Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for this bill, and especially the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for his leadership in crafting this package, which is comprehensive, mutually reinforcing, and really sends a clear, unambiguous message to the dictatorship in Beijing that we mean business. Yes, there are some who do not support linking most favored nation status. And the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], who spoke earlier so eloquently, is one of those. But this is one of those issues that most of us, almost all of us, can coalesce around and really present a genuine, authentic, united front that we will not tolerate human rights abuses in any way, shape, or form. First, the bill that is before us would prohibit U.S. taxpayer funding for participation in U.S. cultural or educational supported exchange programs to PRC officials who have been directly involved in persecution, as well as to the officials who direct the agencies that have committed the persecution, including, but not limited to, the heads of Government-run religious front organizations. What do we mean by that? No travel expenses. The U.S. taxpayer will not foot the bill to bring these people to our shores. No per diem expenses. We are not going to shell out money so they can eat high on the hog while back home they are the persecutors. Second, the bill would deny U.S. visas to people who actually participated in or directed religious persecution. Like other visa exclusion grounds for terrorists and narcotraffickers, this would be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis by consular officers. The Government of China, as we know so clearly, and every reputable human rights group bears witness to this and the State Department country reports on human rights practices also bear witness to this terrible truth that millions of Christians are being persecuted today. It is strictly forbidden to be a Christian outside the official church run by the Government. If you want to be a Catholic, for example, the Government requires you to join a church that does not recognize the Pope, has censored huge portions of the Bible. It is almost like Swiss cheese; whole parts of the Bible have been ripped out and are strictly prohibited from being taught. And they can never say anything about government policy and the linkage that policy might have to morality. It also proscribes the teaching of religion to anyone under the age of 18. So no young people can hear about God in China in the officially-run churches. And if they do so in the underground church, the full weight of the dictatorship is levied against them. Catholics who insist on belonging to the real Catholic Church have been imprisoned. This includes, at least four Catholic bishops and dozens, literally dozens, of priests. As a matter of fact, when the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I met with Li Peng in Beijing years ago back in 1994, we handed him a list of imprisoned pastors. He would not even look at it and just was in total denial in a way that is much akin to what President Jiang Zemin was when he said to us, incredulously, that they have had religious freedom in China since Mao. Do any of my colleagues in this Chamber believe that, the Cultural Revolution, when it was a high tide of crackdown, that that was religious tolerance? Of course not. We know since 1894, with the issuance of Decrees 194 and 195, the crackdown has accelerated, and they are trying to stamp out from the face of that country any kind of religious observance that is not carefully circumscribed and run by the Government of the People's Republic of China. The situation, Mr. Speaker, is no better for other religious believers either. The Government has conducted a ruthless campaign against Tibetans, including the destruction of monasteries, the imprisonment and torture of monks and nuns, and the arrest and subsequent disappearance of the 7-year-old child, the Panchen Lama. In Xinjiang Autonomous Region, formerly the independent nation of East Turkistan, Moslem leaders are persecuted for fidelity to their religion, the Islam. Recently we had a hearing in my subcommittee and we heard the kind of horrific excesses that the security forces bring to bear against those who want to practice their Moslem faith. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill have already gone, and this happened in committee, and I regret that it happened, but it happened. There have been changes in this bill. This has been a modified bill. The committee adopted an amendment that stripped all the findings of fact from the bill on the ground that the Chinese Government had not been asked for its opinion on these findings. Another amendment was adopted that limited the denial of visas to persons who either carried out persecution themselves or directed the carrying out of persecution. Another amendment to the visa provision limitation made a special exemption to the heads of the state-run churches. So the gentleman is incorrect based on the plain language of the bill, religious affairs ministers and cabinet ministers and heads of state. Finally, even in a narrow class of cases, we provided the President with waiver authority that, in the event he finds that admitting one of these persecutors is somehow vital to the national interest of the United States, he can do so. This is an extremely moderate bill. Any of my colleagues who pretend otherwise ought to read the bill over again. I ask my colleagues to read the bill. When it talks about those who will be denied per diem and travel expenses and perhaps they may be denied a visa, we are talking, and this is right from the bill, any military or civilian officer or employee of the Government of the People's Republic of China who carried out or directed the carrying out of any of the following policies or practices formulating, drafting, or implementing repressive religious policies, imprisoning, detaining, or harassing individuals on religious grounds, or promoting or participating in policies or practices which hinder religious activities or the free expression of religious beliefs. This is very, very, I think, clear and very tight, and this is the minimum that we should be doing. Finally, just let me make a point about one particular Catholic priest that I met when I was there, and I have met many people in the underground church, but Bishop Su of Baoding Province, a man who has spent almost 20 years in the Laogai, in the gulags of China, he has been tortured in hideous ways, sleep deprivation, genitals being cattle-prodded, and all kinds of horrible things. Here he is, a Catholic bishop. The Chinese Government has now re-arrested him. Madeleine Albright and our very distinguished State Department announced with much flourish that he had been released. It turns out that was another case of disinformation. We have reliable, I will not say it is absolutely correct, nobody ever knows in a closed society, but very reliable information strongly suggesting that he is still being held in Jingyuan County Detention Center in Baoding Province. As Members know, there was all this talk that constructive engagement somehow is working. ``Look, Bishop Su has been released.'' No, he is still in prison. What was his crime? He wants to preach the gospel. He wants to talk about Christ. He celebrated mass for our very small delegation in a small, dingy apartment. The next day we heard that he was arrested. I did not even want to meet with him. I thought that might bring the security apparatus down upon his head, and sure enough it did. So if Members think that preaching is free and somehow not censored, we are only fooling ourselves. For meeting with me and 5 or 6 other people and celebrating mass, this man is now in prison. When we toast glasses and we say let us have more partnership and constructive engagement, let us not forget the men and women who are languishing in these gulags simply because of their faith. This is Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, evangelical Protestants in the People's Republic of China. They do this for the human rights activists as well, as we all know. Wei Jingsheng is just one of many who had the courage to speak out and say basic human rights need to be protected. He is also languishing in a prison and has been severely beaten. Finally, just let me say a point about the heads of these officially recognized churches. This is what Jiang Zemin said recently in the People's Daily, March 14, 1996. He said state religious policy is to ``actively guide religion so that it can be adapted to socialist society.'' I met with the head of the Religious Affairs Department on a number of occasions, here and in the People's Republic of China. I asked him if he was a believer. He said absolutely not. He is an avowed atheist. He said in the Chinese press that the handling of religious matters needed to be done according to the dictates of Lenin. He did not even say Mao. He said Lenin. We all know what Lenin did to the church and how he persecuted the church in the former Soviet Union. Rev. Deng Fucun, the general secretary of the government-run Three Self Patriotic Movement, made the preposterous claim in the Western press on July 16 that there was no such thing as an underground church. I and many of my colleagues have met numerous members who were part of this underground church. They are brave souls. Some surface. Many are in hiding. Another atheist who heads the Protestant church, again government- run, said, and I quote, that there is no persecution in China. Again these people become front people. Let us not forget that this has happened in other Communist dictatorships. People come here, and again what the bill proscribes is that we feed them, we pay for their food and we pay for their lodging and their airfare and the like. Mr. Speaker, this is a very modest bill. This will advance the ball a little bit, not a whole lot but a little bit in the realm of religious freedom. We stand today with the oppressed, not the oppressor. I hope that people will support this important bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. First of all, we are talking about people who have persecuted. We are talking about saying that there is some penalty affixed. First of all, if our people meet with the underground church over there, as I have discovered and others have discovered, that means potentially that these people that we meet with end up going to prison. They without question will get interrogated, but they might even go to prison for a week, a month, who knows how long. That is all up to the dictates of the State. Right now they are people who it is probably better we have a minimum, if no contact with because we would do nothing but lead the secret police to their doorsteps. Let me also say for these others to come here at our expense to me just, when they are fronting, especially if they have been found to be persecutors, is to allow the jailers and the persecutors to come here. We need to have a penalty affixed to that. That is why this is such a modest bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that articles that were issued under Li Peng, 144 and 145, the Chinese now prohibit, strictly prohibit, any foreign proselytizing. If a missionary goes to China, he or she cannot speak out and proselytize, whether it be the Christian faith or any other faith. So their law makes it a crime, and so much of a crime that deportation is the minimum of what would happen to that person. The maximum is that they will go to prison. My staff and I and others in this Congress have worked to help people, some of whom were Americans who went over there and somehow drifted outside of the official boundaries and talked about Christ in one case, and he was arrested and was held and we had to intercede on his behalf. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we have more speakers than we have time remaining. If the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] would be gracious enough to yield time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and I thank her for her leadership on this issue. Let me just begin by saying that forced abortion was rightly construed by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal to be a crime against humanity. This House of Representatives throughout the 1980's and 1990's has repeatedly gone on the record with recorded votes to again reassert that what is going on in the People's Republic of China is eerily reminiscent of what went on during the Nazi era where forced abortion was employed with devastating consequences against particularly Polish women that the Third Reich had deemed to be expendable. It is an exploitation of women. It steals their children. It is a State-sponsored rape, and the baby dies a very cruel and merciless death either by chemical poisoning or by dismemberment. We know for a fact, and there has been much documentation on this, that many of these babies are killed very late in pregnancy. The mothers desperately want to have these children. They often try to evade the population cadres, the family planning cadres who scour the countryside looking for these women and then if they find that they are with child, they then hound them, they browbeat them, they use peer pressure and a host of other techniques of psychological persuasion, and if that does not work, then they make an example of them and truss them and get them to these abortion mills. Just a few weeks ago, the Chinese government rolled out another hideous manifestation of this forced abortion policy. They announced about 600, according to a wire service copy, 600 new mobile abortion clinics. We put mammography and other health screening on wheels and we save lives, we mitigate the pain of breast cancer and things of that kind through those kinds of detection devices. What do the Chinese do? They are putting abortion clinics on wheels, and 600 of these will join this other army of abortionists that scour the country of China to kill the babies. I led 3 human rights trips to the People's Republic of China. I have met with Peng Peiyun, who runs the population program and she totally denies that coercion is part of their program. I have met with Li Peng, the premier of China, totally denies that there is any kind of coercion, forced abortion or forced sterilization. When the President of China, Jiang Zemin, was in town, I raised the question at the breakfast which was attended by Members of the House and the Senate about forced abortion, and again he denied it. Let me also remind Members, because we had some people who do not usually take the pro-life point of view today speaking, we welcome their input, that the United Nations Population Fund has whitewashed these crimes against humanity since the one child per couple policy was conceived back in 1979. They have given awards. The U.N. gave an award in the early 1980s for excellence in population matters, at a time when a high tide, at a time when forced abortions and sterilizations were actually on the rise. If that does not stand with the oppressor and the exploiter of women and children, I do not know what does. And the UNFPA, the U.N. Population Fund continues to whitewash and to defend the policy. Dr. Sadik, the Executive Director of the UNFPA, and I have met with her a number of times. She has said this to me personally, she has also said it on Night Watch, a CBS news program and other programs that are in the public domain, that the Chinese program is purely voluntary. I say to my colleagues, nothing could be further from the truth. The U.N. Population Fund stands, I believe, accused by their own words and by their complicity in this program as being complicit in the maiming and the killing of women and children in the People's Republic of China. Civilizations, Mr. Speaker, have long been judged by how they treat women and children, old people and strangers. Vulnerable people bring out the kindness in every society. But they also bring out the cruelty. Every so often they become the object of practices that are so heinous that all of us recoil in horror. In China today, forced abortion and forced sterilization fits that. Let me just remind Members as well that a couple of years ago the Chinese announced another manifestation of this hideous program. In 1994, they targeted the handicapped. Again in a move that was totally reminiscent of the Third Reich, they said that the Down's syndrome kids, the kids that somehow do not measure up, would be targeted for elimination as part of their eugenics policy. We need to condemn that as well. Handicapped kids are valuable. We should love them and embrace them and protect them. No government has a right to forcibly abort and kill these children because they are found to be afflicted with some anomaly like Down's syndrome or any other kind of anomaly. I chair the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. I have had 4 hearings on forced abortions. Let us not forget that the Clinton administration, until it finally signed the immigration bill that reversed his policy, would not even provide asylum for women who are fleeing coerced abortion and forced sterilization in China. We brought in after, and we had to subpoena these witnesses, some of the women who had suffered this cruelty of 6-month late-term abortions, forced abortions, and I will put the entire testimony of those brave women into this record. But one of the women talked about how she had found a baby girl who had been abandoned crying. And like the good Samaritan, and maybe she never even heard of that story, I think most of my colleagues have, she picked up this little girl. And what happened to her? The family planning cadre said that counts against your number. And then they visited her, and after 10 times trying to tell her and persuade her to be sterilized, they finally forced her to be sterilized. Another woman in the hearing, and many of my colleagues were at that hearing, my wife was at that hearing, I had a tear in my eye. She broke down and could not even continue her testimony. When she talked about how late in her pregnancy, she was worn down to the point where she could resist it no more and they took her, she was broken and beaten and finally her baby was forcibly aborted as well. I urge Members, because time does not permit a full reading of this testimony, but these people have come forward. They were even being held here, I would say parenthetically because they did not get asylum until Congress passed the law that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] offered as an amendment to that important bill. Finally, just let me say to my colleagues, we need to go on record, this hopefully will be a unanimous or a near unanimous vote in favor of this legislation, but I hope that it continues when we start talking about those organizations like Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF based in London, the United Nations Population Fund. When I hear such strong words from my colleagues on the other side of the issue as we heard today, let us not forget that these organizations front, are complicit with and become very much part of the fabric of the implementation of this coercive population control program. Let us not in any way accept the bogus denials that the Jiang Zemins and the Li Pengs and Peng Peiyuns and all the others and the Dr. Sadik, who runs the UNFPA, and others offer to try to get us to take a look and say, ``Oh, maybe it's not as bad as we thought.'' We need to stand up strongly. This legislation advances the ball. Again we will be revisiting this over and over again. When this chapter is finally written someday, those who are complicit will have shame and sorrow over their face. Let us stand with the oppressed and not the oppressor. Mr. Speaker, the material referred to in my remarks is as follows: I would like to introduce Weng Kang Di, who will begin. And he and Chen Yun Fei are husband and wife. And I just would note parenthetically have been separated for 2 years. They are husband and wife, and this hearing provides an opportunity for the first time, in a long time, for them to see one another. If you could proceed. [Interpreter speaking in Chinese.] Mr. Smith. Please pull the microphone very close so we can hear the Translator as well as the witness. [Interpreter speaking in Chinese.] Mr. Smith. If Weng would want to proceed with his testimony. statement of weng kang di, asylum seeker Mr. Weng Kang Di. My name is Weng Kang Di. And Chen Yun Fei is my wife. My wife will tell you what happened to us. statement of chen yun fei, asylum seeker Ms. Chen Yun Fei. I am a woman from the countryside, so I do not know how to say those very polite languages. I would like you to forgive me for that. I come to the United States because of the Chinese family planning program. The reason I came to the United States is because the Chinese Government does not allow us to have more than one child. Because I have more than one child, that is why they try to suppress me, oppress me; and that is why I escaped to the United States. Shall I say something more specifically? Mr. Smith. If you could give the details about your situation, the treatment by the family planning cadres, for example, why did you feel so threatened, whether or not you were mistreated. Ms. Chen Yun Fei. The Chinese Government only allows us to have only one child, and I have three children. And that is why they want us, people who have more than one child, to have sterilization and also fine a certain amount of money. If a person got pregnant, then they want you to bear the child before it is mature. If you are pregnant, they will force you to have abortion. So I am a woman from the countryside. I do not want to have sterilization. I would like to tell you my story. I have come to the United States. I consider the U.S. Government is a democratic government. And I believe that you will rescue us. Now I am going to tell you my story. In 1982, the second child of my husband and mine were born. And then the local government from the people's commune, from the sterilization group, they come to our home and noticed us, sent us notice to have me sterilized. Because it is so imminent, I told them, yes, OK, I will go and have sterilization. And this is a way that I pushed them away at first. I took the opportunity after they left, I escaped to other places. I can only escape by telling them I agree that I will have sterilization. That is the only way I can get them away. At that time, the sterilization campaign was just at the beginning, so they were not pursuing very tightly. In 1986, the first part of 1986, when the sterilization program, the family program, was at its height and it is very unfortunate that I got pregnant again. It was like a two to 3 months pregnancy I was. And at that time, the cadres of the local government were trying to catch women every place. So you could hear the sound of crying, you know, everywhere. And they used the tractors to put on this big loudspeaker to tell people that those people who are pregnant, you have to go to have it born immature. And then if you are pregnant, you have to have abortion--early stage of abortion. And also, after you have abortion, you are going to have sterilization and be fined a certain amount of money. I did not want to have sterilization, so I was very, very afraid. And also I was thinking even if I had sterilization, I have to be fined and I do not have money. I am a country woman. So I stealthily went to a place to find a medical student who learned to be a doctor to help me to have the abortion. This person is in private practice. And this person, this medical student, he was very afraid. He did not dare to help me, because he said if the government found out he would be in trouble. It was a great risk. But I begged this person again and again. So finally he helped me to have this abortion. Because he is a medical student, he did not have the full grasp of the technique to do this abortion, so after the abortion I got this very serious infection because we had done that in a hurry. From then on, I was in poor health. Now after the abortion, I went home. But on my way home, I saw a baby girl which was only born like seven or 8 days, lying on the road, crying very hard, and it is very weak, this little girl. And a lot of people were watching, so I asked people around to help this child who can take this child home, otherwise, this child is going to die because she has nothing to eat. But those people around said, you are talking nonsense. You know this is the time that the campaign is at its height; who dare to have this child home? So if you want to rescue this child, you are the person who will bring this child home. So I was very angry because I thought, you know, you people did not want to help, this child is going to die. So I said, if nobody wants to help this child, I am going to help the child. If you are afraid of the government, I am not afraid of the government. So finally, I took the child home. People were talking that this child belonged to a family, the last name of the family was Sun. Because in China if you do not have a son, then people will look down upon you if there is no way for you to have a voice. So that is why the family abandoned this child on the roadside. And I remember what people, the last name is Sun. So I gave her a name called Sun Sisi, still using her own last name. So I adopted her. So after I returned home, later the government, the cadres of the local government, found out. And then they came to my home saying that, you know what you did and you already have two boys and you picked up another girl and so you have to have the sterilization. So I did not want to have sterilization, and I begged them to let me have the child. And I said, what you said is really ridiculous because this child was not my own. I just picked her up from the roadside. But they said, since you picked up the child, it should be accountable among your family planning program. It belongs to you so you have to have sterilization since you have three children. So I told them that the reason that women, after they have their child born, to abandon the child at the roadside was all due to the government policy. If I did not rescue the child, the child was going to die. And when they heard what I said, they were very angry. So I did not want to have the sterilization, I told them, if you really want to have sterilization, then you go and ask this mother of the child to have sterilization, that is the Sun family, this girl's mother. But they said, since you picked up, you have to go to have sterilization. So we argued back and forth for a long time. And they came to my home insistent that I should have this sterilization. They came many, many times. So they came to my home more than 10 times, and they said this woman who dares to counter the government; so they forced me to sterilization. I begged them that, since I had already had one abortion, I am in poor health. So they insisted that I am now going to have the sterilization. And then the cadres got very angry. They said this woman is very, very tough, very difficult to deal with; so let us have her husband to have the sterilization. And when my husband heard that they wanted him to be sterilized, so he jumped out of the window and escaped. And so I begged them, saying that, please do not have my husband sterilized because the whole family relied on him to till the land. Because in China we use all manual labor. You have to carry water bucket by bucket. So everything--he is the mainstay of the labor in the field. So I was very, very frightened and while at the same time I was very angry. So I fainted, and the whole family was crying and I did not know what happened because I fainted. That was in 1986. Now conditions are turning better. People are using tractors. At that time everything was manual labor. So after I came to, the whole family was crying and the cadres were gone and my husband was back. Then I said I would not let my husband be sterilized because I have to rely on him to till the land. Then I decided that we have to go because they will not let us off the hook. Either I will be sterilized or my husband will be sterilized. So we escaped to a place which is closed to where Mao Zedong had his headquarters. It is a very, very tough place, a lot of mountains and wild places, not much to eat. That was a very baron place. I started to work mending other people's old shoes. It is a very, very deplorable place. The living condition is very, very little. People slept on this bed made of mud. And at the end of the bed, there was a stove. You put firewood in. Then the heat would go through under the bed. That is the heat you have to have in the winter. That is called a kang. And people all live in the cave. So I started up--because the people were very poor, they have to have their old shoes mended again and again. And I started to do this to make some money. I would not dare to go back home, and I stayed at that place for 7 years. That place has a very, very hurricane kind of a big storm, windy and a lot of snow in winter. People eat, mainly, maize and sorghum. I was very eager to back to visit to see my children and my family, but I was afraid if I went back home I would be caught again. So I stayed there for 7 years. But when I first went there, this place was deplorable; there was no family planning program going on. But after 7 years, they started having the family planning campaign. They came to the cave where we stayed to check so-called identification. Everyone has an identification. They checked the identification to see whether there is anything wrong. I returned home in February 1993. And then shortly after that, the government got to know that I was back and so they came to my home saying, that, OK, now you are back; we have been looking for you for several years; we could not find you. And then I begged them not to--I told them that I am not going to have more children, so please do not ask me to have sterilization. They said, no, you are among the list; you are still in the list; you have to have the sterilization. And then they said, this woman is very stubborn. So even if you have sterilization, we are going to fine more the money that we are going to fine you. So I was very, very angry. I told them that the money you fine you should not use that money. if you use that money--because they divide the money among themselves--if you use the money to eat or something, then you will die. Then they started to bind me, you know, to force me to the sterilization place. And I told them that I did not do anything wrong. I was not a robber. I did not steal anything. They only thing I had done is to have more children than one child. So I was very afraid because my husband, when we just returned, when people saw these cadres were coming, they shouted, they are coming again, they are coming again. So my husband left again. He escaped. I told him that, you escape; I will deal with them by myself. So he escaped. I told the cadres that, do not, you know, bind me together using a rope or something. I will go and have sterilization by myself. So under such circumstances, I was forced to have sterilization done. After the sterilization, five or 6 days later, I went home; but I was not--I did not agree with their policy. And they are going to--because I knew they, said, they are going to fine me more money than usual. So I though that, I do not have the money. And then my family told me that my husband escaped because the relatives and friends thought it is very pathetic and they helped him to escape to a foreign country. And I thought to myself, what am I going to do by myself; I do not have the physical strength to till the land by myself and they are going to fine a lot of money. And I had three children. I did not have enough money. So I escaped, too. So I am here. Mr. Smith. I thank you very much for that testimony, and there will be some questions by members of the panel. But I would like to ask the other witnesses if they could testify before we go to that. Hu Shuye, if you would not mind speaking next. statement of hu shuye, asylum seeker Ms. Hu Shuye. I do not speak very well Mandarin, so please forgive me. I left China because of the family planning program. I was pregnant 6 months and was forced to have an abortion. In November I was told to have sterilization because I have two children and one abortion already. And I did not want to have this sterilization, and I left home for a month. And after I came home they forced me to have sterilized. I had no way out. They forced me. They dragged me to have this surgery done. Mr. Hyde. Mr. Chairman, can counsel tell the story? Mr. Smith. Craig, would that be possible? Mr. Hyde. Do you know her story? Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this lady's counsel is not present. We could for any of the others. Mrs. Smith. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Smith. Yes. Mrs. Smith. Could we let someone else testify and let her gain her composure, please. Mr. Smith. Yes, that is a very good idea. I would like to ask Li Bao Yu if she could make her statement at this point. statement of li bao yu, asylum seeker Ms. Li Bao Yu. I am a Chinese citizen, and my name is Li Bao Yu. I had a daughter born in 1990. Because I was afraid of the family planning program, I did not register her birth. Later the government found out, and they asked me to have an IUD put into my body; but I begged them not to do that. But they just approved. They insisted on having an IUD in. So they forced me to put in this IUD. And after that, my health deteriorated. My doctor said, you have to take this IUD out before your health can return to normal. So my husband and I went to this family planning office to ask them to let me have this IUD taken out, but they did not. I promised them that I am not going to have more children. They did not approve our request, and my husband was very angry; so he started to quarrel with the cadres. The cadres threatened him: ``If you are going to continue to disobey us and quarrel with us, then we are going to sterilize you.'' So I persuaded my husband to go home. And then after that, my mother found a private doctor and had my IUD taken out. After that, my health began to improve. In my native place, they have inspections of the family planning program every season; and I would not dare to have inspection because they will find out that I had this IUD taken out by myself. But they kept on sending me notice telling me to have this inspection. I always gave them excuse, I am not home; but they came to my home many times. They could not find me, so they were very angry. In January I became pregnant again. After 3 months, they still could not find me. One day they came and I happened to be home, so they wanted me to go have an exam. My husband at that time was not home because he was * * * I said: ``Let me wait until he comes home. Then I will * * * this exam.'' They disapproved. They did not agree. So * * * dragged me to the place to have the exam. After the exam * * * course, they go to know that I was pregnant and had * * * taken out. They wanted me to have an abortion. I begged them. They did not agree. They threatened me saying that, if you do not have this abortion, then your first child, your daughter, will forever not allow to have her identification registered. Because in China if you register a born baby, you have certain kind of coupons, whatever. They threatened me that if I do not agree to have this abortion, then my first child will forever have no chance of being a registered, normal citizen. Mr. Smith. If I could interrupt, does that mean denial of education or health care or job opportunities? What does that mean? Ms. Li Bao Yu. Yes. So I was forced to have this abortion. And after that, my health was very poor. Because that was a hospital in the countryside, the hygienic conditions is not very good. I had a very negative impact on my health. I was bleeding profusely. And they wanted me to have sterilization following the abortion. But the doctor said since I was bleeding so much, it is not possible to have sterilization immediately. I was not in a condition to return home, so I stayed in the hospital; and my husband came to visit me in the hospital. He was very angry and argued with the cadres. And the doctor had nothing--there is nothing that the doctor can do for my poor health. So the cadres from the family planning office, they kept on arguing with my husband. They have the power in their hands, so we are not in a position to fight with them. After I went home, they again said that, when your health improved a little, you still have to have the sterilization done. Because I am a housewife in the countryside, I have to do everything at home. My husband was a worker at the time. But since my health was poor, I could not do so much. I felt burdened. Sometimes I went to my sister's place to see a doctor. And sometimes my husband stayed alone at home. And the family planning program office kept on telling me that when you have your health improved, you have to have the sterilization. Later my husband escaped to his relative's home and I escaped to my sister's home. So none of us would dare to go home. Later, because of my husband's work--the need for his work, so he has to return home. Then the family planning office informed him to asked him to inform me to go and have the sterilization. They insisted on that. And my husband told them that, my wife was still sick. So they argued again. And then they said: ``If you argue with us, then you go and have the sterilization.'' And they then started to struggle with each other, and he escaped later. My husband thought at that time that under such circumstances it is not going to maintain peace any more. They will, anyway, come to force us to have sterilization. So through somebody's recommendation, my husband escaped to the United States. After my husband left China, I was at home by myself. My health was still not very good--no, she was not at home at first. She would not dare to go home. But her health was not good. In 1992, during the Chinese New Year, she wanted to go home to spend the New Year together with her family; so she returned. After a few days, she did not know how they found out. The family program cadres came to my home again and forced--pressuring me to have sterilization. At that time, I escaped through the back door. I thought, since my husband was not home, they would not pursue me any more; but it was not the case. They kept on pressuring me. I would not dare go home. That means, even if I had had a home, I cannot go home. Under such circumstances, my mother and other relatives, they helped me to find a way to escape to the United States. Mr. Smith. The bells that you heard, just by way of explanation, means that there are votes again occurring on the House floor. We will take a very short break and then resume some of the questioning as Members do return. Again, just let me say before we break for recess--and perhaps you could translate this for them--hearing you tell your stories--and I think I speak for everybody on this panel and I speak for Members of the Congress, both parties, Democrats and Republicans--you really represent the voices and the tears of the women of China. The crimes that have been committed against you and against the women of China are no less serious than the crimes that were committed by the Nazis. It is even more appalling when we realize that the Clinton administration wants to send you back to your oppressors. And when we realize that groups like the U.N. Population Fund stand by and cheer as China achieves these targets in population control when every one of those numbers represents a person who has been injured, made sick, exploited, and hurt by their government. The subcommittee is in recess for 10 minutes. [Recess.] Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will resume its hearing. Again, I want to thank our witnesses for their very, very eloquent statements and for their willingness to tell us in such detail the difficulties that they have encountered and the exploitation that they have experienced. It is my understanding that Hu Shuye, you might be willing to and able to, perhaps, proceed with some of your testimony. If you could tell us, and be as brief as you would like, some of the particulars about the government's coercive abortion that they inflicted upon you at 6 months. The Interpreter. She said she does not know how to speak, so if you could ask questions, she will be able to answer. Mr. Smith. When the government found you were pregnant, what kind of means did they use to force you to undergo the abortion? The Interpreter. Let me explain for us, because Ms. Hu said her Mandarin is not good enough to express herself. Mr. Smith. Right. I remember that from earlier. The Interpreter. So she is using her own dialect. And Ms. Chen is translating her dialect to me, and I will translate to you. Mr. Smith. All right. Thank you. Ms. Hu Shuye. They said--there were between 30 to 40 that came to my home. And they said, since you have three children, you have to have an abortion since you are now, again, pregnant. So they dragged me to have an abortion. Mr. Smith. Did they literally drag her? Ms. Hu Shuye. There was a car, and these 30 to 40 people dragged me onto the car and then drove away. Mr. Smith. Prior to that, were there attempts to persuade her to abort the child? Ms. Hu Shuye. They did ask me to have this abortion. Then since I was not willing to, they moved all my furniture, whatever I had at home, to the government office. I was forced to have an abortion in June when I was 6 months pregnant. And then in November, they came again to force me to have sterilization. I escaped in November. And in December, my mother-in-law got cancer and passed away on December 17th. So I went home to attend the funeral. And then on the 20th, the family program office got to know that I was home; so they came and dragged me away to have an abortion. I was forced to have an abortion when I was 6 months pregnant. And then after that, they wanted me to have sterilization. So I escaped in November. And then in December I went back for the funeral. And then I was forced to have sterilization. And then after a few years, in 1989, the family program office told me that, you have too many children, you should be fined a certain amount of money. Mr. Smith. So she was fined for the children that she had is what you are saying. You know, I would like to yield to Mr. Hyde. He has a comment. Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I might ask both counsel to answer these questions: We have heard heart breaking stories of oppression and torture and a denial of one of the primary human rights, civil rights, namely, the right to have children. And I am appalled at what I have heard. But I am equally appalled at my own country at what state these women find themselves in the ``Land of the Free,'' and the ``Home of the Brave,'' ``Give me your Tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' I understand they are under arrest, they are under manacles. Now, I well know that for years Soviet Jewish people, who could get an exit visa, all came here as refugees because by definition they were persecuted, being Jewish people, in the Soviet Union. And they came here by the thousands. And many of them did not have family here, and it was not a question of reunification but under asylum. Because they were persecuted, they were permitted to come in here.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], my good friend, for yielding. Let me just say, and to pick up on what the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] just pointed out about the number of detention orders, the number exceeds 27 and is growing. But there is a real problem, and this is addressed in the bill, asking the President to look at it very carefully, to renegotiate the memorandum of understanding that we currently have in existence. Most people would find it almost ridiculous that we have to give specific information first, and remember, this is a closed country. We do not have access to the Laogai, we do not have access to these prison camps, but we have to almost find some way to ascertain whether or not there is a violation going on with specific information. The Chinese then, under the MOU, investigated themselves and gave us their findings. So we have the alleged perpetrator investigating themselves and then they come back to us. Then, we have 60 days that we have to wait to actually make a site visit and very often it far exceeds 60 days. Let me give one example that was cited very recently by our Commissioner of Customs, George Weise. He pointed out in his testimony on March 21, 1997, that on March 11, 1996, the Chinese Ministry of Justice notified the custom attache that she be allowed to visit the Changsha Laogai machinery factory. He points out in his testimony that the request to go to that factory began in 1992. Four years to finally have site access to a prison camp that is not unlike the one that is to my left that was found to be in violation of our code and thankfully, there is a detention order on the pipes coming out of that detention camp. Mr. Speaker, we need to renegotiate that MOU. I have been over there, I have talked to the customs people. They cannot get access. They run into roadblocks, they run into bureaucratic snafus over and over again, and then somehow, the administration comes up, and my friend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] said the Bush administration was just like this. My good friend from Virginia said a moment ago, we do not have access to these prison camps. The Bush administration were the ones who actually negotiated the MOU, and then they come up to our hearings and they say, look at this. We had this fine statement of principles, memorandum of understanding and that defies all kinds of good will as if the Chinese dictatorship is cooperating with us. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are not. It is a sham. We try to make the sham work. That is why we get a few detention orders, but it is about time we enhanced our access, hopefully unfettered access. But I do not think that is going to happen any time soon. We need to tighten this MOU. This resolution calls on the President to look into that, and hopefully he will realize it is bad business and certainly a violation of human rights to allow slave-made goods to come to our shores, especially when we are talking about religious prisoners and human rights activists who are being tortured and used in ways that none of us would see as civilized. So I hope my colleagues support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2195, which has now 27 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, represents a modest but important first step toward enforcing already existing U.S. law regarding slave-made products. First it authorizes $2 million in fiscal year 1999 for additional monitoring by the United States Customs Service for products made with slave labor. Second, it requires the Commissioner of Customs to report to Congress on the manufacture and export of products made with slave labor. Finally, it expresses the sense of Congress that the President should determine whether China is frustrating implementation of the memorandum of understanding, and if the answer is affirmative, then he should begin negotiations for a new MOU with effective monitoring procedures. I can say parenthetically, that cannot start a moment too soon, because I have been watching this as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for a number of years, and we know that despite some action that has been taken, the MOU and its follow-on document was flawed. Mr. Speaker, the bill is directed, as we know, primarily toward China. This is not because we are unfairly singling out China, but because China is far and away the biggest source of slave-made goods. In the words of George Weise, the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service, ``China is currently by far the country most frequently associated with the export of prison labor-made goods to the United States.'' As a matter of fact, in the first 60 years of the existence of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, which provides U.S. Customs with its primary authority concerning the importation of convict or forced labor, the United States took action twice against products produced in a Soviet gulag and in a Mexican prison. Since September 1991, however, the U.S. Customs Service has banned nearly 2 dozen Chinese products. These just represent the tip of the iceberg. For the Record I will submit those couple of dozen at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker. Let me just also point out, Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of hearings in the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. As a matter of fact, back in 1995, April 3, we had the first hearing ever on survivors of the Laogai. We heard from Harry Wu, Catherine Ho; we heard from Tang Boiqiao, who was one of the protesters at Tiananmen Square, and they describe in absolutely riveting and nauseating detail what actually goes on day in and day out in the Laogai. It is horrific. They talked about using cattle prods. As a matter of fact, the Tibetan monk who testified before our committee, Palden Gyatso, could not get through Rayburn security when he came in with a cattle prod, and then he told us what they do with the cattle prod. We had to go down and escort him through. He said, this is commonplace. His teeth are ruined. The genitals often get inflicted with this terrible and hideous device, and they do that on women and on men. Catherine Ho talked about as a Catholic how she had been mistreated, and to read the words are to make you sick. That this goes on day in and day out, and they make products that do end up on our shelves. There are those who may disagree, who think this is hyperbole. Look at the list, and the list will grow if we demand enhanced enforcement. This legislation is just a modest step in demanding some additional enforcement. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I have been in gulags. We were in a Beijing prison camp where we saw jelly shoes and socks being made for export. Yes, the Chinese authorities shut down that one, but for every one that is shut down, there are another thousand plus that are operating and littering the countryside of China where these things are made. We saw 40 Tiananmen Square activists, men and women, these were men in this case, who put their lives on the line for democracy, who were slaving away for these products that were going to be sent overseas to the United States. Let me also point out, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of vigorous enforcement of U.S. laws against slave-made goods does not merely support repression within China, it also hurts American manufacturers. For example, at a May 22, 1997, hearing of my subcommittee, we received testimony from a man by the name of Peter Levy, an American manufacturer of office supplies. Mr. Levy, who was curious about how one of his competitors was able to sell certain products at such low prices, launched his own investigation. It led him to a prison compound in Nanjing, China, where his competitor's products were being assembled by prisoners at a Chinese gulag in Laogai, and I understand because of what Mr. Levy did, the United States Customs Service has now taken that case and is investigating that case for, hopefully, some prompt action. This legislation is modest, I hope everyone can support it, and I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] and my good friend from Illinois [Mr. Crane] for their support as well. Chinese Convict Labor Issuances as of May 31, 1996 Detention Orders Date, products and producers: 1. 10-03-91--Wrenches--(Shanghai Laodong Machine Works). 2. 10-03-91--Steel Pipe--(Shanghai Laodong Steel Pipe Works). 3. 10-25-91--Hand Tools--(Shanghai Laodong Machine Works). 4. 10-29-91--Socks--(Beijing Qinghe Knitting Mill). Cancelled 12-13-93. 5. 11-06-91--Planing Machines--(Xiangyang Machine Tool Works). 6. 11-14-91--Diesel Engines--(Yunnan Jinma Diesel Engine General Works). 7. 12-02-91--Machine Presses--(Xuzhou Forging and Pressing Machinery Plant). 8. 01-07-92--Diesel Engines & Textile Machines--(Dezhou Shengjian Machine Works). 9. 02-25-92--Galvanized Pipes--(Shandong Laiyang Heavy Machine Works). 10. 02-25-92--Tea--(Guangdong Red Star Tea Farm). Cancelled 09-30-94. 11. 05-22-92--Grapes--(Beijing Qinghe Farm). Cancelled 01- 07-94. 12. 05-22-92--Sheepskin & Leather--(Qinghai Hide & Garment Factory). 13. 06-24-92--Hand Tools--(amends #1 and #2). 14. 06-26-92--Cast Iron Items--(Wang Tsang Coal & Iron Works). 15. 06-26-92--Tea--(Miao Chi Tea Farm). 16. 07-15-92--Auto Parts--(Sichuan Yaan Auto Parts Works). 17. 07-15-92--Drilling Machines--(Sichuan Zi Gong Machine Works). 18. 07-17-92--Sulfuric (Sulphuric) Acid--(Dawei Chemical Factory). 19. 08-03-92--Electric Fans & Zinc-Coated Wire--(Sichuan Xinsheng Laodong Tool Works). 20. 08-14-92--Asbestos--(Sichuan Hsinkang Asbestos Mine). 21. 07-08-93--Hoists--(Hangzhou Wulin Machine Works). 22. 08-06-93--Hoists--(Wuyi Machine Works). 23. 09-01-93--Surgical Gloves, Condoms, Rain Coats, Rubber Boots--(Shenyang Xinsheng Rubber Factory). 24. 09-03-93--Rubber Vulcanizing Accelerators--(Shenyang Xinsheng Chemical Works). 25. 12-24-94--Artificial Flowers--(Guangdong No. 1 Laojiao Camp). 26. 04-27-95--Tea--(Nanhu Laogai Camp-Nanhu Tree Farm). 27. 10-06-95--Malleable Iron Products--(Tianjin Malleable Iron Plant). 28. 03-06-96--Iron Pipe Fitting--(Tianjin Tongbao Fitting Company).

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the distinguished gentlewoman for this legislation and her strong human rights leadership in this House. H.R. 2358, Mr. Speaker, addresses the important question as to whether the cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the promotion of universally recognized human rights. Looking at the State Department budget, and my subcommittee oversees on the authorizing side the State Department budget, we see that the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor has 52 employees and a budget of just over $6 million. By way of contrast, the Public Affairs Office is about twice as large, with 115 employees and a budget of over $10 million. Even the Protocol Office has 62 employees, 10 more employees than the whole Human Rights Bureau. Each of the six regional bureaus has an average of 1,500 employees. These are the bureaus the Human Rights Bureau sometimes has to contend with in ensuring that human rights is accorded its rightful priority against competing concerns, and they have a combined budget of about $1 billion, or about 160 times the budget of the Human Rights Bureau. This gross disparity in resource allocation is not only a poignant symbol of the imbalance in our foreign policy priority, it is also an important practical consequence. It has practical consequences. For instance, Washington officials from the regional bureaus develop their expertise by taking frequent trips to the regions in which they specialize. Officials in the Human Rights Bureau, however, below the rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary almost never have the budgets for such trips. It is an unfortunate fact of life that we usually get what we pay for, and it appears that the American taxpayers are paying for more State Department protocol and public relations and less for human rights. By adding $2.2 million in each of the next 2 fiscal years for monitoring human rights in the People's Republic of China, this bill will help to redress the terrible imbalance in the current State Department budget. Let me also point out, and I appreciate the earlier comments of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader, when he quoted from Wei Jingsheng, that great human rights champion in the People's Republic of China, who today is languishing in a gulag in Laogai because of his strong beliefs. I met with Wei when he was let out to try to procure the Olympics 2000 for the Chinese dictatorship. They thought that symbolic gesture would garner that for them. He was only out for a couple of weeks, several weeks. I met with him, talked to him for about 3 hours. Two weeks later or so he met with Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Democracy John Shattuck. The next day after meeting with the point person for the Clinton administration on human rights, Wei Jingsheng was grabbed off the streets and thrown into prison, and he is there now, unfortunately suffering. We know that he has been beaten. At one point he was beaten so bad he could not even raise his head, and his sister and others who care deeply for him fear for his life. We need greater monitoring. We need more surveillance to know what is going on. One or two people designated in Beijing or Shanghai or elsewhere is not adequate to the test. Let me also say I am very appreciative to the gentlewoman from Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith, for her language that she has added to this bill with regard to the organs that are used from executed prisoners. Let me just say we have had two hearings on that in my subcommittee. It is a horrific reality. We need to rein in on it, and we need, I think, do everything possible to shut down that gruesome process.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday several of my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission--Representatives Hoyer, Markey, Cardin, and Salmon--joined me in introducing a sense of the Congress resolution with respect to the human rights situation in the Republic of Turkey and that country's desire to host the next Summit Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. Turkey--an OSCE country since 1975--first proposed to host the next summit meeting nearly a year ago. Shortly after this proposal surfaced, I wrote to then-Secretary of State Christopher on November 22, 1996, together with the Helsinki Commission's co-chairman, Senator D'Amato, to raise concerns over human rights violations in Turkey and to urge rejection of the Turkish proposal unless the human rights situation improved. We wrote to Secretary Albright on July 15, 1997 expressing concern over the lack of human rights progress in Turkey. Unfortunately, Turkey has squandered the opportunity to demonstrate its determination to improve implementation of Ankara's freely undertaken OSCE commitments over the past 11 months. Without reciting the lengthy list of Turkey's human rights violations, including the use of torture, it is fair to say that Turkey's record of implementation of OSCE human dimension commitments remains poor. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented the fact that at least 47 Turkish journalists--the largest number of any country in the world--remain imprisoned. Four former parliamentarians from the now banned Kurdish-based Democracy Party [DEP], including Leyla Zana, remain imprisoned. Turkey has pursued an aggressive campaign of harassment of non-governmental organizations over the past year. The Department of State has found that serious human rights problems persist in Turkey and that human rights abuses have not been limited to the southeast, where Turkey has engaged in an armed conflict with the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party [PKK] for over a decade. Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Congress honored His All Holiness Bartholomew, the leader of Orthodox believers worldwide. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, located in Istanbul--the city proposed by Turkey as the venue for the next OSCE summit, has experienced many difficulties. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, has repeatedly requested permission to reopen the Orthodox seminary on the island of Halki closed by the Turkish authorities since the 1970's despite Turkey's OSCE commitment to ``allow the training of religious personnel in appropriate institutions.'' The Turkish Embassy here in Washington viewed the visit, according to its press release, ``as an excellent opportunity to forge closer ties of understanding, friendship and cooperation among peoples of different faiths and ethnicities.'' Unfortunately, this spirit has not characterized the Turkish Government's relations with the Patriarchate and Orthodox believers in Turkey. Mr. Speaker, the United States should encourage the development of genuine democracy in Turkey, based on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Those who would turn a blind eye toward Turkey's ongoing and serious human rights violations hinder the process of democratization in that important country. Poised at the crossroads of Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East, Turkey is well positioned to play a leading role in shaping developments in Europe and beyond. But to be an effective and positive role model abroad--as some have suggested Turkey might be for the countries of Central Asia-- Turkey must get its house in order. Uncorrected, Turkey's human rights problems will only fester and serve a stumbling block along the path of that country's further integration into Europe. It is also important to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that Turkey is not new to the OSCE process. The Turks are not the new kids on the block. Turkey's current President, Suleyman Demirel, was an original signer of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. The time has come for Turkey to focus on putting into practice the human rights commitments Ankara has freely accepted over the past 22 years. The privilege and prestige of hosting an OSCE summit should be reserved for participating States that have demonstrated steadfast support for Helsinki principles and standards--particularly respect for human rights--in word and in deed. Such linkage is not new in the OSCE. When, in the mid-1980's Moscow expressed an interest in hosting a human rights conference of Helsinki signatory states, the United States and several other OSCE countries insisted on specific human rights improvements before they would agree to the Kremlin's proposal. This approach contributed to a tremendous improvement in Russia's human rights record. Should we expect any less from our allies in Ankara? For starters, the United States should insist that Turkey release the imprisoned DEP parliamentarians, including Leyla Zana, as well as journalists and others detained for the nonviolent expression of their views; end the persecution of medical professionals and NGO's who provide treatment to victims of torture and expose human rights abuses; abolish Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law, Article 312 of the Penal Code, and other statutes which violate the principle of freedom of expression and ensure full respect for the civil, political, and cultural rights of citizens of Turkey, including ethnic Kurds; and begin to aggressively prosecute those responsible for torture, including members of the security forces. A key ingredient to resolving these and other longstanding human rights concerns is political will. Developments in Turkey over the past few days underscore the sad state of human rights in Turkey. Last week we learned of the imprisonment, reportedly for up to 23 years, of Esber Yagmurdereli, for a speech he made in 1991. The same day, a three-judge panel backed down after police officers accused of torturing 14 young people back in 1995 refused to appear in court. Frankly, such developments have become almost commonplace in Turkey, dulling the appreciation of some for the human tragedy of those involved in such cases. A decision on the venue of the next OSCE summit will require the consensus of all OSCE participating States, including the United States. The resolution we introduced, Mr. Speaker, does not call for an outright rejection of Ankara's bid to host an OSCE summit, but urges the United States to refuse to give consensus to such a proposal until such time as the Government of Turkey has demonstrably improved implementation of its freely undertaken OSCE commitments, including their properly addressing those human rights concerns I have touched on today. Our resolution calls for the President to report to the Congress by April 15, 1998 on any improvement in the actual human rights record in Turkey. We should be particularly insistent on improvements in that country's implementation of provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, Turkey's desire to host an OSCE summit must be matched by concrete steps to improve its dismal human rights record. Promises of improved human rights alone should not suffice. Mr. Speaker, I ask that correspondence between the Helsinki Commission and the State Department be included in the Record. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Washington, DC, July 15, 1997. Hon. Madeleine Korbel Albright, Secretary of State, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Secretary: We write to reiterate and further explain our steadfast opposition to Turkey as the venue for an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) summit meeting and ask the Department, which we understand shares our view, to maintain the United States' refusal to give consensus to the Turkish proposal that the next summit should be held in Istanbul. We also observe that a rigid schedule of biennial summit meetings of the OSCE Heads of State or Government appears to be unwarranted at this stage of the OSCE's development and suggest that serious consideration be given to terminating the mandate which currently requires such meetings to be held whether circumstances warrant them or not. Last November, the Republic of Turkey--an original OSCE participating State--first proposed Istanbul as the site for the next OSCE summit. At that time, we wrote to Secretary Christopher urging that the United States reject this proposal. A decision was postponed until the Copenhagen Ministerial, scheduled for this December, and the Lisbon Document simply noted Turkey's invitation. The United States should withhold consensus on any proposal to hold an OSCE summit in Turkey until and unless Ankara has released the imprisoned Democracy Party (DEP) parliamentarians, journalists and others detained for the non-violent expression of their views; ended the persecution of medical professionals and NGOs who provide treatment to victims of torture and expose human rights abuses; and begun to aggressively prosecute those responsible for torture, including members of the security forces. In addition, the United States should urge the Government of Turkey to undertake additional steps aimed at improving its human rights record, including abolishing Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law, Article 312 of the Penal Code, and other statues which violate the principle of freedom of expression and ensuring full respect for the civil, political, and cultural rights of members of national minorities, including ethnic Kurds. Regrettably, there has been no improvement in Turkey's implementation of OSCE human rights commitments in the eight months since our original letter to the Department. Despite a number of changes in Turkish law, the fact of the matter is that even these modest proposals have not translated into improved human rights in Turkey. Ankara's flagrant violations of OSCE standards and norms continues and the problems raised by the United States Delegation to the OSCE Review Meeting last November persist. Expert witnesses at a recent Commission briefing underscored the continued, well-documented, and widespread use of torture by Turkish security forces and the failure of the Government of Turkey to take determined action to correct such gross violations of OSCE provisions and international humanitarian law. Even the much heralded reduction of periods for the detention of those accused of certain crimes has failed to deter the use of torture. The fact is that this change on paper is commonly circumvented by the authorities. As one U.S. official in Turkey observed in discussion with Commission staff, a person will be held in incommunicado detention for days, then the prisoner's name will be postdated for purposes of official police logs giving the appearance that the person has been held within the period provided for under the revised law. Turkish authorities also continue to persecute those who attempt to assist the victims of torture, as in the case of Dr. Tufan Kose. Despite revisions in the anti-Terror Law, its provision continue to be broadly used against writers, journalists, publishers, politicians, musicians, and students. Increasingly, prosecutors have applied Article 312 of the Criminal Code, which forbids ``incitement to racial or ethnic enmity.'' Government agents continue to harass human rights monitors. According to a recent report issued by the Committee to Protect Journalists, 78 journalists were in jail in Turkey at the beginning of 1997--more than in any other country in the world. Many human rights abuses have been targeted at Kurds who publicly or politically assert their Kurdish identity. The Kurdish Cultural and Research Foundation offices in Istanbul were closed by police in June to prevent the teaching of Kurdish language classes. In addition, four former parliamentarians from the now banned Kurdish-based Democracy Party (DEP): Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan, and Selim Sadak, who have completed three years of their 15-year sentences, remain imprisoned at Ankara's Ulucanlar Prison. Among the actions cited in Leyla Zana's indictment was her appearance before the Helsinki Commission. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights has expressed concern over the case of human rights lawyer Hasan Dogan, a member of the People's Democracy Party (HADEP), who, like many members of the party, has been subject to detention and prosecution. The Government of Turkey has similarly pursued an aggressive campaign of harassment of non-governmental organizations, including the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey and the Human Rights Association. An Association forum on capital punishment was banned in early May as was a peace conference sponsored by international and Turkish NGOs. Human Rights Association branch offices in Diyarbakir, Malatya, Izmir, Konya, and Urga has been raided and closed. As the Department's own report on human rights practices in Turkey recently concluded, Ankara ``was unable to sustain improvements made in 1995 and, as a result, its record was uneven in 1996 and deteriorated in some respects.'' While Turkish civilian authorities remain publicly committed to the establishment of a rule of law state and respect for human rights, torture, excessive use of force, and other serious human rights abuses by the security forces continue. It is most unfortunate that Turkey's leaders, including President Demirel--who originally signed the 1975 Helsinki Final Act on behalf of Turkey--have not been able to effectively address long-standing human rights concerns. Madam Secretary, the privilege and prestige of hosting such an OSCE event should be reserved for participating States that have demonstrated their support for Helsinki principles and standards--particularly respect for human rights--in both word and in deed. Turkey should not be allowed to serve as host of such a meeting given that country's dismal human rights record. While some may argue that allowing Turkey to host an OSCE summit meeting might provide political impetus for positive change, we are not convinced, particularly in light of the failure of the Turkish Government to improve the human rights situation in the eight months since it proposed to host the next OSCE summit. We note that several high-level conferences have been held in Turkey without any appreciable impact on that country's human rights policies or practices. Promises of improved human rights alone should not suffice. Turkey's desire to host an OSCE summit must be matched by concrete steps to improve its dismal human rights record. We appreciate your consideration of our views on this important matter and look forward to receiving your reply. Sincerely, Christopher H. Smith, Co-Chairman. Alfonse D'Amato, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to restore Medicare coverage for ultrasonic nebulizers-- medical devices used to treat patients with severe asthma, cystic fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], and other respiratory diseases. In April 1997, the Durable Medical Equipment Carriers [DMERC's], under the authority of the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA], made a significant change in Medicare reimbursement policy that will put senior citizens and disabled persons with respiratory illnesses at serious risk. My legislation is very simple. It restores Medicare coverage for ultrasonic nebulizers to the same terms and conditions that existed prior to this change. The device in question uses ultrasonic sound waves to turn medicine into a fine mist that is inhaled by the patient into the lungs. Ultrasonic nebulizers are extremely efficient at delivering medication where it is needed--the lungs--and in the optimum particle sizes. Without any clinical justification and without any public notice or comment, the DMERC's have either eliminated Medicare coverage for ultrasonic nebulizers entirely, or reduced reimbursement rates so drastically that suppliers will no longer provide them. The DMERC's decision was made despite the fact that ultrasonic nebulizers have been considered safe, effective, and medically necessary for years, and notwithstanding a large body of evidence that ultrasonic nebulizers are more efficient at delivering medication than the most similar alternative, the jet nebulizer or pneumatic compressor. Furthermore, beneficiaries are being forced to switch to a metered- dose inhaler [MDI], which is not covered by Medicare. This has led to a significant increase in the out-of-pocket-costs of Medicare beneficiaries. I am particularly concerned that the additional costs borne by senior citizens may cause some to forego needed treatments--an outcome which could put their lives in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the increased costs to seniors, the lack of openness and public accountability, the new ``one-size fits all'' Medicare respiratory care policy is downright dangerous. While metered- dose inhalers [MDI's] are wonderful devices, they are not the appropriate therapy for every person. Indeed, a number of well-controlled studies suggests that up to 50 percent of senior citizens do not use MDI's properly--even after repeated instruction. What these studies imply is that if HCFA does not reverse the decision of the DMERC's and restore Medicare coverage for ultrasonic nebulizers, there will be seniors, forced to switch to MDI's, who could require hospitalization because they cannot use their MDI properly. Asthma and cystic fibrosis are not diseases to be taken lightly--if a person does not have the proper medicine, they can die. It is that simple. In fact, of the nearly 5,000 people who die every year from asthma, most deaths resulted from patients who failed to take their medication. For those with severe arthritis or poor hand-eye coordination, they cannot use an MDI at all. They will be the real victims of the new HCFA/DMERC policy on ultrasonic nebulizers. The HCFA/DMERC decision to deny ultrasonic nebulizer coverage is a clear case of a policy that is ``penny wise and pound foolish.'' If a single inpatient hospital admission results from improper MDI usage, it will cost Medicare tens of thousands of dollars in increased costs. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the impact on seniors if the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is allowed to begin banning metered-dose inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbons [CFC's], as they proposed on March 6, 1997. If HCFA removes coverage for ultrasonic nebulizers, forcing seniors to use metered-dose inhalers, and FDA in turn removes most metered-dose inhalers from the market, seniors will be left with a dramatically reduced range of therapeutic options at significantly higher prices. This outcome is completely unacceptable, and that is why my good friend and colleague from Florida, Mr. Cliff Stearns, and I have joined in introducing the Senior Citizen Respiratory Care Act of 1997. Congress must act soon to reverse HCFA's ``stealth'' coverage change, and restore Medicare reimbursement to devices which are safe and effective therapeutic options for seniors with serious respiratory illnesses.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, abortion is violence against children. The partial-birth method is an extraordinarily heinous manifestation of this violence. Today those who kill babies by jamming scissors in a baby's skull followed by insertion of a hose to suck out their brains have an unfettered license to kill. Nurse Brenda Pratt Schaffer, who worked with the infamous Dr. Haskell, described the end of the life of one 6-month-old in this way, and I quote: ``The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. I almost threw up,'' she said, ``as I watched him do these things.'' To mitigate this cruelty, Mr. Speaker, this cruelty to children, some States, about 15, have already enacted partial-birth bans into law but litigation has mostly precluded enforcement. Other States are considering such a ban. And in Florida, Missouri, and my own State of New Jersey, where at least 1,500 of these partial-birth abortions are done each year in northern New Jersey alone, the bills were sadly vetoed by our Governors. Mr. Speaker, the United States needs a national law to ban this violence against kids. Today we can do that. Today we can revoke the license to kill babies in this fashion and protect at least some kids from this kiddie holocaust called abortion on demand. If the President vetoes the bill, he and he alone empowers abortionists to murder kids in this hideous way. Let's not forget, Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the pro-abortion movement has been savvy in masking the violence and cruelty to baby girls and boys killed by abortion in general and this method in particular. But they have been exposed once again and by one of their own. Members please recall that Ron Fitzsimmons, the ex-director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, has publicly confessed that he ``lied through (his) teeth'' when he told a TV interviewer, according to the New York Times, that partial-birth abortion was ``used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.'' According to the AMA News and the New York Times, Mr. Fitzsimmons now says that his party line defense of this method of abortion was a deliberate lie--and that in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. Most in the media believed and amplified as true the falsehoods and lies put out by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the ACLU, NARAL, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, NOW, the National Republican Coalition for Choice, People for the American Way, Population Action International, Zero Population Growth [ZPG], to name a few signers of an October 25, 1995 letter to Members of Congress which stated: This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer than 500 per year. It is most often performed in the case of wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong, when a family learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies or a medical condition that threatens the pregnant woman's life or health. These groups lied to us. And it's not the first time these groups have lied to us. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and a founder of NARAL has said lying and junk science are commonplace in the pro-abortion movement. It is the way they sell abortion to a gullible public. Dr. Nathanson said that in the early days, they absolutely lied about the number of illegal abortions; today, he says they lie about the link of abortion and breast cancer--there is a link; and they lie about the safety of abortion. And of course, the big lie on partial- birth abortion has been exposed. The procedure is not rare--it is common--and it is used with devastating consequences on perfectly healthy mothers and babies. In the debate on partial-birth abortion last year, remember the big lie about how anesthesia kills the baby? That falsehood was exposed by the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. Norig Ellison, who explained before the Senate Judiciary Committee: I believe this . . . to be entirely inaccurate. I am deeply concerned, moreover, that the widespread publicity given to Dr. McMahon's testimony may cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps life-saving medical procedures, totally unrelated to the birthing process, due to misinformation regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus. . . .

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the Callahan motion. Just let me take a moment to digress. Some of the leading appropriators in this House never lose the opportunity to admonish and even scold the rest of us and to tell us to look elsewhere when offering terms and conditions on policy. The appropriators just do the money, or so the thinking goes; the authorizers do policy. All of that sounds neat and tidy, a true division of labor. But appropriations bills are stuffed to the hilt with policy. It may be useful to note that in years past, this ``not on my appropriations bill'' approach has been invoked in attempts to deter the offering of pro-life amendments or, once adopted, to try to strip out the pro-life language on appropriations bills, including the Hyde amendment on the health and human services bill. The notion of ``do it on the authorizing bill'' has surface appeal. But had pro-lifers heeded that advice, the overwhelming majority of pro-life riders would never have become law, including the Hyde amendment, including the bans on taxpayer funding for abortion under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I first offered that back in 1983, and everybody was telling me, ``Do not do it on the appropriations bill,'' the D.C. appropriations bill, the Federal prisons ban, and other riders. If pro-lifers had bought into that line, the U.S. Government today would be paying for abortion on demand in most of the programs that we subsidize. In the real world, appropriators are more equal, more essential, if you will, than the rest of us. In the end, their bills must pass, even if those bills are rolled into an omnibus bill or a CR. Authorizers, especially on the Committee on International Relations, are doubly disadvantaged. First, we bring relatively unpopular bills to the floor, and who here has constituents who are clamoring for more foreign aid? And, second, appropriators often render our work product moot or redundant or superfluous by simply waiving the need for an authorization bill. The simple fact of the matter is that the White House, be it Democrat or Republican, knows this and needs only to wait until the eleventh hour for the appropriators to waive authorization. The real world consequence of this waiver-of-authorization drill is to closely undermine Members on the authorizing committees in negotiations with the administration on tough issues like population and abortion. The administration calculates, and I believe wrongly this time, that they can get a better deal by pushing the process to the zero hour, which is why we offered the pro-life Mexico City policy to both the foreign operations bill and the State Department authorization bill, which I would remind my colleagues is the bill that I wrote. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the State bill, not the reorganization, which was the part of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and not some of the other policy considerations, but the State Department bill is my bill, and I chair the subcommittee that oversees it. We put it on that bill and we also put it on the foreign operations bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], as everyone knows, moved yesterday to instruct the conferees to retain the Mexico City and will hopefully do the same today on the authorizing bill. This year, the majority of us in the House who recognize the fact that abortion is violence against babies will not give in, nor will we accept bogus compromises like metering, or counterfeits like the Gilman-Pelosi amendment. This year we will simply not allow the approximately $400 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to enrich those who dismember and chemically poison unborn children. Abortion is violence against children. Abortion is child abuse, and this year we are prepared to zero out U.N. arrearage payments, cut foreign aid and take any action necessary to ensure that the Hyde amendment for foreign aid, which is the Mexico City policy, is enacted. Yesterday's vote to instruct conferees to insist on the Mexico City policy was no frivolous vote. We simply will not cave, not now, not next week, not the week after, or ever, because millions of children and the well-being of their mothers are at stake. I can assure the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] that as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, I will fight any effort to bring the State bill back to the floor without the Mexico City policy. If through some means, and I do not think one exists, my bill lands on the floor without the Mexico City policy, I give my colleagues my vow, I will lead the fight against my own bill on the floor of this House. I can only ask the same of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] on foreign operations. I urge support on the Callahan motion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the complaints that we have been getting are very much like what the gentleman is talking about. If people called my office and the gentleman's office and other Members' offices seeking basic information about that case that we have under consideration with the IRS or any other Federal bureaucracy, it would be absurd to charge them for that phone call, and that is what this is all about. And let me reiterate again to the Members that the $65 for the passport more than covers. There is a profit there for the State Department, regrettably; it ought to be lower, it should accommodate what does the service cost, and then that is what the cost should be. So this amendment seeks to do what the IRS and nobody else could even think of doing; that is, having a 900 number to give basic information. We are in the service business. We ought to enhance that service, and an 800 number would do that job, and that is what we are hoping will come out of this.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is very simple. It is intended to stop the State Department from charging Americans twice for the same service. The State Department has begun charging, as I think many of my colleagues know now, U.S. citizens $1.05 per minute for information about their U.S. passports. In order to get this information, they must call a 900 number that is run by a for-profit corporation. Americans who have already paid a $65 passport fee are now required to pay for information that used to be available for free. Something, it seems to me, is very wrong with this picture, especially because passport applicants are already paying for more passport services than they are receiving. Let us face it, whether we think it is deserved or not, 900 telephone numbers carry certain connotations with the American public, from the racy to the ridiculous. That forum should not be used to sell information that should already belong to the American people. Mr. Chairman, the idea behind a user fee such as the passport fee is that we are paying for what it actually costs the Government to provide us that service. The user fees should not be used for a profit engine, and passport applicants are supposed to get what they pay for. But the $65 fee that U.S. citizens pay up front for passport processing already more than covers the cost of passport services that they receive from the State Department. A while back, the Department conducted a fee study to justify the latest increase in the passport fee to $65. But the study, in fact, did not justify that amount. The Department did its best to attribute every possible cost to passport users. It even went so far to factor in the proportional cost of U.S. overseas consular services which might be used by American travelers. But even then, the total was nothing close to $65. The Department has been at a loss to know what to do in response to that finding, so they have not released it to the public. Let me say again, this is a kind of double taxation. We have had numerous complaints in my State, particularly in my counties of Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer, and Burlington. As a matter of fact, the county clerk in Ocean County was the one who brought this to my attention some time ago. So this is in response to that criticism of the people from those counties.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment. Let me say clearly, the effective date is open to movement, and the date of enactment does not have to be necessarily the effective date, so that there is a transition. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of my good friend from Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the goals of the Bartlett amendment. I believe the United Nations has strayed too far and too often from its original purposes. It is too big, it spends too much, and many of its programs and specialized agencies truly are out of control. And, yes, we Americans have been paying far more than our fair share of U.N. expenses. This situation clearly needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed now. Mr. Chairman, the way to fix this program is to guarantee that not a penny will be spent to settle the dispute over U.N. arrearages until and unless the problems are fixed to the satisfaction of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment by my good friend from Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the goals of the Bartlett amendment. I believe the United Nations has strayed too far and too often from its original purposes. It is too big. It spends too much. Many of its programs and specialized agencies are out of control. Some of these programs do far more harm than good--such as the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] activities in support of the Chinese Government's coercive population control system, and other programs that come down against innocent human life, against the traditional family, against the values of most Americans and against the values of the moderate and conservative majorities in almost every country in the world. And, yes, we Americans have been paying far more than our fair share of U.N. expenses. This situation needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed now. Mr. Chairman, the way to fix this problem is to guarantee that not a penny will be spent to settle the dispute over U.N. arrearages until and unless the problems are fixed to the satisfaction of Congress. Unfortunately, the pending amendment provides no such guarantee. The bill as written, however, goes a long way toward doing so. It provides that none of the U.N. money can be spent without authorization by Congress. And when we bring back a conference report on the Foreign Relations authorization bill, it will condition any resolution of the arrearages issue not only on reimbursement of future U.S. expenses in support of peacekeeping, but also on a reduction in U.S. dues--which are currently at an outrageous 25 percent--on reduction in the size of the U.N. bureaucracy, and on getting both the United Nations and the United States out of international programs that threaten traditional values and innocent human life. If we can't get those conditions, we will not bring back a conference report, and not a penny will be spent on these arrearages. If the conference report on the authorization bill does not contain these strict conditions--if it does not genuinely reform the United Nations, save billions of dollars for U.S. taxpayers by solving the reimbursement problem and requiring other nations to pay their fair share, and get the United Nations and the United States out of programs that are destructive of traditional values and innocent human life-- then I will urge my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage briefly in a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]. The bill, as currently written, would not authorize a single penny to be spent for U.N. arrearages unless Congress passes an authorization bill. I would like to ask the gentleman whether it is his firm intention to insist that the House and Senate conference on this bill not waive the authorization requirement for U.N. arrearages?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for those assurances. Based on those, I would oppose the pending amendment, because I know the gentleman will stand firm in his determination not to waive the authorization requirement, and then we can bring back a genuine reform package that addresses not only the problems addressed by the Bartlett amendment, but a whole range of systemic problems with the U.N. and other international programs whose cost that are not only measured in millions of dollars, but millions of human lives.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly to the gentlewoman from California, she talked about being doomed to poverty, and of course we all need to fight against poverty and do whatever we can. But it seems to me that when we doom an unborn child to a horrific killing of chemical poisoning or dismemberment of that child, no matter how that is sanitized by the pro-abortion crowd, that is a very, very sleazy, terrible thing; and that is not inflammatory, that is the truth. Read some of the text books and the descriptions given by the abortionists themselves. That is just a simple fact of what happens. Let us not hide from the reality and the truth of what abortion is.