Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], one of the sponsors of the amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to make it very clear that without, and this is why Members voted for the Paul amendment, without pro-life safeguards we are giving money to the abortion industry overseas. That is why Members voted that way.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The problem here is that performance, the Helms amendment of 1973 said very simply, direct funding. What was found to be very infirm about that language, and that is why the Mexico City policy was constructed in the early 1980's under the Reagan administration, was that it was like Swiss cheese. It was not stopping the performance of abortions by the very people that we heavily subsidize in the developing world. They were the abortion mills. We were giving them $500,000 here, and then they would say, and it is not totally concluded that they did not do this, they would say, ``Oh, we're not going to use your money to kill the unborn babies, we'll use our own.'' The problem with that is who we give to does matter. If they were absconding with funds and theft was the issue, this so-called lying of accounting would be meaningless. The issue comes down to whether or not we want to give to organizations that are promoting and doing abortions on demand, and that is the essence of our amendment and it is simplicity. Their amendment absolutely guts it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and I would ask the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] if they would answer this: Under the Agency for International Development's policy, during the 1980's and early 1990's, before Mr. Clinton, there was a clear definition as to what abortion is, a method of family planning. It was abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. Now to legislate ambiguity and vagueness and just toss it all over to the White House and say, ``You decide,'' I asked AID how they would define the Gilman amendment. They do not have a clue. They said, ``Look at what goes on on the House floor.'' I would hope during the course of this debate that my friends on the other side will say yes, there is health abortions, gender-selection abortions, so-called sex-selection abortions. What are we talking about?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, this is the problem. When the administration says that it does not know what it means, and we sent them a copy of the amendment exactly as it was proposed, it suggests to me that we are playing a game here that we will then act as if we are doing something when, frankly, my colleagues, we are doing absolutely nothing. As my colleagues know, I have been in this body 17 years, and it galls me, and it should gall each of us, when we do not legislate with preciseness, and that is what our amendment does. It says there are three instances: rape, incest, and life of the mother; they are exceptions. But after that we are talking about no promotion of abortion. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment conducted an important hearing on the issues surrounding the Montreal Protocol of 1987, which bans the use of ozone depleting substances. As many of my colleagues know, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] recently unveiled a proposal to eliminate essential-use exemptions for metered dose inhalers [MDI's]. Mr. Cliff Stearns, my good friend from Florida, and I have introduced legislation [H.R. 2221] aimed at helping those suffering from respiratory conditions, particularly children with asthma and cystic fibrosis [CF], preserve their access to medicines they rely upon to breathe--metered dose inhalers. H.R. 2221 requires the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to delay their plans to remove chlorofluorocarbon-based MDI's from the marketplace before 2005. If Congress allows the FDA's ill- advised plan banning CFC MDI's to take effect, the 30 million Americans suffering from respiratory diseases could be placed at risk. When the symptoms of these diseases strike, patients reach for the safe, effective, and proven medication delivery systems that have kept them alive for years--metered dose inhalers. Quite literally, metered dose inhalers are a matter of life and breath. Currently, all metered dose inhalers, save one, are powered by chlorofluorocarbon [CFC] propellants. Under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, as amended, CFC's are to be phased-out globally because of the possible negative impact on the ozone layer. It is important to point out, however, that the signatories to the Montreal Protocol explicitly recognized that certain uses of CFC's generate tremendous health and safety benefits. Consequently, MDI's were given a temporary essential- use exemption from the treaty. Despite this global exemption, the U.S. FDA has unilaterally decided to accelerate the phase-out of CFC-containing metered dose inhalers. Under the FDA's proposed framework, CFC-containing inhalers--used safely and regularly by millions of asthmatic children, adults, and senior citizens--would be banned and consumers would be forced to purchase alternative products, even if there was but a single alternative on the market. Indeed, as of today, only one company has received FDA approval to manufacture non-CFC MDI's. Although pharmaceutical companies are currently developing CFC-free MDI's, the FDA proposal will force patients to abandon their existing medications and create a de facto monopoly in the substantial MDI market. Respiratory patients will lose the benefits of free-market competition, and the less well-off will be unfairly burdened with higher prices. While adults may not notice the different taste, smell, or sensation of a CFC-free inhaler, an 8 year-old child might be reluctant to use his or her new MDI because it tastes funny. I have four children, and both of my daughters, Melissa and Elyse, have asthma. Like everybody else, people have different tastes and preferences. Any parent with children knows that it can be difficult to get them to take a medication perceived to be unpleasant. That is why there are dozens of flavors of cough syrups and cold medicines in the pharmacy. But there is a big difference between cough syrup and MDI's--the failure to properly use an MDI can kill you. Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that asthma is currently the number one reason for children's school absences, and that roughly 5,000 Americans die each year from asthma-related complications. Furthermore, for millions of asthma sufferers, the single most important part of successful treatment is maintaining a steady medication routine. Disrupting this routine, which is a certain byproduct of FDA's proposal, will needlessly put the lives and health of our children and senior citizens at risk. That is why the one-size-fits-all policy FDA is pursuing is counterproductive. In addition, the amount of CFC's used in metered dose inhalers is so small--less than 0.025 kg per inhaler--that the marginal environmental improvement in the ozone layer that would result from the FDA plan would be virtually undetectable. Indeed, MDI's are responsible for less than 1 percent of the risk to the ozone layer as measured by atmospheric chlorine levels. Equally perplexing about FDA's proposal is that asthma patients in the United States will have their dependable and effective medications taken away from them while consumers in China and Indonesia continue to use CFC's in hair spray and cosmetics until 2010. There is no doubt that pharmaceutical companies should be encouraged to develop, test, and bring alternative products to market before 2005. However, it is terribly shortsighted to pull the plug on CFC-containing MDI's before there is a free market in tested, proven, and accepted alternative products. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an alternative approach for the FDA to follow: allow the existing products to be used until 2005, and encourage the development and use of alternative [CFC-free] metered dose inhalers so that asthma patients can gradually become accustomed to the different medications without undue disruptions and risks. Rather than forcing patients to suddenly switch medications and involuntarily, a more sensible approach would allow environmentally safe products to flourish and attain widespread acceptance. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the FDA's cold-turkey policy--Australia has already rejected that strategy, and they have the highest rate of skin cancer anywhere in the world. If the Australians--who have the most to lose from the destruction of the ozone layer--find the FDA's model objectionable, surely the United States can achieve its goal of zeroing out CFC production in 2005 without the heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all approach that the FDA has proposed. The children and senior citizens who depend on metered dose inhalers to breathe and live normal lives deserve better.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 1997 I introduced H.R. 2220, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Act of 1997, legislation that will begin to address an inherent unfairness under present law that affects the surviving widows of our Nation's veterans. As you know, many of these veterans gave their lives for our country, yet their surviving spouses are now being denied benefits that were promised to them. In 1970, Congress enacted legislation that guaranteed widows of military veterans who died from service-connected disability that their dependency and indemnity compensation [DIC] benefits would be reinstated upon the termination of the widow's subsequent marriage(s) by death or divorce. The apparent rationale behind this reinstatement policy was twofold: First, to encourage DIC widows to remarry, thereby removing them from the DIC rolls and saving the Federal Government money; and second, to bring Veterans' benefits statutes in line with other Federal survivor programs--e.g. Federal Civil Service employees, Social Security annuitants--which granted reinstatement rights in this instance. However, in 1990, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 which abruptly terminated DIC reinstatement rights for widows who lost these benefits upon remarriage. To make matters worse, the Department of Veterans Affairs never formally notified DIC widows of their loss of reinstatement rights, thereby relegating notice to be disseminated by word-of-mouth or by notices in publications of military and retiree organizations. As you would suspect, many widows continued to apply to the VA for reinstatement of their benefits, only to learn for the first time that their benefits were being denied. Imagine the shock and surprise of these widows who were never notified of the change in the law, many making financial planning decisions under the mistaken assumption that they would be eligible for reinstatement if their subsequent marriage ended by death or divorce. Mr. Speaker, my bill will reinstate DIC eligibility for widows who were remarried before November 1, 1990, and whose second or subsequent marriage is terminated by death or divorce. Recognizing the budget restraints under which Congress must operate, I initially have set the compensation rate at 50 percent of the current DIC rate. The bill would also require the Department of Veterans Affairs to notify all current and previously eligible DIC widows of the change. I would also like to thank one of my constituents, Lt. Col. Raymond Russell--Ret. USAF--for his dedication to veterans' issues and his assistance with H.R. 2220. Lieutenant Colonel Russell is the legislative officer for the Joint Veterans Alliance of Burlington County; New Jersey State Council of Chapters--Retired Officers Association [ROA]; and Lakes and Pines Chapter--ROA. I urge all of my colleagues to please consider supporting this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, for the 17 years that I have been a Member of Congress, abortion advocates have often let the Republican abortion advocates offer pro-abortion amendments. It has played well with the press, it is contrarient, 80 percent of our caucus is pro-life, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] certainly have pro-abortion credentials. They were among 7 members of our caucus who voted against the partial-birth abortion ban. Let me just make it very clear that when the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] appeared before the Committee on Rules, and I listened intently to every word she said, she said that either she or someone else would be allowed to offer a perfecting amendment. That someone else is the so-called pro-choice Republicans. Their perfecting amendment, let it be very clear, absolutely guts the Smith-Hyde-Oberstar-Barcia amendment. It is a totally gutting amendment. So they get their opportunity, which makes me wonder about this whole proceeding that we are watching. I also wanted to make the point that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] said he does not want to deal with legislative policy language on an appropriations bill. Then do not authorize the appropriation itself. At some point there will have to be a waiver. Let there be no waiver; let the authorizing committees do both, the funding and the policy. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Rogan]. Does the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] seek recognition at this time? The gentleman reserves his time to close.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation that will begin to address an inherent unfairness under present law that affects the surviving widows of our Nation's veterans. As you know, many of these veterans gave their lives for our country, yet their surviving spouses are now being denied benefits that were promised to them. In 1970, Congress enacted legislation that guaranteed widows of military veterans who died from service-connected disability that their dependency and indemnity compensation [DIC] benefits would be reinstated upon the termination of the widow's subsequent marriage(s) by death or divorce. The apparent rationale behind this reinstatement policy was twofold: first, to encourage DIC widows to remarry, thereby removing them from the DIC rolls and saving the Federal Government money; and second, bring veterans' benefits statutes in line with other Federal survivor programs, e.g. Federal Civil Service employees, Social Security annuitants, which granted reinstatement rights in this instance. However, in 1990, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 which abruptly terminated DIC reinstatement rights for widows who lost these benefits upon remarriage. To make matters worse, the Department of Veterans Affairs never formally notified DIC widows of their loss of reinstatement rights, thereby relegating notice to be disseminated by word-of-mouth or by notices in publications of military and retiree organizations. As you would suspect, many widows continued to apply to the VA for reinstatement of their benefits, only to learn for the first time that their benefits were being denied. Imagine the shock and surprise of these widows who were never notified of the change in the law, many making financial planning decisions under the mistaken assumption that they would be eligible for reinstatement if their subsequent marriage ended by death or divorce. Mr. Speaker, my bill will reinstate DIC eligibility for widows who were remarried before November 1, 1990 and whose second or subsequent marriage is terminated by death or divorce. Recognizing the budget restraints under which Congress must operate, I initially have set the compensation rate at 50 percent of the current DIC rate. The bill would also require the Department of Veterans Affairs to notify all current and previously eligible DIC widows of the change. I urge all of my colleagues to please consider supporting this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, after 5 long years, Tajikistan's civil war--the costliest conflict in the former Soviet Union, in terms of casualties--may be over. Negotiations underway since 1994 under U.N. auspices have finally produced a peace accord and the opposing sides have crafted a power-sharing arrangement. Provisions are in place for over 20,000 refugees to return and elections are planned within 12 to 18 months. Tajik President Imomali Rakhmonov and Saidabdullo Nuri, leader of the United Tajik Opposition [UTO], signed the General Agreement on Peace and National Accord on June 27. Among the accord's key features is the 26-member National Reconciliation Commission, composed of 13 government and 13 opposition representatives, and chaired by Nuri. Until elections are held, the opposition will control at least 30 percent of government portfolios. The opposition's fighters will be integrated into the government's force ministries, and 460 fighters will protect opposition leaders in Dushanbe. On July 10, the Reconciliation Commission came to terms on a general amnesty that will allow members of the UTO to return to Tajikistan. The general agreement was signed in the Kremlin, testifying to Russia's key mediating role. Moscow had backed Tajikistan's Government against the opposition--a melange of democratic, Islamic, and regional forces--since the war broke out in 1992, but has obviously rethought its priorities and acknowledged that the opposition cannot be defeated militarily, at acceptable cost. Moreover, the advance of the Taliban forces in Afghanistan, which Tajik opposition fighters had used as a staging ground for assaults against Russian and Tajik Government forces, has also convinced Moscow and, apparently, anti-Taliban, Shiite Iran, that Tajikistan must be stabilized in the face of the new threat from Sunni Islamic fundamentalism. As many analysis have pointed out, however, it is too soon for rejoicing. Though Moscow seems determined to end the conflict, there are several potential spoilers. Foremost among them is Abdumallik Abdullojanov, Tajikistan's former prime minister and chairman of the Party of National Revival. Abdullojanov represents the interests of Leninabad, the country's most populous and wealthy oblast, which had produced Tajikistan's rulers since the 1930's. By contrast, President Rakhmonov and his followers are from Kulyab oblast, whereas Nuri and most of the opposition are affiliated with the mountainous region of Karotegin. Yet Abdullojonov was not invited to participate in the peace talks or the Reconciliation Commission, and his followers have been given no positions in the coalition government. With no stake in the agreement and no incentive to promote its success, Abdullojonov has every reason to undermine its implementation, and can count on the backing of the population in northern Tajikistan. Abdullojonov also has the presumed support of Islam Karimov, President of Uzbekistan, which borders Leninabad oblast and is Abdullojonov's base of operations. Karimov did not authorize Uzbekistan's signature as guarantor of the Tajik peace agreement, indicating that Russia and Uzbekistan--though they share deep concerns over Taliban victories in Afghanistan--continue to compete for influence in Tajikistan, and that Tashkent will not play along unless its interests and those of its allies in northern Tajikistan are taken into account. If the government in Dushanbe does not see these dangers, the opposition does. On June 28, UTO first deputy leader Akbar Turajonzade told Interfax that Dushanbe's unwillingness to include representatives of other parties and movements, specifically mentioning Abdullojonov, was a mistake and could jeopardize prospects for peace. Apart from Abdullojonov, any number of well-armed military commanders, with strong local bases, could resume hostilities or simply block the establishment of a unified country with a recognized government exercising authority over its entire territory. And even if they could be brought over, the process of sharing government portfolios and dividing the economic pie among all the various movements and factions will require masterful diplomacy. Still, the peace accord and all its attendant problems are far preferable to the alternative Tajikistan's population has not known peace since the country became independent. The understanding between the government and the opposition may finally have laid the groundwork for the broader reconciliation that will be needed for enduring stability. Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the obvious humanitarian imperatives, it is in the United States interests that Tajikistan's peace accord succeed. War-torn Tajikistan lags behind most other New Independent States in building democratic institutions. We should encourage the reconciliation process and urge that the planned elections take place as scheduled and that they be as free and fair as possible. It would be especially useful for IFES, the Washington-based International Foundation for Election Systems, which has done such important work in helping local authorities organize elections all over the world, to be involved with Tajikistan's Central Election Commission. Hopefully, conditions will permit other United States NGO's to begin working with political parties, and gradually help put back on track the democratization in Tajikistan that was so tragically interrupted in 1992.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Cliff Stearns, my good friend from Florida, and I are introducing legislation aimed at helping those who suffer from respiratory conditions, particularly children with asthma, and preserve their access to medicines they rely upon to breath--metered dose inhalers (MDI's). Our legislation calls upon the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to delay their plans to remove chlorofluorocarbon-based MDIs from the marketplace before 2005. The resolution implores the EDA to continue to allow these critically important medicines to remain on the market while environmentally safe alternatives are developed and manufactured. As many of you know, nearly 30 million Americans suffer from respiratory diseases of one kind or another, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], and cystic fibrosis. When the symptoms of these diseases strike, patients reach for the safe, effective, and proven medication delivery systems that have kept them alive for years--metered dose inhalers. Quite literally, metered dose inhalers enable patients to breathe freely and often mean the difference between life and death. These inhalers are generally powered by chlorofluorocarbon [CFC] propellants. Under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, CFC's are to be phased out globally because of the damage they are believed to cause to the ozone layer. I believe it is important to point out, however, that the signatories to this Protocol explicitly recognized that certain uses of CFC's--such as MDI's--pose relatively small environmental risk yet generate tremendous health and safety benefits, and consequently, MDIs were given a temporary Essential-Use exemption from the treaty. Despite this global exemption and the internationally recognized health benefits of MDI's, the U.S. FDA has unilaterally decided to accelerate the phase-out of CFC containing metered dose inhalers. Under the proposed framework, CFC containing inhalers--used safely and regularly by millions of asthmatic children, adults, and senior citizens--would be banned and consumers would be forced to purchase alternative products, even if there was but a single alternative on the market. I believe that this proposal is outrageous and totally unwarranted at this time. Although pharmaceutical companies are working diligently to develop CFC-free MDI's, the FDA proposal will force patients to abandon their existing medications and could place them at the mercy of a single supplier in certain cases. This is fatally flawed in two important respects: first, each patient is unique and responds differently to asthma medication--even to the same medication--so the one-size-fits- all approach that FDA is pursuing will harm many of these patients; and second, consumers will be charged higher prices due to the lack of competition in alternative MDI products. Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that asthma is currently the No. 1 reason for school absences, and that roughly 5,000 Americans die each year from asthma-related complications. Furthermore, for millions of asthma sufferers, the single most important part of successful treatment is maintaining a steady medication routine. disrupting this routine, which is a certain byproduct of the FDA's proposal, will needlessly put the lives and health of our children and senior citizens at risk. I am also dismayed that the FDA, by seeking to ban CFC MDI's even when only a single alternative MDI is on the market, is making the erroneous assumption that all significant patient subpopulations--such as children and the elderly--will be equally served by the alternative product. This assumption is not only incorrect, but it violates the FDA's very own procedures and rules. All products that wish to obtain a pediatric indication must be reviewed separately by the FDA to determine whether the effect of a drug on children is the same as an adult. Yet, in its zeal to phase out CFC products before the United States is even required to do so, the FDA is trampling on this principle. An additionally egregious aspect of the FDA's proposed rule is that it is an answer in search of a problem. The United States is in absolutely no danger of missing the Montreal Protocol's compliance deadline (2005) for completely eliminating CFC's, and there is no need to abruptly ban MDI's that have been widely and safely used for years. Furthermore, the amount of CFC's used in metered dose inhalers is so small--less than 0.025 kg per inhaler--that the marginal environmental improvement in the ozone layer that would result from the FDA plan would be virtually undetectable. To put these amounts into perspective, consider that in 1996, transitional stockpiles of CFC's for use in air conditioners and refrigeration equipment totaled between 36,000 and 72,000 tons. The total production of CFC's used for MDI's that year was only 2,600 tons, and MDI's are responsible for less than 1 percent of the risk to the ozone layer, as measured by atmospheric chlorine levels. In addition, while the United States and developing countries must eliminate all CFC's by 2005, developing nations can continue to produce CFC's until 2010. Unless the FDA drastically modifies or delays its plan, asthma patients in the United States will have their dependable and effective medications taken away from them while consumers in China and Inodonesia continue to use CFC's in hair spray and cosmetics. It seems incomprehensible that anybody could support a proposal that secures negligible environmental benefits at a very steep cost to human lives and health. Notwithstanding, the FDA continues to move forward with its plan despite overwhelmingly negative public comments. I understand that the magnitude of the public reaction to the FDA's advance notice was among the greatest--in terms of the numbers of letters received--in recent history. This is even more remarkable considering that the ban on metered dose inhalers has received very little media coverage. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say there is no doubt that pharmaceutical companies should be encouraged by the FDA to develop, test, and bring alternative products to market before 2005. However, it is absurd and downright dangerous to put asthma patients--including children whose very lives depend on adhering to familiar medical routines--at risk by pulling effective and safe products from our shelves in order to meet a self-imposed standard. There is absolutely no reason to disrupt the lives of asthma and cystic fibrosis patients in the manner FDA has proposed. That is why I have joined my friend Congressman Stearns in introducing this resolution today. The alternative approach that we suggest to the FDA is very straightforward: allow the existing products--proven safe and effective over years of use--to be used until 2005, and encourage the development and use of alternative [CFC-free] metered dose inhalers so that asthma patients can gradually become accustomed to the different medications without undue disruptions and risks. Rather than forcing patients to switch medications suddenly and involuntarily, our approach would allow environmentally safe products to flourish and attain widespread acceptance. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the FDA's cold turkey policy--Australia has already rejected that strategy. The United States can achieve its goal of zeroing out CFR production in 2005 without the heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all approach that the FDA has proposed. The children and senior citizens who depend on metered dose inhalers to breathe and live normal lives surely deserve better than that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, whatever decision we make today, the American people will see it as a decision about the role of morality in U.S. foreign policy, and they will be right. Mr. Speaker, this is a vote about whether a government which practices forced abortion and forced sterilization on a massive scale should be rewarded or punished. It is a vote about how a government treats its own people, especially people of faith, Catholic bishops, priests and Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks and nuns. This is a vote about a government that routinely uses slave labor and does so with impunity. I have held six hearings in my Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights on various aspects of human rights in China. We heard from people who survived the Laogai, the gulag system, people like Harry Wu. And I can tell my colleagues, the victims are not in favor of continuing most-favored-nation status with China because they know a butcher when they see one. Today's vote is about dying rooms and inhumane orphanages, where baby girls and handicapped children are left to die simply because they are unwanted by the dictatorship. Today's vote is about what happened in Tiananmen Square--because what was overt in 1989--the silence of dissent--is more covert and sophisticated today. But the repression remains pervasive and brutal. Last December, Mr. Speaker, the President coddled the dictatorship's hit man General Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister for the People's Republic of China, and gave him the red carpet treatment. The man who ordered the massacre at Tiananmen Square was the President's honored guest and during his visit to the U.S. said ``nobody died'' at Tiananmen Square. Does anybody in this room believe that? Of course not. It is utter nonsense, an unmitigated lie; but that is what the Beijing dictatorship is all about--lies. Let me just ask my friends and colleagues, how long are we going to continue this misguided strategy of constructive engagement? As the previous speaker pointed out, things have gone from bad to worse. During the China human rights period of time when President Clinton had his executive order in place, we saw a significant regression, not progress but regression in every category of human rights. As a matter of fact, one of three human rights missions to the PRC, I was there at the halfway point during the life of the executive order. During the trip I met with Wei Jingsheng, the father of the democracy movement in the People's Republic of China. A couple of weeks later, he met with John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of Democrat and Human Rights--Bill Clinton's point man on human rights. How did the Chinese Government respond to those meetings, especially to the one with Secretary Shattuck? They arrested Wei, the dictatorship put him in prison where he is today--another victim of this brutal dictatorship. Let me also remind my colleagues that if they think trade will trigger democracy and respect for human rights--they are sadly mistaken. The government of China has gone from communism to fascism. And respect for human rights have deteriorated. Who is making big profits in the PRC? The generals and officers affiliated with the People's Liberation Army and those who are connected to the power structure of the dictatorship. And again, we have seen significant regression in the area of human rights. On religious freedom, I beg to differ vehemently with Billy Graham and others and especially with his son Ned Graham, who have suggested we should continue most-favored-nation status as a way of assisting religious liberty. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only people that can practice their religion in the PRC today are those who are part of the official Communist controlled church, and that is it. Step outside the boundaries of the government church and the full weight of the totalitarian state is visited upon you. If you're a pastor in the underground church--you go to prison. If you meet for Bible study in a setting not approved by Beijing, you are harassed--and you may go to a concentration camp. I met with Bishop Su of the Baoding Province. Bishop Su--who is part of the ``illegal'' Roman Catholic Church aligned with Pope John Paul II--celebrated mass for our delegation. What happened to him? He was arrested by the secret police and is now back in prison for meetings with us. Bishop Su is no stranger to persecution, having suffered more than 12 years for his faith. Now the bully boys have sent this good man back to the gulag. There is no religious freedom in the PRC. Let us stop kidding ourselves. To those who think trade equals progress in human rights, can you at least provide some evidence of that? Let me remind members that there were business men during the Nazi years, in the 1930's, who went and traded with the Nazis. But at least they did not have the temerity to stand up and say somehow that human rights were going to break out because the trains were running on time.. MFN is empowering a brutal dictatorship. The oppressor is getting bolder and stronger. And meaner. The dictator will soon begin to project its power to its neighbors--the signs are all there. The dictatorship will soon leave a bristling blue water navy to project power and influence and to intimidate. Let me just note at this point that my business friends are not adverse to using sanctions when intellectual property rights are involved. Hollywood will go to war to protect pirated movies and CD's. But they shrink like violets when people's lives are on the line. When people, when torture, when forced abortion and religious freedom are the issue--they walk away and spout ``constructive engagement.'' Vote for the Solomon resolution and against MFN for this dictatorship.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today because virtually every military physician deployed around the globe, as a matter of deep conviction and conscience, has refused to facilitate a 1993 Clinton Executive Order on abortion, and because the Dornan amendment was signed into permanent law a few years later on February 10, 1996, overseas military hospitals continue to be havens of healing, nuturing and disease eradication, not baby killing centers. The Harman amendment, if enacted, would turn these healing facilities into abortion mills where unborn children could be dismembered or chemically poisoned on demand. The Harman amendment makes a false distinction based not on what happens in an abortion, a baby is violently killed, but in who provides the cash. It also completely overlooks costs borne by the taxpayers to facilitate that abortion, like the provision of operating rooms, the hiring of abortionists and the procurement of poisons and potions and suction machines. This amendment says, in effect, it is okay to tear an unborn child, to rip an unborn child from limb to limb or to apply that baby with deadly poisons using a hypodermic needle, so long as somebody else seems to be footing most of the bill. Somebody earlier said that this is not about abortion. We hear that kind of excuse and defense every time we hear this on the floor. When the D.C. appropriations bill is up, it is a matter of home rule. When the Federal employees health benefits program ban on abortion comes up, it is labor-management negotiations. When the Hyde amendment comes up, it is a matter of rich versus poor women. Of course, that underscores the fact that the unborn of the poor seem to be more able to be discarded and are more expendable. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude. The Harman amendment facilitates the killing of unborn children, and there is no doubt about that. It treats helpless, defenseless infant baby boys and girls as a disease, or a cyst, or a tumor that can be excised at will. Medicine is all about curing and mitigating diseases. This is not maternal health care, this is not prenatal health care, this is killing of unborn children and the exploitation of their mothers. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Harman amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. I do so with some reluctance. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford] is a respected and valuable member of our committee. I know that he acts from exactly the right motives in offering this amendment. I would warmly support this amendment if some of the cuts came to the multibillion dollar foreign aid accounts, of course, not the foreign aid that goes to save children's lives or feed the hungry, but the foreign aid that goes to international social engineering and sometimes to prop up dictatorships. But let me remind Members that we have already cut the major foreign aid provisions out of this bill. They are not in the bill that is before this body. Then let us look at the numbers. The total spending in this bill, and this is the administration of foreign relations and refugee protection--it is not foreign aid per se although there are some provisions in it--the total spending in this bill is only 3.1 percent over fiscal year 1997, which is approximately the rate of inflation. There is no money in this bill to fund empire-building, no money for big new programs or even expansion of old ones. The bill is already substantially below the administration's budget request for fiscal year 1998, approximately $181 million below the administration's request. That is also below the budget resolution, which all of us in this committee have voted for, or at least most of us. This bill saves money, as against the budget agreement. Again, we are already on record as supporting that agreement. It is a Republican- initiated, administration-backed agreement. We are below that, so anyone who says we are exceeding that--yes, we are below last year's, but we are well in line with the budget resolution. Second, this bill means even greater savings in fiscal year 1999. If we do not pass this bill, the administration will almost certainly request and perhaps even get higher spending on the State Department and related agencies in fiscal year 1999. This bill actually reduces spending in that fiscal year. Even more important, we have structured this bill so that the modest increases do not primarily go to fund the Federal bureaucracy. Instead, we enhance profreedom, prodemocracy initiatives such as refugee protection, Radio Free Asia, and human rights programs such as the scholarships for young people who have been forced to flee Tibet, Burma, and East Timor. Even though the Sanford amendment is not aimed specifically at refugees or at Radio Free Asia, the aggregate cuts it imposes would almost certainly result in cuts in these programs. Unfortunately, the refugee account has already taken a cut in real dollars. The modest funding for refugee protection is not even enough to cover the last couple of years' worth of inflation. In real dollar terms, refugees still take a substantial cut over 3 years. Let us not forget we are awash in refugees. Some 26 million people are refugees throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter that I have received from the InterAction Committee on Refugee Assistance, a dozen organizations, including the principal Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, and Episcopalian refugee assistance agencies, as well as other humanitarian and human rights groups, which details what these groups call the alarming trend toward reduction of resources for refugee protection overseas. Mr. Chairman, at the proper time I will ask that that be made a part of the Record so Members can see how these cuts, this slowing down of refugee protection money, has hurt the Christian Karen refugees from Thailand to Burma, has hurt people in Liberia and elsewhere, simply because there is not enough money to protect these very vulnerable people. I also want to call attention to the effect that this amendment will almost certainly have on the enhancement we voted for last week, on the amendment that I offered to provide and to boost Radio Free Asia by $70 million. That was, and I want to repeat this as I did last week, an initiative that Speaker Gingrich came up with; that rather than 8 hours per day of broadcasting, Radio Free Asia ought to be bumped up to 24 hours a day into China, to send the message of freedom and hope to that beleaguered country. This legislation boosts that from the $10 million in the bill each fiscal year, $20 million total, by $70 million. Again, that was an initiative that the Speaker suggested to us. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote down this amendment. I do so with reluctance, because I so greatly respect the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford], but I think we have done a good job. In my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, and I know that the presiding chairman will look at this very carefully as well, we have tried to hold the line on spending. It is a good bill. Again, we are almost $200 million below the budget resolution so we come in under that number. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Record: American Council for Voluntary International Action, Washington, DC, April 9, 1997. Hon. Benjamin Gilman, Chair, House International Relations Committee, Washington,

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 1758. The language before us is designed first and foremost to preserve the effectiveness and the flexibility of NATO as a defensive alliance. For nearly five decades the North Atlantic Alliance has served and advanced the interests of the United States in Europe by preserving peace, promoting economic prosperity, and advancing our shared principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the underlying legislation provides important assistance to Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Romania as they pursue membership in the alliance irrespective of the outcome of the NATO summit meeting scheduled to take place in Madrid in early July. Recently the ambassadors from each of these countries, as well as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Slovakia, appeared before the Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair along with Senator D'Amato, and presented their government's case for NATO membership. I believe, especially after hearing from each of the ambassadors, that it would be an injustice of historic proportions if we did not take advantage of the unique opportunity that we have today to embrace these countries of the region that have demonstrably committed themselves to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. During President Constantinescu's short tenure, Romania has made very impressive progress, and I believe deserves every ounce of encouragement, support, and consideration in the lead-up to the July NATO summit. Mr. Speaker, as one of those who has closely followed developments in Romania since 1981, I would hope that Romania is included among those invited to accession negotiations on full NATO membership. With respect to the Baltic States, I have seen no justification in delaying similar negotiations with Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Despite decades of Soviet domination and brutal repression, the commitment of the Baltic peoples to freedom and democracy ultimately triumphed over totalitarianism. Having persevered for 50 years and overcome the odds by regaining their independence, the Baltic countries deserve to be fully integrated into the West, including NATO, without further delay. Mr. Speaker, the important legislation before us is aimed at giving further impetus to the enlargement of NATO. It is of critical importance, in my view, that a genuine process be put into place to ensure that emerging democracies not invited in Madrid join NATO but that wish to join the alliance will be given every consideration, and that there be a transparent and a real process for doing so. Platitudes cannot substitute for process. The bill calls for the NATO leaders assembled in Madrid to agree to such a process. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I remain very concerned over the recently concluded negotiations undertaken by NATO Secretary General Solana that resulted in the so-called Founding Act between NATO and the Russian Federation. Part of my concern stems from the fact that the talks were conducted against the backdrop of an artificial deadline suggested by the Russians. It is of critical importance that the Founding Act in no way undermine the effectiveness of NATO or reduce new members of the alliance to second-class citizens. I am particularly concerned about the seemingly one-sided nature of the recently concluded negotiations, focusing as they have on Moscow's security preoccupation, real or imagined. The pending legislation identifies three specific security concerns that I urge the Clinton administration to raise with the Russians until they have been resolved. The first concern stems from the fact that Russia has not agreed to the international borders with several of her neighbors. Moscow has purposefully dragged its feet on this important issue with the aim of intimidating a number of the countries involved. The second issue concerns the deployment of Russian forces on the territory of other states. Today there are thousands of Russian troops deployed in and around the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol. Russian troops are likewise stationed in Moldova. The pending amendment calls for a commitment from the Russian Federation to station its armed forces on the territory of other states only with consent of such states and in strict accordance with international law. Finally, the bill calls for a commitment by the Russians to take steps to reduce nuclear and conventional forces in Kaliningrad, where Moscow has amassed a huge arsenal that poses a potential threat to the Baltic States and to Poland. Mr. Speaker, the progress in resolving these outstanding issues would go a long way to advance peace and stability throughout Europe, a region of critical importance to our own security and to our own economic and political interests. I urge adoption of H.R. 1758 in the interests of maintaining the effectiveness and the flexibility of NATO as a defensive alliance. I urge strong support for the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Diaz amendment to the Miller amendment. Cuba is one of the few countries in the world in which the struggle against totalitarianism has not yet been won. Because of the proximity of Cuba to the United States and the historical close relationship between the peoples of our two nations, it is especially important that this victory come sooner rather than later. In evaluating all proposed legislation, in evaluating all administrative action and diplomatic initiatives with respect to Cuba, it is important to keep several principles in mind.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] which states in a very strong way that it is the sense of Congress that the United States should not give military assistance and arms transfers to the Government of Indonesia until that Government complies with a few basic human rights benchmarks. I would like to commend the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for his perfecting amendment to put us on record in roundly condemning all violence, no matter who commits it. Violence is not an acceptable means to any end. I want to commend my friend for offering that perfecting amendment. Mr. Chairman, for over 20 years, international human rights advocates have been calling attention to abuses by the Indonesian Government and its occupation of East Timor. Over the years the United States has provided countless millions of dollars worth of military assistance and arms transfers to the Government of Indonesia. There have been no reliable safeguards to ensure that this assistance and these transfers did not facilitate the ongoing brutality. Indonesia's Armed Forces invaded East Timor in 1975 only weeks after East Timor had attained independence from Portugal. Since then the Indonesian Army has carried out a campaign of what amounts to ethnic cleansing against the Timorese through a program of forced migration. Persecution has been particularly harsh against the Christian majority. More than 200,000 Timorese out of the total population of 700,000 have been killed directly or by starvation in forced migrations from their villages since the Indonesian invasion. There are recent reports of renewed campaigns of repression of Catholics in East Timor. These reports include atrocities such as the smashing of statues of the Blessed Mother. The campaign has also been directed personally against the Catholic Bishop Belo, along with the independence leader Jose Ramos Horta. Bishop Belo's phones are tapped, his fax machine is monitored, his visitors are watched, and his freedom of movement is restricted. But Bishop Belo persists in his courageous efforts to defend justice, peace, and the preservation of the dignity of his people. Recently, he set up a church commission to monitor human rights abuses there and a radio station to disseminate information and news. There have also been reports of renewed military activity by pro- independence guerrillas in East Timor. I want to make it absolutely clear that violence is unacceptable no matter who commits it. In this respect, again the Bereuter perfecting amendment strengthens the Kennedy amendment and makes it a resolution worthy of support by this body.