Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for again renewing current law to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion on demand in Federal prisons. And so I rise in very strong opposition to the Norton amendment which would strip this prolife provision out of the bill and thus authorize public funding for abortion on demand. It is worth noting that in 1995, the House considered this issue and voted 281-146 to defeat the Norton amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote again today. Mr. Chairman, it is about time that we face the fact that abortion is violence against children. It is hard enough that this child abuse is legal and that each and every day boys and girls are slaughtered by the abortionists, but do not force us to pay for it. Abortion methods are violent acts. It is violence against children. Abortion methods are not designed to heal, but to kill. Abortion treats pregnancy like a disease to be vanquished and turns babies into objects, expendable, throwaways, so much junk. It has been pointed out that many women are incarcerated because of drug offenses. The logic of that argument is that the children of these women are somehow better off dead. All I can say is that is a very cynical view. Since when is being a victim of drug abuse a capital offense? Should children be brutally killed for the crimes of their parents or because they might have been injured by those crimes? Of course not. Mr. Chairman, in our culture, abortionists sport white coats and a paper-thin facade of respectability, but the gut-wrenching reality is that abortionists dismember and poison babies for profit. They inject highly concentrated salt water and other poisons into the baby that lead to a very slow and painful death for those children. Abortionists routinely dismember children. They cut off their heads. They cut off their arms and legs. That is the reality. People can smirk and smile and think that that is not what happens, but that is what happens in an abortion. A few days ago, Dr. Nathanson showed a film of a suction abortion. He is a former abortionist who did thousands of them. He showed this film, a laparoscopy caught on videotape, a baby being dismembered literally limb by limb. That is the ugly reality that so often is sanitized by the rhetoric of choice. Abortion, Mr. Chairman, is violence against children. A few days ago, the world noted, Mr. Chairman, and many of us mourned, the passing of a woman of very deep compassion and love, Mother Teresa. I think many also remember that at the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast, Mother Teresa addressed thousands of people who were assembled, including President Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore. Few could listen to Mother Teresa and not be moved to believe that in this small, frail, humble woman there stood a very powerful messenger to directly speak to a President and Nation that had lost its moral compass. Mother Teresa said, and I quote, ``Please don't kill the child. I want the child,'' she went on to say. ``We are fighting abortion with adoption, by care of the mother and adoption of the baby.'' Mother Teresa further stated, and I quote, ``The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child.'' She then urged all Americans and diplomats who were assembled to more fully understand the linkage of abortion with other forms of violence. She said, and I quote, ``Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of peace and love is abortion.'' Mr. Chairman, the children of incarcerated women are of no less value than any other children. No child anywhere at any time, including unborn kids, is a throwaway. Being unwanted does not make you less human. It does not allow others to turn you into an object that could be killed with poison shots or by dismemberment of your body. The children of the incarcerated women are precious, and they deserve our love and respect; again, not dismemberment and poison shots. I urge Members of this body to vote ``no'' for taxpayer funding for abortion, to vote ``no'' on the Norton amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for his very humane and courageous leadership in ensuring that the legislation before the body today does not have an authorization to provide money to pay for abortion. The Livingston amendment, which is a continuous effort that has been made over the years going back to the early 1980's when I first offered this amendment to the Treasury-Postal bill, ensures that taxpayers and premium payers do not subsidize abortion on demand, and that is what the issue is before us today. Let me make it very clear that taxpayers pay into this program approximately 73 percent of the total funding for our health insurance. The premium payers, and that is all of us, myself included, and my other colleagues, we pay the remaining 27 percent. But the major share, three-fourths of the money that goes into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program comes from the U.S. taxpayers, and they have shown consistently in every poll that they do not want to pay for abortions on demand. The Hyde amendment and the vote that we had last week, one of the high water marks in terms of the votes that were garnered for the Hyde amendment, make it very clear that even people who take the other side of this issue recognize that there are many of us who conscientiously believe we should have no complicity in the killing or the maiming of unborn children. Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, and this does afford us this opportunity, that when we talk about abortion, we very often sanitize it. We try to treat it euphemistically. Some people always like to refer to it as choice, but the bottom line is abortion is violence against children. It takes the life of a baby whether it be by dismembering that unborn child or by injecting poisons like salt poison into the baby's amniotic sac, which kills the baby in a very slow and a very painful way. As we saw earlier in this session, Mr. Chairman, there are other hideous methods of abortion as well, like the partial-birth abortion. Yes, it was banned by the House and by the Senate. The legislation has not yet gone to the White House, but that, too, could be paid for under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program if we do not have this language contained within it. Let me also point out to my colleagues that the language in the bill makes exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, but the majority of the abortions, the majority of those children who otherwise would have their lives snuffed out and subsidized by this body and by the premium payers, would not happen if this language stays in the bill. I urge Members to vote against this amendment that has been offered. It would subsidize abortion on demand, no doubt about that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just so the body is very clear that we are voting on whether or not to permit abortion on demand in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Committee on Appropriations wisely included language that would preclude the use of funds under the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan for that, and just to remind Members that just under three-fourths of all of the funding that goes into that health plan comes from the taxpayers, and roughly a quarter of that comes from the premium payers, which, again, is us as well. For that reason, this is a publicly funded abortion scheme. Just to follow up to what my friend from Maryland said a moment ago, it really is up to the Congress to set it. This is not a collective bargaining issue, and it is up to the Congress to establish the parameters of what this program will look like. That is in the statute. There is nothing out of the ordinary with regards to what we are doing here today. Let me also remind Members that this pro-life rider was in effect from 1984 to 1993, and it has also been in effect for the last two years. It has already passed in the other body, and my hope is it will continue so we have no complicity in the killing of unborn children. I urge a no vote on the amendment Lowey-Hoyer-Morella amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, when large companies merge or downsize, it is often the older workers and long-time employees that bear the brunt of the job insecurity and downsizing that follows. When the corporate cost-cutters start scouring each department for cost savings, the most experienced workers often feel as though they have a bulls eye on their chest. While every lay-off is a painful and unpleasant experience, older workers often find themselves in a unique ``catch-22'' situation: they are to young to comfortably retire, and too old for most companies to retrain. Many firms are understandably hesitant to retrain displaced older workers because the company may fear it will not be able to recoup their investment before the worker retires. Yet clearly, in this global economy, displaced older workers in labor-intensive and ``smokestack'' industries negatively affected by trade agreements need to be retrained for jobs in other economic sectors. For example, when layoffs are concentrated in a particular industry, such as the defense industry, displaced older workers with specialized skills and knowledge have a difficult time finding comparable employment without retraining because the demand for their existing skills is low. Mr. Speaker, data I have obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] confirms what most Americans already know--older, displaced workers face very difficult challenges when seeking new employment. For instance, in comparison with younger workers, older workers, those age 50 and above, have a higher unemployment rate--17 percent versus 12 percent--drop out of the labor force at higher rates after a lay-off--39 percent vs. 10 percent--suffer a longer period of unemployment between jobs--27.3 median weeks vs. 11.6 median weeks--and on average, take a 29.6 percent pay-cut in their median weekly earnings after they do finally secure a new job. The current Tax Code compounds the problem by including severance payments made in connection with a lay-off or work force reduction as taxable income, even though this income is nonrecurring. This makes a displaced worker look suddenly wealthy on paper, pushing their family into a higher tax bracket. As a result, the current Tax Code actually taxes the severance payments of the most senior workers in a firm at the highest marginal rate, since the value of a severance package is usually derived from one's length of service to the firm. Here is where the Tax Code is at its most heartless to displaced older workers, since those having the most difficult time finding another job are simultaneously being hit with the highest taxes on the severance payments they receive. Mr. Speaker, to remedy this unfairness, and to provide a measure of assistance for older workers facing a particularly difficult situation, I am introducing the Career Transition Assistance Act of 1997, which will provide much needed tax relief in two critical areas. First, my bill will allow employees who are offered severance pay packages by their employers to exclude the first $15,000 from their taxable income. No longer will the Tax Code punish displaced workers by taxing their misfortune. This income exclusion could be taken by the employee regardless of whether the reduction in force was voluntary or involuntary In addition, if an employer's severance benefit provides for payments for up to 3 years from the date of separation, my legislation would allow the employee the flexibility to elect to exclude all or some of the severance payment from their income for the 3 year period, up to the $15,000 limit. Second, the legislation will provide a $2,000 refundable tax credit for retraining expenses incurred after a lay-off. This tax credit is in keeping with the common-sense principle that families and individuals know their retraining needs better than government-run retraining programs. To ensure that this tax relief is available to middle class families, jointly filing couples with incomes of up to $100,000, and single persons with incomes up to $75,000, would qualify under my legislation for the full $2,000 tax credit. The value of the credit is gradually phased out for persons earning higher amounts. While I believe Congress should continue to reform and reduce red- tape in our Nation's patch-work of retraining programs, it is important to protect workers from slipping through the cracks of these programs' widely varying eligibility criteria. This legislation will go a long way toward improving the efficiency of our Nation's labor markets, and I call on Members on both sides of the aisle to lend their support for this effort. Severance payments are designed to provide a financial cushion to help pad the blow of a work force reduction. When the Tax Code adds insult to injury by subjecting these families to a higher tax liability, it is clearly time to correct this insidious consequence.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for his leadership in bringing this very important resolution to the floor, and especially thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for those very eloquent remarks spoken a moment ago in remembering Mother Teresa. Mr. Speaker, as I think we all know, in Matthew's Gospel, the 25th chapter, in speaking about the Last Judgment, Jesus said: When the Son of Man comes in His glory, escorted by all the angels of heaven, He will sit upon His royal throne and all the nations will be assembled before Him. Then He will separate them into two groups, as a shepherd separates sheep from the goats. The sheep He will place on His right hand, the goats on his left. The King will say to those on the right, come, you have My Father's blessing! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me; naked and you clothed me. I was ill and you comforted me, in prison and you came to visit me. Then the just will ask him: ``Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or see you thirsty and give you drink? When did we welcome you away from home or clothe you in your nakedness? When did we visit you when you were ill or in prison?'' The King will answer them, ``I assure you, as often as you did it for the least of my brethren, you did it for me.'' As we all know, Mr. Speaker, Mother Teresa took these words from our Lord, Jesus Christ, literally, in pouring out her heart and her soul for the least of our brethren. Mother Teresa saw the downtrodden and the disenfranchised as Christ himself, and she believed that every act of mercy toward those less fortunate was for the Lord. That is why she clothed, fed, and housed the sick and dying around the world. That is why she loved what the world considered to be the unlovable. That is why Mother Teresa was the most outspoken woman in the world in the defense of unborn children. Mr. Speaker, at the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast, Mother Teresa addressed thousands of political leaders, including President Bill Clinton, Vice President Gore, and their wives. Few could listen to Mother Teresa and not be moved to believe that in this very small, frail, humble woman, there stood a powerful messenger, a prophetess, sent by God, to directly speak to a President and a Nation, and, yes, a world that had lost its moral compass. She said, ``Please don't kill the child,'' she admonished all those assembled, and looked directly at the President of the United States and said, ``I want the child. We are fighting abortion with adoption, by care of the mother and adoption of the baby.'' Mother Teresa stated, ``The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child.'' She then urged all Americans and diplomats to more fully understand the linkage of abortion with other forms of violence, and she said, ``Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want.'' ``That is why,'' to continue the quote, ``the greatest destroyer of peace and love is abortion.'' Unfortunately, there are those, and this is usually behind closed doors, but there are many who have ridiculed Mother Teresa for doing what is right. Sometimes it comes to the surface. It especially came to the surface after she received her Nobel Peace Prize and spoke so eloquently in defense of the unborn. I will never forget reading a particular attack against Mother Teresa by William Hamilton, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, one of their top leaders, and he said, and I do not think we should put this under the table, because this is all part of the record. Mr. Hamilton said on behalf of Planned Parenthood: Spare us the preachings of Mother Teresa against abortion and the advancement of women. Allow us to cling to the romantic notion of a tiny 74-year-old woman doing good work in the slums of Calcutta, and not think about the destructive views that she represents. According to Mr. Hamilton and Planned Parenthood, Mother Teresa's belief that abortion kills children and is anti-child, her belief that every child is precious and sacred and made in the image and likeness of God, is somehow destructive. Some can smirk when you say that, but that is what she would say. We need to defend these little innocent children. As I am sure Mother Teresa would agree, it is Planned Parenthood's agenda of aborting over 230,000 little babies in this country every year, and countless more abroad, that is what is destructive. Upon receiving her Nobel peace prize in 1979, Mother Teresa characterized abortion as the worst evil in the world because of its violence. Undoubtedly, Mother Teresa's defense of the right to life of every human being, whether it is the child yet to be born, or the life of the poor whom she met in the streets of Calcutta, Rome, or anywhere else in the world, kept her focus on the work which she was chosen for by God. I think by now we all know by way of background that Mother Teresa was born one of three children of an Albanian builder on August 27, 1910, in Macedonia. At the age of 18, she joined the Loreto Sisters, and soon thereafter, on January 6, 1929, arrived in Calcutta, India, to teach at a school for girls. On September 10, 1946, on a train ride to Darjeeling, where she was to go on retreat to recover from a suspected bout of tuberculosis, she received her calling from God to care for the sick and the dying, the hungry, the naked, the unborn, and the homeless, to be God's love in action. And that was the beginning of the Missionaries of Charity. In 1952, Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity began the work for which they have been noted ever since, opening the first Home for the Dying in the city of Calcutta. The Missionaries of Charity grew from 12 to thousands, reported to be over 5,000 nuns by 1997, in over 450 centers being run around the world. Mother Teresa created many homes for the dying and unwanted, from Calcutta, to New York, to Albania. She is one of the pioneers of establishing homes for AIDS victims, and for more than 45 years she has comforted the poor, the unwanted, especially speaking out on behalf of babies yet unborn. In closing, as we continue to fight for, and this is a worldwide struggle, the plight of the so-called throwaways, the unwanted, the unborn, the poor, the dying, those who are ``inconvenient'' and others in the world's needy, the words of Mother Teresa should ring in our ears. She said, ``At the end of our lives we will not be judged by how many diplomas we received, how much money we made, or how many great things we may have done or think we have done. We will be judged by 'I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was naked and you clothed me, I was homeless and you took me in,' our Lord's words. ``Hungry, not only for bread, but hungry for love. Naked, not only for clothing, but naked for human dignity and respect. Homeless, not only for the want of a row of bricks, but homeless because of rejection.'' Mr. Speaker, this resolution puts us on record and says that we care about this great woman, and, hopefully, her words, her life, will enlighten all of us as we go about the people's business in this body. Mr. Speaker, in a parable about the Last Judgment, as recorded in the 25th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus said: When the Son of Man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels of heaven, he will sit upon his royal throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. Then he will separate them into two groups, as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. The sheep he will place on his right hand, the goats on his left. The king will say to those on his right: ``Come. You have my Father's blessing! Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me. I was ill and you comforted me, in prison and you came to visit me.'' Then the just will ask him: ``Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or see you thirsty and give you drink? When did we welcome you away from home or clothe you in your nakedness? When did we visit you when you were ill or in prison?'' The king will answer them: ``I assure you, as often as you did it for the least of my brethren, you did it for me.'' As we all know, Mother Teresa took these words from Our Lord Jesus Christ literally in pouring out her heart and soul for the ``least of our brethren.'' Mother Teresa saw the downtrodden and disenfranchised as Christ Himself and she believed that every act of mercy toward those less fortunate was for the Lord. That's why she clothed, fed, and housed the sick and dying around the world. That's why she loved what the world considered the unlovable. That's why Mother Teresa was outspoken in her defense of unborn children. At the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast, Mother Teresa addressed thousands of political leaders, including President Bill Clinton, Vice President Gore, and their wives. Few could listen to Mother Teresa and not be moved to believe that--in this small, frail, humble woman--there stood a powerful messenger, a prophetess, sent by God, to directly speak to a President and nation that lost its moral compass. ``Please don't kill the child,'' Mother Teresa admonished, looking directly at the President of the United States. ``I want the child,'' she went on to say, looking directly at the abortion President. ``. . . We are fighting abortion with adoption, by care of the mother and adoption of the baby . . .'' Mother Teresa further stated that ``the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child . . .'' She then urged all Americans and diplomats to more fully understand the linkage of abortion with other forms of violence: ``Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.'' Unfortunately, there are those who could only ridicule and demean Mother Teresa for doing what is right. I will never forget reading the attack on Mother Teresa by William W. Hamilton, Jr. of Planned Parenthood Federation America in 1985. (Washington Post, June 29, 1985, p. A21). The top Planned Parenthood official stated: . . . [S]pare us the preachings of Mother Teresa against abortion and the advancement of women. . . . Allow us to cling to the romantic notion of a tiny, (woman) . . . doing good work in the slums in Calcutta and not think about the destructive views she represents. According to Mr. Hamilton and Planned Parenthood, Mother Teresa's belief that abortion kills children and is antichild and that children are precious, sacred, and made in the image and likeness of God, is somehow--destructive. As I am sure Mother Teresa would agree, it is Planned Parenthood's agenda of aborting over 230,000 children a year in the United States alone and countless move abroad which is destructive. Upon receiving her Noble Peace Prize in 1979 Mother Teresa did what was probably incorrect and characterized abortion as the worst evil in the world. Undoubtedly, Mother Teresa's defense of the right to life for every human being--whether the life of a child yet to be born or the life of the poor whom she met in the streets of Calcutta, Rome, or anywhere else in the world--kept her focused on the work which was chosen for by God. Mother Teresa was born Agnes Gonxa Bojaxhiu, the youngest of three children of an Albanian builder, on August 27, 1910 in Skopje, Macedonia. At the age of 18, she joined the Loretto Sisters and soon after, on January 6, 1929, arrived in Calcutta, India, to teach at a school for girls. On September 10, 1946, on a train ride to Darjeeling where she was to go on retreat to recover from suspected tuberculosis, Mother Teresa received her calling from God to care for the sick and the dying, the hungry, the naked, the unborn, the homelss--to be God's Love in action to the poorest of the poor. That was the beginning of the Missionaries of Charity. In 1952 Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity began the work for which they have been noted ever since, opening the first Home for the Dying in the City of Calcutta. The Missionaries of Charity grew from 12 to thousands--reported to be over 5,000 nuns in 1997--in over 450 centers being run in 125 countries. Mother Teresa created many homes for the dying and unwanted from Calcutta to New York to Albania, She was one of the pioneers of establishing homes for AIDS victims. For more than 45 years, Mother Teresa comforted the poor, the dying, and the so called unwanted around the world. In closing, as we continue to consider the plight of the unborn, the poor, the dying, and the world's needy, these words of Mother Teresa should remain in the forefront of our minds: At the end of our lives, we will not be judged by how many diplomas we have received, how much money we have made or how many great things we have done. We will be judged by ``I was hungry and you gave me to eat. I was naked and you clothed me. I was homeless and you took me in.'' Hungry not only for bread--but hungry for love. Naked not only for clothing--but naked for human dignity and respect. Homeless not only for want of a row of bricks--but homeless because of rejection. This is Christ in distressing disguise.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 2264 offered today by my friend and colleague from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth. The amendment will restore the unjustified cut in funding for the Older Americans Act's Congregate Meals Program included in H.R. 2264. As we make the tough choices needed to balance our budget, we cannot forget the needs of our senior citizens, most of whom live on fixed incomes and have limited means. The importance of Congregate Meals for the senior citizens of New Jersey and across this Nation cannot be overstated. In 1996, the Mercer County, New Jersey Office on Aging reported that 1,483 persons received almost 119,839 nutritious meals provided in part under the Older Americans Act. For many of these senior citizens, the meals provided at the 13 senior centers in Mercer County represented their main meal for the day. There is abundant evidence that senior citizens who live on their own suffer from poor nutrition and depression, and the Congregate Meals Program is critical to keeping people healthy and out of expensive long-term care institutions. Equally important is the fact that Congregate Meals often form the nucleus of senior citizen outreach efforts. The meals are social events by which seniors are connected with other critical services. The Mercer County Office on Aging informs me that the Congregate Meals Program serves to draw in senor citizens to their 13 senior centers. A senior who arrives at the center to eat a nutritious meal will also improve their social skills and learn about other services and opportunities. The situation is much the same in Ocean County as well. I have received word from Phil Rubenstein, executive director of the Ocean County Office of Senior Services, that tomorrow approximately 600 individuals will eat a meal and enjoy the company of others at a Congregate nutrition site. Unless the cuts in this important program are restored, senior citizens centers across this country will have a harder time conducting their outreach efforts, and seniors will suffer from reduced opportunities to receive other important services as well. In conclusion, cutting Congregate Meals is extremely shortsighted and will only serve to undermine the effectiveness of an array of senior citizen services provided under the Older Americans Act. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Chenoweth amendment to H.R. 2264.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. First of all, if it does cause inconvenience, that is unfortunate, but saving a child's life from the cruelty of abortion, dismemberment, chemical poisoning is worth inconvenience. I know these votes are inconvenient, but that is just a simple fact of the matter. Let me also point out that during the Reagan and Bush years we provided more than 40 percent of the population control family planning funds going around the world with the Mexico City Policy intact. What we had was contraception, birth control, separated from abortion, and that is all our amendment does. It does not expand or contract the pool of funds available for population planning.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas, [Mr. Hutchinson].

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would hope the gentleman would define it in detail. Let me just say that there is vagueness in the language that is contained before us promoting abortion as a method of family planning. When we look at it, it is not even the worst thing about the so-called perfecting amendment. There is one point that there is no ambiguity about it. If the amendment is adopted, it will absolutely be legal for U.S. family planning grantees and contractors to perform abortions, as many as they like, under whatever circumstances they like overseas. The Mexico City Policy I would remind Members had two important prohibitions to it. First, foreign organizations could not get U.S. family planning money if they performed abortions overseas except in rape, incest, and life of the mother situations. Second, they could not get the money if they promoted abortion overseas, again with the same three exceptions. As I have pointed out, I believe that this amendment that is being offered by my friends on the other side of this issue is vague and it will give the Clinton administration a blank check to do whatever it wants to do in the area of promotion of abortion. But to take out the performance part, which this amendment guts, means that again they can perform abortions for gender selection or for any other reason and still get a fat payday from Uncle Sam. The Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar amendment on the other hand is clear and nonambiguous. The pro-abortion killer amendment injects sweeping vagueness and gives the administration a blank grant of authority to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the overseas abortion industry, which means in the end, Mr. Chairman, more dead babies and more injured mothers. Let us not kid ourselves. The Gilman-Pelosi amendment is a killer amendment and if it were to pass today, and I do not think it will, but if it were I would ask every pro-life Member of this Chamber to vote no on the underlying amendment because I think that is better than adopting a sham. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this perfecting amendment and yes on the underlying amendment. Let us erect that wall of separation between abortion and family planning and then the money can flow unfettered to those organizations that will no longer be in the abortion business.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Chairman, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter signed by my good friends and colleagues the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] came to my attention by a colleague who came this close to being deceived by it. The bold headline read and I quote from the letter, ``Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey-Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter oppose abortion and support voluntary family planning.'' I looked at that headline again and again and thought, that looks just like one of my letters. Did the leading activists in the abortion rights cause, did the seven Members whose abortion advocacy is so extreme that they are opposed even to the partial-birth abortion ban that was before this body recently, had they done an about face and joined the pro-life cause? Are the seven most pro-abortion Members of this House really offering a right-to-life amendment? I mean, that would be truly historic. I do not think so. In judging their amendment, you might for starters afford them the same amount of credibility to offer a right-to-life amendment that you would give to me or to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] or to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] or to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] if we tried to convince you that we were offering a pro-abortion amendment. Somehow you would know that if you really wanted to promote abortion around the world, you should vote against an amendment by some of the most prominent pro-life leaders in the Congress no matter what we decided to call it. It would not pass the straight face test. And you would be right. And if you really want to protect unborn children, you will know enough to vote against this amendment, the so-called amendment offered by my friend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], offered again by some of the most prominent leaders of the abortion rights movement. The ``Dear Colleague'' letter, and I say this with all due respect to its authors, simply does not tell the truth. Perhaps it is unwitting, but do not take my word for it. Look at the language. It says, and I quote, that the ``Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey- Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter amendment prohibits all U.S. funds from being spent on abortion or abortion counseling overseas.'' That is simply not true. Current law does that, but the plain letter of the language that is being offered says nothing of the kind. It was misleading, and at least one Member came to me suggesting that he had been misled by that. Let me also point out, Mr. Chairman, the letter states that the Gilman, Pelosi and company amendment prohibits U.S. family planning assistance from going to foreign NGO's and multilateral organizations that promote abortion as a method of family planning. My question is, would an abortion done for so-called health reasons, such as mental health, be considered or construed as an abortion done as a method of family planning? And of course we all know the answer to that. What about a woman whose birth control method has failed? It is interesting that Planned Parenthood itself says that no abortion is ever done as a matter of birth control. Adopt this amendment offered by my good friend the gentleman from New York, and you render the policy of the underlying language absolutely meaningless. As it relates to the Mexico City Policy, and I would remind Members during the Reagan and Bush years, abortion as a method of family planning had a precise definition, the definition that is contained in our amendment, the Hyde - Barcia - Smith - Oberstar amendment, and that is no funding except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. My simple question to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] today is, and I would ask him to respond if he would, is that his definition? That is the longstanding definition of the Mexico City Policy. Is that his definition, which again is clearly delineated in our amendment?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond briefly that nothing in my amendment or the amendment offered by the gentleman Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] cuts family planning. It holds harmless the amount of money. This policy, known as the Mexico City Policy, first announced at a U.N. conference in 1984, separates abortion from family planning. So you can have it both ways. You can say you are pro-life and also pro- family planning, because the money will flow to those organizations that divest themselves of killing unborn children with suction machines or with injections of high concentrated salt or any of the other hideous methods that are used to kill and abuse and destroy unborn babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just speak for a moment to my friends who may feel they can somehow rationalize voting ``yes'' on Gilman-Pelosi and ``yes'' on the underlying pro-life amendment. Please do not. It is not honest law making. If you are against pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the abortion industry overseas, the only honest vote is ``no'' on Gilman-Pelosi and ``yes'' on Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar. Today, Mr. Chairman, the pro-life laws and policies of almost 100 countries that restrict abortion are under siege and the engine driving this global pro-abortion push are the nongovernmental organizations funded by the U.S. Government. Our amendment permits the flow of funds only to those organizations that provide only family planning and not abortion. The innocent children are not put at risk. Who we subsidize, not just what, but who we subsidize does matter and who we give millions of dollars to does matter. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is the long-standing law that no U.S. funds can be directly used for abortion was found to be incomplete. It was like Swiss cheese. The organizations were doing abortions on demand and yet seemingly adhering to the letter of the law with regards to the Helms amendment. That is why we have the Mexico City policy. We do not want to put these unborn children at risk. Let me be very clear on this. The effect of the Gilman-Pelosi amendment is that even if a foreign nongovernmental organization performs abortion on demand, even if they perform abortions on demand at any stage of the unborn child's development, even if they perform abortions on demand on teenagers without parental knowledge or consent, they still could get huge Federal grants so long as they say they are not promoting abortion as a method of family planning, whatever that is. To add insult to injury, the phrase ``promote'' is not defined. I asked some questions earlier, define it very clearly like our amendment does, and the answers were not very enlightening. To adopt Gilman- Pelosi is to sacrifice clarity for vagueness, and the consequence will be that the administration will have breathtaking latitude to find that even the most aggressive abortionists in the world are eligible for funding. The Smith-Barcia language is straightforward. It is absolutely transparent. It establishes a wall of separation between abortion and birth control. By contrast, the Gilman-Pelosi language intentionally blurs the line of demarcation between abortion and contraception and keeps the abortionists overseas on the Federal dole. Let me make this very clear, Mr. Chairman. The pro-life vote is no on Gilman-Pelosi. This is no compromise. The Gilman-Pelosi amendment is clearly a killer amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on it. Let me just remind Members, the 7 sponsors of this amendment, with all due respect, are like a who's who of the abortion rights in this Congress. They all voted against the partial-birth abortion. To suggest that somehow this is a pro-life compromise simply does not have any currency to it. Please vote ``no'' on the first amendment, ``yes'' on the second.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished whip.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brady].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], my good friend and colleague. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)