion side will be seen as so misguided and even cruel that people will say, how could they have imposed such violence on innocent, unborn children, especially at a time when we know more about unborn children than ever before in the history of mankind or womankind. Today microsurgery on unborn children, is almost common place. Children are literally lifted out of the mother's womb and surgery is performed, and then they are reinserted to grow and develop and mature until birth time. Birth has to be seen, I say to my colleagues, as an event that happens to each and every one of us. It is not the beginning of human life. That happens much, much sooner than that at fertilization. What the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is trying to do with his amendment is to say that babies are not junk. They are not throwaways. Some Members want to allow the FDA to invent the newest form of mousetrap, to come up with another more lethal way of destroying unborn children. We can't allow that to happen. And RU-486 is not really a morning after drug, it is used up to 7 weeks after fertilization. It causes the abortion to occur usually after 7 weeks into the gestational cycle. That is not morning after. I find it offensive, that my tax dollars, American people, not some so-called anti-choice minority but a pro-life majority are used to test and approve deadly poisons for children. The pro-abortion side does not enjoy a majority in this country. Through manipulation of poll data over the years the pro-abortion side has given the impression, the perception that that is the case, but now the pollsters are now asking more specific and enlightening questions, and all of a sudden it is revealing that, one, more people are pro- life, and also, when they ask the same question over the last several years, there has been a change in our direction. My friend from New York Mrs. Lowey says there is no linkage of abortion and breast cancer. Yet 10 out of 11 studies on American women report an increase in breast cancer when women under goes abortion. The ``denial'' people remind me, of the tobacco Institute denials who year after year said there is no connection between smoking and lung cancer. There is a compelling linkage of breast cancer and abortion. Dr. Janet Daling, with a National Cancer Institute-funded study, found that after just one abortion there is an increase in the aggregate of all women of about 50 percent in the propensity to get breast cancer. She is not a pro-lifer. She does not agree with my position or that of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). She also found that if a woman aborts her first baby that number shoots up to 150 percent. Shame on those who say there is no linkage. They are misleading women. They are misleading women. And putting women at risk. Dr. Daling also found that where there is a history of breast cancer in that family, the vote skyrockets to 270 percent when abortion is involved. So if the mother, or the grandmother or sister or someone in that family has had breast cancer, one abortion means that there is a greater likelihood that she will get breast cancer. Why the coverup We would hope that the FDA would spend more time looking at drugs to mitigate breast cancer and to try to get rid of that terrible, terrible disease, and that the whole abortion establishment would stop the cover-up, and begin informing women about their risks. Let me just also point out, Mr. Chairman, that RU-486 and chemical abortions, just like dismemberment abortions, just like those abortions where the baby's brains are literally sucked out, partial birth abortions, chemical abortions are just another way of killing the baby. I think it is time to stop pro-abortion sophistry and the ignoring of the basic fact that every act of abortion takes a life. It is violence against children. Some day we are going to realize that, Mr. Chairman. We do not want our tax dollars being used to perfect another way, another chemical poison, another baby pesticide to kill babies. That is what we are talking about. Come up with drugs that heal, do not promote drugs and make me and my colleagues on the pro-life side on both sides of the aisle fund and pay for killing agents.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am happy and pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Administration's toothless human rights policy towards China has failed miserably. In the five years since President Clinton de-linked China's MFN status from human rights considerations, there has been regression--not progress--within China. Even standing apart from new revelations of nuclear espionage and the skyrocketing U.S.-China trade deficit, this deteriorating situation justifies a fundamental reassessment of U.S.-China trade policy. A couple of examples may help flesh out the seriousness of the matter. In 1992 the U.S. and Chinese Governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) prohibiting trade in slave-made goods, which was followed by a 1994 Statement of Cooperation. Notwithstanding those agreements and China's own laws against slave-made exports, Beijing is turning the Laogai--the Chinese Gulag--into a profit-making venture. Slave-made products--from office supplies to Christmas decorations-- regularly make their way to the shelves of American stores. Even the State Department has been forced to admit that ``[f]orced labor is a problem'' and that China's cooperation with the MOU ``has been inadequate.'' Indeed, the Department reports that in every case where the United States asked to visit a suspect facility during 1998, ``the [Chinese] Ministry of Justice refused the request, ignored it, or simply denied the allegations made without further elaboration.'' In short, the MOU is not worth the paper it is written on. Similarly, in October 1998, the Chinese regime signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Taking the bait, the Administration used China's promise to sign the ICCPR as a reason not to raise China's human rights violations at last year's meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission. The Administration heralded China's signature as an improvement--something that would lay the groundwork for future human rights accountability within China. Admittedly, the ICCPR contains many worthwhile guarantees, such as the right of political self-determination (Article 1), the basic rights of criminal defendants (Article 14), the right of free expression (Article 19), and the right to free elections (Article 25). But within two months after signing the ICCPR, the Chinese government violated each of those provisions in a brutal, systematic crackdown on democratic dissent that continues to this day. In fact, in the last month alone, Chinese officials have detained over 150 dissidents. The slave labor MOU and the ICCPR signing are only two of many examples. But they illustrate a fundamental lesson that we ignore at our peril: When dealing with the Communist dictatorship of the People's Republic of China, the United States cannot settle for paper promises or deferred compliance. We must stop accepting pledges of future improvement in place of actual improvements. The Chinese dictatorship regularly tells bold-faced lies about the way it treats its own people, such as by asserting that no one died at Tiananmen Square, and that there is complete religious freedom in China. How, then, can we take its word when it comes to matters of mere commerce? We cannot. Reforms within China must precede the rewards of WTO membership, and should be a prerequisite for annual MFN status. When I say ``reforms,'' I do not mean only economic reforms. We must also demand respect for the basic rights of the Chinese people. The Administration's policy of so-called ``constructive engagement'' on behalf of human rights has been a disaster, even according to the Administration's own benchmarks. In quarterly reports, Amnesty International has been tracking the seven human rights policy goals that President Clinton publicly announced before his trip to Beijing in 1998. Those reports detail a complete lack of progress in all categories, and even some regression, during the past year: Release all prisoners of conscience and Tiananmen Square prisoners: ``Total failure, Regression''; review all ``Counter- Revolutionary'' Prison terms: ``Total failure, no Progress''; allow religious freedom: ``Total failure, no progress''; prevent coercive family planning and harvesting of organs: ``No progress''; fully implement pledges on human rights treaties; ``No progress''; review the ``Re-education through labor'' system: ``Total failure, no progress''; and end police and prison brutality: ``Total failure, no progress''. The Communist government of the PRC continues to engage in systematic violations of basic human rights on a massive scale. It does not allow significant political dissent. It prohibits the free exercise of religion and imprisons religious leaders, ranging from the 10-year-old Panchen Lama to the elderly Catholic Bishop Su of Baoding Province. It summarily executes political prisoners in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. It harvests and sells the internal organs of executed prisoners. It forces women who have ``unauthorized'' pregnancies to abort their children and submit to sterilization. It continues to brutalize the indigenous peoples of Tibet and East Turkestan. The failure of the Administration's current policy to effect any improvement should come as no surprise. While the rulers of the Chinese Communist Party may be ruthless and despotic, they are not stupid. If there are no costs associated with the brutality that keeps them in power, then they have no incentive to become less brutal. Thus, when big business and the Clinton Administration really want to change Beijing's conduct--for instance, in the effort to get China to respect international copyright--what do they do? Do they decide that we should be patient, that we should constructively engage for a few years, and sooner or later Beijing will come around? No. They use economic sanctions--the very same sanctions they say would be counterproductive as a means of promoting political and religious freedom in China. I am aware of at least three occasions since 1991 when the U.S. Trade Representative threatened to impose billions of dollars in sanctions to vindicate U.S. intellectual property interests. In each of those cases, when faced with the sanctions, the Chinese government changed its behavior. By their actions, big business and the Clinton administration show their faith in sanctions. By their reactions, Chinese leaders show the efficacy of sanctions. Thus, the question before us is not ``Can economic sanctions work?'' It is, ``Why do we use sanctions to protect software, but not human life; to protect musical recordings but not fundamental political and religious freedoms; to stop movie piracy, but not torture?'' In all the years I have been asking that question, I have not yet heard a good answer. We have abandoned the American ideals of freedom and democracy for the sake of marginally cheaper consumer goods. We have squandered our patrimony of liberty for the profit of corporations who want access to China's inexpensive labor market. The people of the United States are waking up to this reality and, I believe, will no longer stand for it. It is time to do an about face, to condition expanded trade relations upon respect for internationally recognized, fundamental human rights. American interests and American values demand no less.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been indefatigable in his attempts to promote human rights not just in China but around the world. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I too yield back the balance of my time, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my friend and colleague, Representative Bill Pascrell and 14 other cosponsors in introducing a resolution which declares the conviction of this Congress that Slobodan Milosevic is responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the former Yugoslavia. His actions in that region cannot be excused by anything which Serbia's neighbors or the international community has done. His victims demand justice. Unfortunately, the United States Government may not be doing all that it can to provide evidence to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague to have Milosevic publicly indicted. In the 105th Congress, there was near unanimous support for H. Con. Res. 304 and its Senate companion, S. Con. Res. 105. But in the past year little has been done to advance the just cause of ascribing blame to this man. Instead, we have had to watch as more atrocities have been committed in Kosovo, but no evident attempts to hold Milosevic personally and fully responsible for his actions. This is the reason that this resolution, which updates those passed last Congress, must again be considered by this body. During the Bosnian phase of the Yugoslav conflict, from 1992 to 1995, Slobodan Milosevic was able to incite extreme nationalist feelings among Serbs, and he used that as basis to commit acts of genocide against non-Serb civilians. From early 1998 to the present, the same thing has been happening in Kosovo. As the resolution points out, about 4 million people have been displaced during the Yugoslav conflicts, including 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians, most of the latter since late March. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, some by mass executions and others by reckless shelling of towns and villages. Tens of thousands have been raped and tortured, often in detention centers and concentration camps. Vestiges of a people's daily lives, from their mosques to their local registration papers, are destroyed. Read the definition of genocide from the Genocide Convention itself, and read what happened in Bosnia and what is happening today in Kosovo. Clearly, this is genocide. The Helsinki Commission, which I Chair, has heard testimony from many witnesses--including lawyers, doctors, humanitarian relief aid workers, and diplomats who have had extensive firsthand experience in the region--and they have testified to this fact. As a result, in addition to last year's resolution, I recently wrote to President Clinton urging that prosecution of war criminals not be placed on the negotiating table as a bargaining chip to be thrown away, and urging that the U.S. Government use the resources at its disposal to help the Tribunal issue an indictment of Milosevic. Just two weeks ago, the Commission held a hearing on a variety of legal actions stemming from the genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. Many of us in this body have witnessed firsthand stories from ethnic Albanians who escaped their homeland into Macedonia and Albania. These traumatized people now sit in refugee camps, their entire lives left behind, with an uncertain future. Mr. Speaker, all those involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the former Yugoslavia must be held accountable for their roles. The evidence is overwhelming. As the head of his country, Milosevic must be among them. We must ask ourselves why he has done nothing other than give medals to those who have engaged in terrible crimes in Kosovo if he himself is not responsible for those crimes. He is at minimum responsible as Head of State for stopping these crimes from occurring. He is at least responsible for giving soldier the license to get away with raping, killing and cleansing the people of Kosovo. And he is likely responsible for directing his security forces and paramilitary associates to commit such acts. Mr. Speaker, with this resolution we are putting the House on record as saying: The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo was no accident but part of Belgrade's policy. There can be no true peace in the Balkans that excludes justice. It is in U.S. national interest to assist those who can provide justice, and that our government must therefore do more to help the Tribunal develop a case against Slobodan Milosevic. As Mark Ellis of the American Bar Association's Coalition for International Justice, who provided testimony at one of our hearings on Kosovo, recently stated, ``Inevitably, lasting peace will be linked to justice, and justice will depend on accountability. Failing to indict Milosevic in the hope that he can deliver a negotiated settlement makes a mockery of the words `Never Again.' '' Let's affirm that we really do mean ``Never Again'' by again passing a resolution which states our belief that Milosevic is responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and, yes, genocide. For the Record, Mr. Speaker, I want to submit an article by Mark Ellis from the May 9, 1999, Washington Post and the letter I sent to President Clinton which further illustrate the culpability of Slobodan Milosevic. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe Washington, DC, March 31, 1999. Hon. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, The White House, Washington,