Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for asking the question. It says very simply that a health care plan would not have to include those devices and chemicals that may have the effect of an abortifacient. Under my amendment it will not be mandatory. it will not be forced upon the HMOs and upon the health care providers even though the language of Mrs. Lowey's amendment require only ``a provision for contraceptive coverage'' to satisfy the requirement.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I understand the gentleman's question that is correct.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentlewoman would yield, let me just ask the gentlewoman, because this will help me in responding, her definition of contraception. Is it before fertilization occurs or is it before implantation in the uterus?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Part of the problem we have with the gentlewoman's first amendment, as well as the amendment that was offered and just passed, is a definitional one. How do you define contraception? How do define pregnancy? For some, it is implantation. For some, it is fertilization.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Contraception by definition should mean before a new life has come into being. There are many who want to blue that line and say that chemicals affect the implementation or even after that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think it is becoming abundantly clear to a growing number of Americans that abortion is violence against children. Abortion methods rip and tear innocent, unborn babies to pieces. Abortion methods dismember children with razor blades attached to suction machines. Abortion methods include pumping and injecting deadly poisons into the baby for the express purpose of killing the child. Abortion methods include killing the baby as he or she is actually being born. The partial birth abortion method, as we now know, entails jamming scissors into the child's skull and then vacuuming the brains out. Abortion is violence against children, Mr. Speaker. Thus, it seems very clear to me that secretly transporting teenagers across State lines to procure abortions in a State with no parental notification or parental consent compounds the violence by exploiting the vulnerable minor. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may recall that when the partial birth abortion ban was debated on this floor many proabortion organizations, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America and their research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, wrote a letter saying that there were and I quote, ``fewer than 500'' partial birth abortions per year in the country, in the entire country. That statement, just like other statements that they made, has turned out to be totally bogus. It turned out to be a lie. One leading proabortionist even said that he ``lied through his teeth'' on this issue. It was a New Jersey newspaper, the Bergen Record, that broke the story that just one clinic in my State, the Metropolitan Medical Associates in Englewood, did about 1,500 partial birth abortions each and every year, many of them on teenagers. That's three times the number the abortion industry told us were performed in the entire nation. Now we know that the Metropolitan Medical Associates and other abortion mills in New Jersey advertise and market their business in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and use the fact that New Jersey does not have a parental consent or parental notice law as a way of luring young girls to that clinic and to other clinics. If you look at this yellow page ad, promoting the Metropolitan Medicine Associates Mr. Speaker, it stresses that pregnancies up to 24 weeks, 6 months, very large, very mature babies, can be terminated, that is-- murdered--without parental knowledge, without parental consent. No waiting period, no parental consent, that is how they advertise in the Pennsylvania phone book. These ads are telling young teens, ``Hey, we can end your baby's life, and your parents never need to know; it will be our secret.'' But if a teenager's secret abortion leads to complications, what then? Where is it written that the person driving the frightened and often very vulnerable 12 or 14 year old to an abortion mill is responsible? Who picks up the pieces of the shattered young girl when the bleeding, when the psychological and the emotional and the physical consequences set in? Obviously it will be her parents, or one of her parents. They will be responsible for and involved in her care after the abortion, when the disaster hits. The parents, should have had the chance to be involved without the circumventing of the more than 20 State laws that require parental involvement in this irreversible decision that takes a human life. On May 21, Mr. Speaker, Joyce Farley testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, and she said, and I will quote her only briefly: ``My daughter was a victim of several horrible crimes between the ages of 12 and 13. My child was provided alcohol, she was raped and then taken out of the State by a stranger to have an abortion. This stranger turned out to be the mother of the adult male who provided the alcohol and then raped my 12-year-old daughter while she was unconscious. The rapist's mother arranged for and paid for an abortion, and it was performed on her child. This woman lied and falsified records.'' And she goes on to say: ``Following the abortion the mother of the rapist dropped off my physically and emotionally battered child in a town 40 miles away from our home. The plan was to keep the rape and the abortion secret.'' Then she goes on to say how, when she discovered the consequences, she then swung into action and did everything humanly possible to help her child who was bleeding and in severe pain. We need to say, Mr. Speaker, that the law does indeed matter. These State laws are there for a purpose. Other States are contemplating parental-involvement statutes as we speak. We need to say that parents matter, and we need to help those vulnerable children who are being carried across State lines and pushed into abortion clinics by relative strangers and who in many cases have their own reasons for making sure that these girls get abortions. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Americans overwhelmingly support the Child Custody Protection Act. When asked a very simple question that goes right to the core of parental responsibility, ``Should a person be able to take a minor girl across State lines without her parents' knowledge to get an abortion'', 85 percent of Americans said no; only 9 percent said yes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very pro-child, pro-family, pro-parent legislation that has been offered by the courageous pro-life leader, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen). I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) as well for his exemplary work in shepherding this legislation through, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and all of us who had a part. It is a very important piece of legislation, and it will help our minor girls.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the observance of United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am particularly disturbed by the recent forced closure of the Diyarbakir Representation Office by Turkish Authorities. The Office had just opened by the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey on June 13, 1998, with the aim of assisting victims of torture in the southeastern region of Turkey. The Foundation operates similar treatment and rehabilitation centers in Ankara, Izmir, Istanbul, and Adana. Since 1990, these centers have assisted over 3,000 torture victims and have gained national and international respect. The unwarranted closure of the Diyarbakir center by the authorities only four days after it opened is but the latest form of harassment directed against those seeking to provide professional help to victims of torture in Turkey. I call upon the Government of Turkey to stop its campaign of harassment and intimidation of human rights non-governmental organizations, including the Human Rights Foundation. If Prime Minister Yilmaz is serious about ending torture in Turkey, Mr. Speaker, he should redirect the resources of the state to vigorously prosecute those responsible for acts of torture.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of the conference report, because we need a more taxpayer-friendly IRS. But I cannot cast my vote without stating my strong objection to the provision that changes the name of ``Most Favored Nation'' status (MFN) in an attempt to sugar-cost the practice of giving trade concessions to thugs and murderers. It is hard to know what is worse about this provision: its deplorable substance, or the sneaky and underhanded way in which it has been adopted. This provision was inserted in the dark of night, just a few hours before the Rules Committee met on this bill. It was known to be controversial on both sides of the aisle, but opponents were given no warning--not a day, not an hour, not a minute's warning--that it might be inserted into a bill we all strongly support. And it has nothing at all to do with IRS reform. It is irrelevant, non-germane, out-of-scope, and contrary to the rules of the House. On the merits, the ``normal trade relations'' provision substitutes an ideological slogan for a technically accurate term that is hundreds of years old and is universally accepted in international law and practice. When we sign an MFN agreement with a foreign nation, we do not and will not agree to give that nation something called ``normal trade relations.'' That term is meaningless in international law. What we do in these agreements, and will continue to do even after this provision is adopted, is agree to give that nation the same treatment as we give the nation that is ``most favored'' under our laws and treaties. So the name change is an international embarrassment--done for the sole purpose of making it politically more palatable to give MFN to China, or in the future maybe to other totalitarian dictatorship such as Viet Nam or North Korea. Mr. Speaker, maybe we can change the politics of this issue by changing its name, but we can't change the facts. A government that murders and tortures people for their political and religious beliefs, that forces women to undergo abortion and sterilization, that executes prisoners in order to sell their body parts, that steals jobs from American workers by producing goods in forced labor camps, is not a ``normal'' government--and thank God for that. Unfortunately, what this provision says is that doing business with such a government should be ``business as usual.'' Mr. Speaker, if we had a fair and open debate on this provision, I would move that instead of changing the name of MFN to ``normal trade relations,'' we call it something more accurate, like ``dollars for dictators.'' Again, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the conference report because I strongly support IRS reform. The legislation shifts the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the government. It creates an independent civilian review board to oversee the IRS. It requires IRS to be less arbitrary and to provide more due process before it seizes taxpayers' property. And it reduces the capital gains tax. These are all important victories for the American taxpayer. It's just too bad that we are also handing a victory to Beijing and Hanoi and to their partners and cheerleaders here in the United States.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, Lyme disease is one of the Nation's fastest growing infectious diseases. This is an issue of great concern to military personnel and their families who serve and train in areas endemic for Lyme disease. In New Jersey both Fort Dicks and Naval Weapons Station Earle have been indicated as having high levels of risk of Lyme disease during their latest known Lyme disease risk assessment. As the chairman knows, as a result of an amendment that I had offered in 1994, the Department of Defense Lyme disease research programs ran out in February of 1997. According to the Army Surgeon General's office, a mere $600,000 would be needed each year to optimally maintain the tick-borne disease program and the Molecular Biology Laboratory. Can the chairman assure me that the conference report on this bill will contain the $600,000 in funding that the U.S. Army needs to continue with this important work in the fight against Lyme disease, and tick-borne diseases?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished chairman.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. We should have nothing to do with the oppressive PLA. Making them part of the defense procurement process in this country is patently absurd. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I would like to thank my good friend, Representative Sanders, for taking the initiative in preparing this amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This amendment simply requires that companies owned by the People's Republic of China and its People's Liberation Army not be allowed to profit from contracts with the United States Department of Defense. Over the past several years, the Chinese dictatorship and its military enforcer, the People's Liberation Army, have begun turning a profit using a vast web of state-owned companies and surrogate entities. These commercial entities are involved with everything from arms sales to hotel management, and are an important source of clandestine revenue for the Beijing regime. The billions of dollars and technological know-how gained by these commercial ventures are helping to underwrite a massive, surreptitious modernization of the Chinese armed forces. Although the Chinese government claims that it spent only $11 billion on its armed forces last year, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency estimates that the actual figure is nearly six times that amount. Because the revenue generated by PRC and PLA-owned enterprises is not publicly disclosed or included in the Chinese government's declared budget, we cannot be certain of its extent. But responsible estimates by international experts reach into the billions of dollars. The Sanders-Smith amendment is important to the struggle for human rights. The People's Republic of China and the PLA still defiantly refuse to face the truth about their massacre of hundreds of peaceful democracy advocates in Tiananmen Square nine years ago this month. The PLA is engaged in the brutal occupation of Tibet, the repression of religious free exercise, and the sale of human organs from executed prisoners. The Chinese government uses forced abortion and sterilization as an officially sanctioned component of its population control program. According to testimony provided by my Subcommittee on numerous occasions, state-owned entities are also exploiting slave labor in the Chinese loagai. Our Defense Department must not enrich and empower the repressive forces of the Chinese government. The Sanders-Smith amendment is also justified by strategic concerns: Chinese state-owned companies routinely engage in destabilizing activities, such as the sale of weapons--sometimes including weapons of mass destruction--to countries such as Iran, Burma, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. And PLA-owned companies have been caught smuggling weapons into the United States. A 1996 FBI sting operation intercepted 2,000 AK-47 machine guns apparently intended for use by terrorists or other violent criminals. PLA and PRC-owned enterprises are also procuring cutting-edge technology--such as supercomputers and advanced telecommunications equipment--that can be put to military use. Because these companies ostensibly use such technology for commercial purposes, they are often not subject to the export controls that would be imposed on military transfers. An essay by Chinese General Ding Henggao [DING heng-GOW], translated by the Pentagon, confirms that China is actively pursuing ``possible transfers from commercial technology to defense use.'' Against this background, the Sanders-Smith amendment deserves universal, bipartisan support. It merely states that the United States Department of Defense must take care not to subsidize the Chinese military by awarding contracts to PLA and PRC-owned enterprises. American security and American ideals demand no less.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me make it very clear, and I think we all more and more of us realize this, abortion is violence against children. Abortion is violence against children. It is not some benign act that benefits or nurtures. It kills babies. Now that can be done by the hideous method that we have described called partial-birth abortion where the brains are literally sucked out of the body of a child. Or it can be done by dismemberment, by hooking up a powerful loop-shaped knife, a curette, to a suction machine 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average vacuum cleaner. Or it could be done by a myriad of chemical potions, salt solution that burns the baby to death. The other side on this issue will defend that as choice. That is violence against children. Saline abortion is violence against children. RU-486, Mr. Chairman, is just the newest form of baby pesticide. A chemical that has no intention of nurturing, providing any benefit to the baby, just kill the baby. Make the child a deceased member of the human race. Mr. Chairman, the FDA should be all about testing and helping to bring to market those drugs that save and nurture and heal. RU-486 does not heal, unless Members think that a baby is a disease or a wart or some other disposable appendage that has to be done away with. The ``choice'' rhetoric is cheap. It denigrates human life. Unborn children are no different than my colleagues or I, except by reason of their immaturity and their developmental status in life. That is all. Nothing is added from the moment of fertilization until natural death. When will we wake up and see that birth is an event that happens to each and every one of us. It is not the beginning of life. And an unborn child deserves at least the minimum respect of not having new drugs, new devices developed that kill them. It is a new mouse trap. How can we better kill those kids? These are boys and girls that are being killed. Chemical abortions, RU-486, as we all know, usually has its operative effect at around the seventh week. Other chemical potions have it at other times during the pregnancy. But all of them do the same thing. They kill the baby. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, support this very important amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I urge everyone to support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to HR 4101 offered today by my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Sanders of Vermont. The amendment will provide an additional $10 million for Senior Nutrition Programs, which support state and local efforts, offset with a minor reduction in overhead and salaries at the Food and Drug Administration. This amendment will restore funding for this vital senior program to its FY 1996 level of $150 million. As we make the tough choices needed to keep our budget balanced, we cannot forget the needs of our senior citizens, most of whom live on fixed incomes and have limited means. For many of these senior-citizens, the meals provided by these programs represent their main meal for the day. In 1996, the Mercer County, New Jersey Office on Aging reported that 1,483 persons received almost 119,839 nutritious meals provided in part under the Older Americans Act. In Ocean County, Phil Rubenstein, Executive Director of the Ocean County Office of Senior Services, has stated that approximately 600 individuals a day will eat a meal and enjoy the company of others at a congregate nutrition site. The situation in Burlington County and Monmouth County are very similar. Senior Nutrition Programs are cost effective. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, for every $1 spent, nearly $3 is saved in other health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Mr. Speaker, this amendment should be a ``no brainer,'' and I urge all of my colleagues to support the LoBiondo/Sanders amendment to HR 4101.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding me this time for the purpose of a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I am very eager to see design funding for the P-208 aircraft platform interface, the API laboratory consolidation project, move forward this year at Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station. I would ask the gentleman, is it accurate to say that this bill, H.R. 4059, provides the necessary funding for the design of the API lab and will keep the Navy on track for construction in fiscal Year 2000?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for affording me this opportunity to clarify the funding situation for the API lab at Lakehurst. There have been far too many delays with this project already, and H.R. 4059 will finally set the wheels in motion to begin the construction of the API lab at Lakehurst in fiscal year 2000.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the legislation of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the Child Custody Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may recall that when the partial-birth abortion ban became an issue, many pro-abortion organizations, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America and their research arm, the Guttmacher Institute wrote a letter saying there are 500 partial-birth abortions every year in the entire country. That statement, just like other statements that they made, turned out to be bogus, turned out to be a lie. It was a New Jersey newspaper that broke the story that just one clinic in my State, the Metropolitan Medical Associates in Englewood, did about 1,500 partial-birth abortions each and every year, many of them on teenagers. Now we find that the Metropolitan Medical Associates and other abortion mills in the State of New Jersey advertise and market their business in Pennsylvania and elsewhere and use the fact that New Jersey does not have a parental consent or parental notice statute as a way of luring young girls to that clinic and to other clinics. If we look at this ad, it stresses that pregnancies are terminated up to 24 weeks without parental knowledge or consent. These ads are telling teens ``Hey, we can end your pregnancy and your baby's life and your parents don't have to know.'' But if a teenager's secret abortion leads to complications, what happens then? Where is it written that the person driving the frightened and vulnerable 13 or 14- year-old to an abortion mill is responsible? No, her parents will be responsible for and involved in her care after the abortion--when the disaster hit. They should have had the chance to be involved at the beginning--and they would have if the state law had not been evaded. We need to say that the law does matter. We need to say that parents matter. And we need to help those vulnerable children who are being carried across state lines and pushed into abortion clinics by relative strangers who, in most cases, have their own reasons for making sure that these girls get abortions. Support the Child Custody Protection Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the ironic phrase ``no good deed goes unpunished`` suits the case of Russian citizen Alexandr Nikitin. Most Russian officials will be the first to admit that the collapsed Soviet military-industrial complex left behind a deplorable environmental legacy which affects not only the Russian Federation but also Russia's neighbors. The best known example is Chernobyl, but environmental specialists could provide a much longer list of environmental ``hot spots.'' Regrettably, certain elements of the Russian military and security service seem determined to continue the Soviet practice of hiding the truth about environmental depredation. Mr. Speaker, retired Russian naval officer Alexandr Nikitin has been charged with ``revealing state secrets''--and if convicted, could receive the death sentence--for his work with the Norwegian environmental organization ``Bellona'' in exposing both the Soviet and Russian Navy's nuclear waste dumping around the White Sea and Kola Peninsular in northeast Russia. Nikitin and his supporters claim that all the material he secured for Bellona's report, ``The Russian Northern Fleet: Sources of Radioactive Contamination,'' had already been published in open sources. Originally charged in February 1996, he was held in detention until December 1996, when an international outcry was raised in his behalf. Still the investigation continues to drag on and on and on. The problem, from the standpoint of the investigators and the security services, is that the Russian Federation has a constitution with provisions on civil liberties, which some in Russia take seriously, and there are now lawyers in Russia who actually know the law and defend their clients. At first, the investigators threatened to indict Nikitin on secret unpublished military instructions, but this was in conflict with Part 3, Art. 15 of the Constitution, ``no regulatory legal act affecting the rights, liberties or duties of the human being and citizen may apply unless it has been published officially for general knowledge.'' Now after six attempted indictments, investigators have produced an indictment that the claim will pass constitutional muster. The prominent Ukrainian writer Nicholai Gogol wrote a fictional story about a legal case that dragged on for years in Tsarist Russia. Nikitin must identify with a character from that story. Through efforts of concerned human rights and environmental activists, the international community has begun to focus attention on the Nikitin case. Amnesty International has declared him as Russia's only political prisoner since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Prime Ministers of Norway and Canada have raised Nikitin's case with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, and President Clinton has called for ``just deliberations'' in the case. A couple of weeks ago, former Soviet President Gorbachev stated that ``there is nothing to [the Nikitin case], but that ``democratic Russia still can't let go of its affection for catching spies.'' Meanwhile, back on the streets of St. Petersburg, Alexandr Nikitin has been followed, believe it or not, by a group of ``men in black.'' The tires on his car have been slashed, and his door locks filed with glue. Recently, one of his lawyers was accosted by unidentified thugs and told to ``stay away from this.'' Another lawyer suggests, quite plausibly, that the security services realize their case is an embarrassment, and they want Nikitin to fear for his life and that of his family so that he will admit to the charges in exchange for amnesty. Mr. Speaker, I believe sincerely that the American people and the Congress wish the Russian people well, and we wish to work together in areas such as the environment that will benefit both our peoples. But, the case of Alexandr Nikitin raises serious doubts about the Russian military and security services to find a reasonable balance between security and the public interest. I recognize that the Russian Government and the people are working toward civilian control of the military and an established rule of law system. The resolution of the Nikitin case will be a significant indicator of progress in these areas.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation that would protect poor mothers and their children who have been victims of the so-called family cap-child exclusion provision used by 23 states including my own state of New Jersey. Three years ago, I supported efforts to reform our nation's federal welfare system. However, I had grave concerns at the time about a provision in the House's version of welfare reform legislation that would have cut off cash assistance for any additional children born to a woman while she was on welfare, known as the family cap. I objected to this provision because I believed that it would encourage women to have abortions in their hour of greatest need or drive families farther into poverty. The bill I am introducing today no longer allows states to implement their own version of a family cap if they desire to continue to receive their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant. My bill is very simple: a state will receive its TANF dollars as long as it does not impose a family cap upon America's neediest families. In 1995, I tried to ban the family cap but failed. I admitted at the time that the family cap-child exclusion proposal had enormous surface appeal, since people were fed up with abuse of the welfare system. As a result, I introduced an amendment which gave states the option to use a voucher system if they chose to do away with cash benefits as part of a larger family cap policy. My amendment passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 352 to 80. The two most predictable outcomes of the family cap-child exclusion policy as implemented by twenty-three states are the likely increase in the number of babies aborted by indigent women--many of whom will feel financially trapped and abandoned--and the further impoverishment of children born to women on welfare. Recently, my worst fears regarding abortion and the family cap were confirmed by a Rutgers University draft study prepared for the state of New Jersey which estimated that New Jersey's abortion rate increased by 240 abortions per year as a result of the state's family cap. As a result, since 1993, nearly 900 abortions have occurred in New Jersey due to the family cap. Thousands of other children have also been left to fend for themselves because their parents are not allowed to receive assistance on their behalf. I led a broad-based coalition of groups opposing the state's original request for a waiver in 1992 to implement a family cap policy because we knew that the family cap would only drive women into greater depths of poverty and despair and consequently increase the likelihood that they would abort their child. Sadly, our concerns were confirmed by the Rutgers study. We knew at the time that money--or more precisely the lack of it-- heavily influences a woman's decision to abort her child. A major study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research organization associated with Planned Parenthood, found that 68% of women having abortions said they did so because ``they could not afford to have a child now.'' Among 21% of the total sample this was the most important reason for the abortion; no other factor was cited more frequently as ``most important.'' Demographers have pointed out that ``young, poor, and minority women are more likely to have abortions than older, more affluent, and white women,'' even though ``these same groups are also more likely to oppose the right to abortion . . . Seven in ten (70 percent) women with incomes of less than $25,000 disapprove of abortion, compared with 52 percent of more affluent women. [Yet] poorer women account for two- thirds (67 percent) of abortions.'' One expert observes: ``Few would say an abortion is a good thing, but many women who believe that abortion is wrong find themselves unable to support a child when they become pregnant.'' The family cap is likely to tip the balance for each poor woman who feels that society has no real interest in the survival of her baby. She will get a powerfully negative message--that her child has no value--especially from those states where Medicaid abortion is readily available. Then one of two things will happen. The woman will have an abortion, or the family will descend further into poverty. Mr. Speaker, the family cap/child exclusion might present a close question if the incremental payment for a new baby were really so high that it might encourage women and girls to get pregnant and have babies just to get welfare. But this concern simply evaporates when we look at the facts. The additional assistance per child varies from state to state, but the median is $57 per month--fifty-seven dollars. Out of this the mother must pay for the child's clothing, shoes, diapers and other baby supplies, laundry, and bus fare for medical checkups. According to statistics compiled by Catholic Charities in 1994, the low-end costs for these items total $88.50 per month. So the mother is $31.50 in the hole even before she begins paying for the child's other expenses. We simply mislead ourselves when we assume that this constitutes an incentive to have more babies. Mr. Speaker, there was much about the welfare system that needed changing in 1995--people were trapped in the cycle of poverty and despair. They needed a new program. They needed help and the bulk of our new provisions have been beneficial. But letting states pay to terminate the life of a child while the same state refuses to pay a mere $64 a month for food and clothing for that child is unconscionable. Instead, if we want welfare to be temporary and to be a true safety net--a safety net against abortion under duress, a safety net against descent into deeper poverty, then we must ban the family cap. One abortion is one too many. It is wrong for the government, whether it be federal, state, or local to embrace policies that would promote abortion and financial impoverishment. The family cap does just that. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring my legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on this important human rights resolution. Nine years ago today, the ground of Tiananmen Square was hallowed by the blood of thousands of peaceful democracy advocates. Those Chinese patriots were slaughtered by a communist regime that remains unapologetic for its actions and that continues to deny the truth of what happened. It is repugnant that the President of the United States of America, the country that, foremost of any of the world, ought to bear the standard of freedom and democracy, would meet at the very site with dictators who continue to lie about the murders committed less than a decade ago. This resolution is not anti-China. It is anti-abuse, the abuse that was endured by those democracy activists, that was witnessed by the world via C-SPAN, via CNN and other networks that were there on the scene. Mr. Speaker, in December of 1996 General Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister of the People's Republic of China and the operational commander of the forces that attacked the pro-democracy demonstrators, was invited to the United States by the Clinton Administration. During his visit, he was given full military honors, a 19-gun salute, visits with several military bases, and a tour of the Sandia Nuclear Laboratory. He even had a personal meeting with President Clinton at the White House. General Chi said that not a single person, and I quote, not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square. He claimed that on June 4, 1989 the People's Liberation Army did nothing more violent than pushing people whom he called hooligans. The supposed idea behind these official visits such as General Chi's visit and President Clinton's trip to Beijing is to foster mutual understanding. That is just what they say. If we are going to live in the same world with governments run by people like General Chi, the argument goes, we had better get to know each other. General Chi's big lie about Tiananmen Square certainly helped many Americans understand what he and his government are really like. However, in China the visit by the Butcher of Beijing was a public relations coup. He could not have gotten better press, being feted at the White House and being given all of these honors. Again, this is the man that ordered the killing of those students. I believe that the process of getting acquainted must be a reciprocal one. In an effort to help General Chi understand that in America it matters whether you tell the truth, my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights invited him or any other representative of the Chinese Government to appear at a hearing on the Tiananmen massacre. If he could present convincing and compelling evidence that the massacre was really a myth after all, those of us who view the Beijing government and had our views shaped by that massacre would have to admit that we were wrong. We were prepared to give General Chi an opportunity to substantiate his claim that China has sold no illegal weapons to Iran. Perhaps he could have shown us that there were no persecuted Christians in China, no ethnic and religious persecution in Tibet and Xinjiang, no forced abortions, which are millions per year, women who are literally thrust and brought into these abortion mills, no coerced sterilizations, and no dying rooms for unwanted children. These claims would have all been contrary to the evidence, but in America everyone is given a fair opportunity to be heard. Unfortunately, General Chi did not respond to our invitation, and the place we had saved for a representative, either he or a member of the government, sat empty during that hearing, at which time we heard from multiple eyewitnesses, including an editor from the People's Daily who recounted the horrors of Tiananmen Square. In commentary about Tiananmen Square, Mr. Chairman, Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times, who was in the Square that night, reported, and I quote, ``The troops began shooting. Some people fell to the ground, wounded or dead. Each time the soldiers fired again and more people fell to the ground.'' When he went to the Xiehe hospital, the nearest to the Square, ``it was a bloody mess with hundreds of injured lying on the floors. I saw the bullet holes,'' Nicholas Kristoff goes on to say, ``in the ambulances.'' Jan Wong of the Toronto Globe and Mail, looking down from the balcony at the Peking Hotel, ``watched in horror as the army shot directly into the crowds. People fell with gaping wounds.'' Later, she reported, ``The soldiers strafed ambulances and shot medical workers trying to rescue the wounded.'' ``In all,'' she reported, ``I recorded eight long murderous volleys.'' Dozens died before her very eyes. This is what Tiananmen Square means to the people of China and to the world. If President Clinton goes there and stands shoulder to shoulder with the very people who ordered the massacre, that gesture will be a thousand times more powerful than any mere words he may exchange with those who mowed down and bayonetted students and democracy activists. It will be the diplomatic equivalent of dancing on the graves of the courageous and innocent victims of Tiananmen square. Mr. President, for God's sake and for the sake of the people of China and for the sake of everything the U.S. used to and hopefully still stands for, do not mark the ninth anniversary of the murder at Tiananmen Square by celebrating with the murderers at the scene of the crimes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound alarm at the future deterioration of the situation for minorities in the Czech Republic. Since the Velvet Revolution, that country has witnessed violent and sometimes deadly attacks against minorities--a pattern of violence which is not being addressed by the Czech Government. Let me describe the most recent examples of this unchecked wave of brutality. On May 7, an Algerian in a Prague subway station was stabbed by skinheads; the next day, two Indians were also attacked by skinheads in a subway station in Prague. On the night of May 16-17, a Rom was beaten by skinheads and left on a road, where he was subsequently hit and killed by a truck. And last week, local officials in two different Czech cities--Pilsen and Usti nad Labem--announced plans to build ghettos. In Usti nad Labem, authorities stated outright that they plan to build a 15-foot-high wall around Roma apartment buildings. Pilsen officials described their walled-off area as a place for putting ``undesirables,'' using terminology reminiscent of that used by the Nazis. Former Czech Minister of Interior Jan Ruml has described these plans as ``inadmissible in a democratic society.'' Unfortunately, these were not isolated events. Last November, Sudanese student Hassan Elamin Aldelradi was killed by a skinhead in Prague. In January, a Romani woman was seriously injured in Krnov when her home was fire bombed. In February, another Romani woman, Helena Bihariova was attacked, beaten, forced into the Elbe River and drowned. In early March, two Romani men in Decin were assaulted by a man with a pistol; a Congolese doctor was subsequently beaten in the town of Prostejov. In late March, skinheads in Trutnov attacked a Jewish couple. Each and every one of these has been widely described as a racially motivated attack. Apparently, skinheads are not convinced they will be held accountable for their acts and the Czech Government has failed to persuade Roma that authorities will do all in their power to protect them. Roma have increasingly shown their unwillingness to simply stand aside while their family members are attacked or murdered, one by one. A number of recent attacks against Roma have been followed by revenge attacks by Roma. The rule of law appears to be degenerating into the rule of the mob. Official statements like that made March 17 by the current Minister of Interior, Cyril Svoboda, exacerbate the charged atmosphere. Mr. Svoboda minimized the significance of racially motivated violence, claimed it is not destabilizing and then blamed non-governmental organizations for distorting the Czech Republic's image through their reporting on this problem. The most recent revenge attack by Roma occurred in the town of Novy Bor two weeks ago, when two Roma attacked Miroslav Sladek, a member of parliament campaigning for re-election. Sladek is the notorious head of the Czech ``Republican Party'' who has called for making one's ethnic identity as a Rom a criminal act. A fair amount of media attention has been given to the fact that the two Roma arrested in that case were immediately pardoned by President Havel. Understandably, President Havel's decision has been controversial. What I think is most interesting is his reasoning: according to the President's spokesperson, the President did not believe that the local police could conduct an impartial investigation into the matter. She noted, in particular, that the police have given an account of events which match that of Mr. Sladek's, but which is contradicted by other eyewitnesses. She also observed that human rights groups have reported a consistent failure of the police in that area to investigate and prosecute successfully racially motivated attacks against Roma. On May 14, the Czech Chamber of Deputies weighed in on this serious matter and expressed concern about the attack on Sladek. They even called for the Ministry of Interior to investigate the attack further to determine if it was a planned attack. Certainly, violence should not have been used against Sladek. As repugnant and disgusting as Sladek's views might be, he is entitled to them. What I do not understand is why the Czech Chamber of Deputies--which has remained silent when Roma have been attacked and even murdered--has chosen to express its concern in this manner. The bulk of the Czech cabinet has remained conspicuously silent regarding the most recent racially motivated skinhead attacks; certainly, the Prime Minister appears to have said nothing. Instead, Monika Horakova, a Romani representative on the recently created Inter- Ministerial Commission for Romani Affairs, has been dispatched to dissuade Roma from taking matters into their own hands. In the end, however, Ms. Horakova is unlikely to be successful unless she has the full backing of the full cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the Czech Government should not wait until after the June elections to reach to racially motivated violence. With time, more innocent life could be lost. Every member of the Cabinet should condemn in decisive terms the acts of these repugnant skinheads; the Ministry of Interior, in particular, should unequivocally signal its commitment to ensure that the perpetrators of these acts are caught, prosecuted and convicted. And the discriminatory Czech citizenship law, which continues to telegraph the message that Roma are not wanted in that country, must be amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding and for his excellent work on this and other provisions in this important bill. Mr. Chairman, the national debate on partial birth abortion has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that abortion is violence against children. Most Americans and I believe most Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, Democrats, Republican, liberals, conservatives and moderates, were shocked and dismayed and frankly very saddened to learn that partial birth abortions were routine and commonplace and that it was completely legal to partially deliver a baby, shove a scissors into the back of that baby's head, and then hook up a hose to suction out that baby's brain. That is the reality of what choice is all about. I think it is about time, Mr. Chairman, we connected the dots about the violence of abortion. The other methods are no less heinous. They kill children. They are no less violent. This is child abuse. And that collective denial that we as a country have engaged in for so many years needs to be put away. Mr. Chairman, abortion methods dismember children. Razor blade tipped suction devices 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average household vacuum cleaner, after the child's arms and legs and torso and head has been decapitated, turn on the suction machine and the baby is literally turned into a bloody pulp. This is the uncensored reality of what choice is all about. Abortion methods also include injecting various deadly poisons, including high concentrated salt solutions. I chair the Committee on International Operations on Human Rights, Mr. Chairman. I have had in excess of 70 hearings, many of them on torture in overseas prisons by dictatorships. And I can tell my colleagues, when I look at the badly burned, chemically burned bodies of unborn children who have been killed with salioamniocentesis abortions, they are no different at all to those others who have been tortured because of their faith, or because of their beliefs in democracy or their human rights advocacy. They have been killed. A high concentrated salt injection usually takes 2 hours for the baby to die. And we know that a child feels pain. And when that child is born dead, if we open up the fist that is usually tightly collapsed, we can see that all the scalding and corrosive effects of that salt fails to get on the palm because the child is in pain. That is the reality, Mr. Chairman, of this so-called choice rhetoric. The Lowey amendment if enacted, Mr. Chairman, will turn DOD medical facilities into abortion mills where this kind of violence, including, as my good friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) pointed out earlier, where this kind of violence, including partial birth, would be sanctioned. The Lowey amendment makes a false distinction based not on what happens to a baby in an abortion, in other words a violent death, but on who provides some of the cash. It also completely overlooks the costs that are borne by the taxpayers to facilitate that abortion, like the provision of operating rooms, the hiring of abortionists. Thank God that when Mr. Clinton's executive order was in effect not a single overseas military doctor would engage in this violence against children. They have had to go out with Planned Parenthood's help and look and seek to find abortionists. Well, that takes taxpayers' dollars. The nominal fee that a woman might pay to procure that abortion would in no way cover that. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, says in effect, it is okay to tear up an unborn child, to rip that child to pieces. Mr. Chairman, I have been in the pro-life movement for 26 years. I am amazed at how so many good and decent people sanitize the unthinkable. We did it on this floor when we talked about partial birth, Members that I deeply respect and work arm in arm on human rights with. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, and let me say that good and decent people have defended the unthinkable, that which is not defensible, in terms of partial births in these other methods. And now we are being called upon to use overseas military facilities for abortion. It facilitates abortion. One of our colleagues said earlier that we do not want to treat women as second-class citizens. Nobody does. But providing the means to kill their babies, we would welcome the unborn being treated as second-class citizens. Unfortunately, this amendment and our zeitgeist, our law decreed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, treats the unborn child as a throwaway, as garbage, as so much junk. And God did not make junk. And every child is precious regardless of race or color or gender. Every one of those kids should matter. Medicine, Mr. Chairman, is all about caring and curing and mitigating diseases. Unless my colleagues think pregnancy is a disease to be vanquished, those kids should be nurtured. We should be talking about maternal health care, how do we beef that up. Prenatal care, that is what it is about, not simultaneously saying, if we do not want the child, the child could be injected with salt or dismembered. Vote no on the Lowey amendment.