Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for yielding this time to me, and I rise in very strong support of the Fox amendment. Romania's quest for NATO membership was given a significant boost when the democratic opposition, led by Emil Constantinescu, was elected to office last November. The peaceful transfer of power following those internationally sanctioned elections was a genuine turning point for that country, a political development unimaginable not very long ago. At home, the Romanian Government recently announced a bold package of economic reforms designed to check inflation, reduce the budget deficit, and accelerate privatization. If implemented, these important changes could attract much-needed foreign investment. An anti-corruption campaign has also been initiated. A series of military reforms were adopted in December to ensure civilian democratic control and modernization of Romania's armed forces. While each of these initiatives will require months to realize, the new Romanian leadership has begun to show its courage in taking these important steps. The first Central European country to join the Partnership for Peace and one of the most active participants, Romania has taken concrete steps to advance its candidacy for possible NATO membership. Of a particularly important note is the historic Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness concluded with Hungary last September. Romanian troops played an active role in the NATO-led Operation Joint Endeavor, part of IFOR in Bosnia, and has continued to contribute to peacekeeping efforts through its participation in Operation Joint Guard. These developments underscore the positive role Romania can play in fostering stability in NATO's southern flank. Romania's desire to join NATO was clear through its active participation with its Partnership for Peace as well as the ongoing intensified dialogue with the Alliance since April of 1996. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank my good friend for offering this amendment. It puts us squarely in line. Let me just say finally as a footnote, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I and others, going back to the 1980's, led the effort to remove the MFN during the Ceausescu regime, they have absolutely turned the corner, and I think with confidence we can say they will be a good partner as part of NATO. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letter for inclusion in the Record. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe Washington, DC, May 21, 1997. Hon. William J. Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: We urge that the United States actively support the inclusion of Romania among the countries which will be invited by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to begin negotiations for accession to the Alliance. The NATO summit meeting scheduled to be held in Madrid, Spain, on July 8 and 9, 1997, will formally invite some candidate states to commence such negotiations. We believe that Romania deserves to be invited to accede to the Washington Treaty because of both its recent progress in meeting the criteria for membership and its strategic location along NATO's future southeastern edge. While NATO accession should not be extended to states that do not meet the criteria set forth in the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208), we believe that Romania has demonstrated great progress in all areas and should be favorably considered for inclusion in the first round of enlargement. At a hearing of the Commission on Tuesday, May 13, 1997, we heard testimony from Romania's Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Mircea Dan Geoana, on the wide range of concerns the Commission and the Congress have had with Romania in recent years. We believe that the evidence supports Romania's claim to meet the criteria for membership, especially in the areas of human rights, national minorities, and freedom of expression and media issues that have been troublesome in the past and were particular subjects of Commission interest. In light of the rapid approach of the Madrid summit, and the intensive schedule of high-level NATO meetings leading up to that summit, we believe the United States should promptly and publicly clarify its position regarding the NATO process for accession by all states which meet the criteria. An announcement of U.S. support for such a process would lessen diplomatic and media speculation about a possible delay in the invitation for negotiation, supposedly to make more credible a subsequent round of enlargement. We believe all currently qualified states should be invited now to negotiate for accession, and as other states meet the criteria, the process whereby they, too, may be invited to join the alliance should be clearly formulated. This is the only fair way to manage Alliance enlargement and protect important reform efforts underway in those candidate states not included in the first group to be announced at Madrid. We appreciate your kind attention to our views on this most important matter. Sincerely, Christopher H. Smith, M.C., Co-Chairman. Alfonse D'Amato, U.S.S., Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, the Arms Transfer Code of Conduct, and it will be the first major reform of U.S. arms transfer policy in almost two decades. The code of conduct highlights guiding principles on human rights and democracy, which I believe are important to America's leadership role in the post-cold war era. This amendment would help stem the flow of U.S. weapons to countries that brutalize their own people. The code of conduct would make it clear that in the 21st century the United States of America intends not just to be a military and economic superpower but a moral superpower as well. It signals an end to business as usual for human rights violators. Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of all of our foreign military sales go to countries described by the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as human rights violators with undemocratic governments. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago I made a trip to Croatia when it was under siege. The gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], and I visited a city that was literally surrounded by tanks and by military, a place called Vukovar. Vukovar was finally leveled, but while we were there we saw the bomb casings and we saw the 500-pound bombs that were dropped. And I will never forget taking pictures of these bomb casings that had U.S. markings all over them. I will never forget also talking to President Milosevic and trying to ask him to stop that carnage that was going on in Croatia. Later on it was rolled out to Bosnia. Much of their military capability came from the United States and then was used in a slaughterhouse fashion against people who were unarmed, women and children and men who were civilians. Mr. Chairman, the code of conduct is not a threat to U.S. national security. It contains a provision for an emergency waiver that would allow the President to transfer arms to a country that does not meet the code's criteria if U.S. national security really did require such a transfer, and it provides for an orderly process for Congress to consider other exceptions of nonemergency nature. Mr. Chairman, year after year in human rights hearings in the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I now chair, we hear there is a disconnect in U.S. foreign policy between human rights and other considerations. Amnesty International put it best when it said about this administration's human rights policy, that ``Human rights is an island off the mainland of U.S. foreign policy.'' This amendment is a step toward closing the circle, connecting things that ought to be connected. We must tell the world that freedom and democracy do matter. A good way to begin is by telling the world that the United States will not put deadly weapons into the hands of the enemies of freedom and democracy. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Georgia, [Ms. McKinney], and the gentleman from California, [Mr. Rohrabacher], for their good work in crafting this amendment, and again I rise in very strong support of it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Engel-Gilman amendment to link United States contributions to the international fund for Ireland to these very important MacBride principles, principles we passed as part of H.R. 1561 last year. I want to remind Members that when the President vetoed H.R. 1651 last year he went out of his way in a letter to Brian Atwood, the administrator of AID, to say that he is committed to fair employment principles for Catholics in the north of Ireland. The President went on to say that he vetoed that bill for reasons unrelated to the section dealing with the MacBride principles. So while today, the administration may put out language suggesting they are against this provision, in his August 1996 letter to Brian Atwood, the President himself said he was for the MacBride principles. This is a very important fair employment piece of legislation. Astonishingly, job discrimination against Catholics in the north of Ireland is the status quo. Consider these facts. Out of the 87,000 children below the poverty line, 58,000, or 66 percent, are Catholic. In Northern Ireland, over 42 percent of Catholic men are unemployed compared to 25 percent of their Protestant colleagues. According to the most recent Labor Force Survey, 55 percent of the unemployed are Catholics, even though they comprise 38 percent of the population over the age of 16. United States support to the IFI is intended to help mitigate the social and economic problems that contribute to the civil unrest in Northern Ireland. People cannot come to a lasting peace agreement if they are the subject of ongoing, systematic, disparaging discrimination. The MacBride principles, which would eliminate religious-based discrimination in employment and job training, are modest and will go a long way to foster peace and justice in Northern Ireland. At least 16 States--including my home State of New Jersey--and more than 30 U.S. cities have adopted the MacBride principles. Similarly, the Federal Government should adopt this code and ensure that U.S. taxpayer funds do not go to subsidize discrimination in the work force. Human rights abuses are far-reaching in the north of Ireland. Juryless Diplock courts, ill-treatment of individuals in detention, lack of access to attorneys, search and seizure abuses, sectarian use of plastic bullets, and religious discrimination are common human rights abuses in Northern Ireland. Linking our financial contributions to the IFI to the MacBride principles is a small step in addressing just one of the many human rights abuses that need to be eliminated in order for a lasting and just peace to be achieved in that region. I wholeheartedly support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, in evaluating all of the proposed legislation, any kind of diplomatic or administrative initiative vis-a-vis Cuba, it is important to keep these following principles in mind: First, such actions must be calculated to emphasize the status of the Castro government as a rogue regime with whom the civilized nations of the world should have no dealings. Second, our actions must be calculated to hurt the dictatorship and not the Cuban people. Finally, we should make it clear that Cuba will receive a warm welcome back into the family of free and democratic nations. By this standard, we have made some terrible mistakes, such as the 1994 Clinton-Castro antirefugee agreement. We made this agreement just a few months after the Castro regime had brutally murdered 40 men, women, and children who were trying to escape from Cuba on the vessel the Thirteenth of March. The agreement gave the Castro government just what it wanted, an end to the longstanding United States policy of accepting people who escape from Cuba. The agreement specified that Castro was to use mainly persuasive methods to keep people from fleeing from Cuba. The United States thereby accepted moral responsibility for whatever forms of persuasion he should choose to employ. And it enhanced the international prestige and the domestic power of the regime. The Castro government returned the favor a year later by murdering four American citizens, members of the pro-freedom organization Brothers to the Rescue who were flying in international airspace. So we got tough again for a little while. Mr. Chairman, the adoption of the Miller amendment, if it is not amended successfully by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], would send a clear signal that the get-tough period is over again. It would send a signal, and it would signal an unwarranted unilateral departure from our policy of isolating Castro. Once again we would send a signal to the world that Castro is not so bad after all. Mr. Chairman, it is important that we remember just what kind of regime we are dealing with. We must bear in mind that the Castro regime is the No. 1 violator of human rights in our hemisphere. According to the State Department's country reports on human rights practices for 1996, Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by Fidel Castro, who has exercised control over all aspects of Cuban life. According to the country reports, among the more serious human rights violations by the regime in recent years are, and I quote: The authorities were responsible for the extrajudicial killing of dozens of people. The government continued to employ acts of repudiation, which are attacks by mobs organized by the government but portrayed as responsible public rebukes, against dissident activity. The government also metes out exceptionally harsh prison sentences to democracy and human rights advocates whom it considers a threat to its control. Police and prison officials often use beatings, neglect, isolation, and other abuse against detainees and prisoners convicted of political crimes, including human rights advocates, or those who persisted in expressing their views. Citizens have no legal right to change their government or to advocate change. The government does not allow criticism of the revolution or its leaders. The Communist Party controls all media as a means to indoctrinate the public. Religious persecution continues, The country reports point out. The government has ignored calls for democratic reform and labeled activists who proposed them as worms and traitors. The decision on whether to embrace or isolate the Castro regime raises the question of what role human rights and basic decency are to play in our foreign policy. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote for the Diaz- Balart amendment, and salute him for his longstanding support for democracy in Cuba. His amendment is a step in the right direction in that endeavor.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and let me just begin this debate by saying that today one of the most important pro-life amendments will be up before this Congress. It is the amendment that separates abortion from family planning in our overseas population control programs. It is a policy that was in effect during the Reagan-Bush years and effectively erected a fire wall between family planning and the promotion of abortion on demand around the world, where approximately 100 countries protected their unborn. And regrettably they are under siege by organizations like Planned Parenthood and others in trying to bring down these laws. So that is what the amendment is all about. I understand there will be a substitute that, frankly, is a fake, and we will talk about that during the debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to respond. This is not about politics. This is about life and death. We are talking about not reducing family planning by a dime. That is a priority issue and that is a money issue. We are talking about erecting a wall of separation between promotion and performance of abortion overseas by groups like Planned Parenthood Federation of America and their international branch and the IPPF and all these other groups who have it as their mission to promote abortion on demand globally. That is what we are talking about. This is not about politics.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], my good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just briefly to respond. First of all, we are saying in my amendment, ``Divest yourself of abortion and you get family planning funds.'' The gentleman from Connecticut in 1984-85, when I first offered this amendment, said none of the nongovernmental organizations would accept those conditions. Well, over the course of the years in the 1980's, early 1990's, virtually every family planning provider except for the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London and Planned Parenthood Federation of America accepted those conditions. They separated themselves from the killing of babies through abortion and took the money and did family planning. We want to erect that wall again in my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members that we do not cut family planning by a dime in this amendment. We condition it. We put on human rights, pro-family, pro-baby conditions. Abortion takes the life of a baby. We do not think that we should be giving to organizations that are promoting abortion overseas. That is the simple reality of what we are trying to do today. Any other characterization misses by a mile.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson]. (Mr. HUTCHINSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Many of our colleagues were shocked and angered to learn that the big name pro-abortion population control organizations like Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Zero Population Growth and others had grossly misled Congress, the President, and the American people about partial-birth abortion. In one letter sent to every Member of Congress signed by those organizations and many others, we were solemnly assured that, and I quote: This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer than 500 per year. It is most often performed in cases, it goes on to say, of severe fetal anomalies. Mr. Chairman, we now know that the abortion lobby's campaign to defeat the partial-birth abortion ban was and is riddled with lies and distortions. It is one thing to have an honest difference about policy. Congress after all is a marketplace of disparate opinions and ideas, but do not lie to us. Mr. Chairman, interestingly, it was one of their own, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who blew the whistle on their fraudulent tactics. Members will recall Mr. Fitzsimmons came forward and said that he was lying through his teeth about the circumstances and the incidences surrounding partial-birth abortion. Having raised serious questions concerning the credibility and the reliability of Planned Parenthood and others, Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted, and I quote, that thousands of partial-birth abortions in the vast majority of cases are performed on healthy mothers with a healthy fetus. Why is this relevant to the amendment the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and I are offering this morning? Because each year Congress authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars; this is not an entitlement, these are discretionary funds, hundreds of millions of dollars for population control organizations. And much of that cash will wind up in the hands of the very same abortion industry that so skillfully lied to my colleagues and me. After lying through their teeth on the partial-birth abortion ban here in the United States, is it so unreasonable to doubt the abortion lobby's commitment to truth-telling elsewhere? Who then will expose their deceptive tactics in Warsaw or Lima or Cairo or Pretoria or San Salvador? I believe that we need to steer family planning funds to those who will pledge neutrality on abortion rather than promote abortion in foreign capitals. Today 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 like Planned Parenthood funded by the U.S. Government. Let me remind Members, we provide almost 50 percent of all the money that goes into their coffers. That is why we need to make a difference with the amendment that I and my friends are offering today. Our amendment permits the flow of funds to those organizations that pledge to provide family planning and only family planning and not abortion. This is all about abortion, Mr. Chairman. The innocent children are held harmless. Who we subsidize, not just what, but who we subsidize and who we give millions of dollars to does matter. Some Members have argued today that U.S. funds will not be used for abortion. That is already the underlying law. An amendment simply restates current law. But money is fungible. The millions of dollars we give to a group immediately frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be used, and in this case are used, for performing and aggressively promoting abortion around the world. If we give millions of dollars to those for whom abortion on demand is a way to plan family size, we put unborn babies at grave risk of death. It should matter greatly to each of us not just what an organization does with our specific donation but the rest of its agenda as well. It is a package deal. Many groups use family planning as the Trojan horse to conceal their real agenda, which is abortion. Let me remind Members of Vision 2000, that abortion manifesto in 1992 that was agreed to by International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London and its 140 affiliates. It said these are their marching orders that they will, quote, ``bring pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against abortion.'' Fred Sai, who used to be chairman of IPPF, a Planned Parenthood group, said, now for the first time the IPPF plan Vision 2000 outlines activities at both the secretary and the family planning association level to further their explicit goal of increasing the right of access to abortion. Again let me remind Members, 100 countries protect their babies. These people to whom we are giving millions of dollars want to bring down those right-to-life laws. Let me give some examples. In Poland, the chairman of the Parliamentary Group on the Family, Stanislaw Kowolik, recently lashed out at external factions in Poland for meddling in that country and pushing for liberalized abortion. As a result of strong lobbying by family planning groups, Poland recently reversed the pro-life policies of Lech Walesa and Solidarity and put in its place the pro-abortion policy of the Communists. Another example of backlash over United States and Planned Parenthood pressure to legalize abortion on demand is the Philippines. A headline in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last July said Senator ``Flavier Hits U.S. Pressure on Abortion.'' And he writes: We had just celebrated our 50th anniversary of independence from America, but we can still see insidious methods of imperialism trying to subvert our self- determination by using funds as subtle leverage,'' and then he goes on to say he strongly opposes abortion, that his constitution prohibits it. And then he said, finally, ``we should be prepared to lose foreign funding rather than be pressured into causing the death of unborn children.'' The abortion promotion by Planned Parenthood is so extreme in the Philippines that the head of their IPPF affiliate, the Planned Parenthood president, quit. He said it was because a ``hidden agenda of'' and that his affiliate was being used as a Trojan horse to legalize abortion. They talk family planning, the real agenda is abortion on demand. The pro-life safeguards say: We will provide money for family planning. There is not one penny lost as a result of this amendment. But we will give it only to those groups that are committed to family planning and not abortion on demand. Let me also say on the China provision, since 1979, the U.N. Population Fund has been there on the ground promoting the one-child- per-couple policy. We have heard testimony, Members should be fully aware by now that forced abortion is commonplace in the People's Republic of China. Yet Dr. Sadik, who is the executive director of the UNFPA, has said, and I quote: ``UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a totally voluntary program. It is not. It is a totally coercive program, and the UNFPA has been whitewashing these crimes since 1979. Let me also point out to my colleagues that the amendment, the substitute amendment, is a fake. With all due respect to my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], it is cover. It does not stop abortions. It does not do anything meaningful relative to China, and it actually trivializes this crime against humanity, against women, of forced abortion because again in China there is the UNFPA doing its work day in and day out. And we understand now that they are in negotiations for new programs in the PRC. We are saying you can have your $25 million. Just get out of China. Stop being complicit. Stop the hand and glove relationship with the dictatorship of the PRC. Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues were shocked and angered to learn that the big name pro-abortion/population control organizations like Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, had grossly misled Congress, the President, and the American people about partial-birth abortion. In one letter sent to every Member of Congress, signed by Planned Parenthood and the others, we were solemnly assured that: This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer than 500 per year. It is most often performed in the case of wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong, when a family learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies or a medical condition that threatens the pregnant woman's life or health. We now know the abortion lobby's campaign to defeat the partial-birth abortion ban was and is riddled with distortion and lies. It's one thing to have honest differences about policy--Congress is, after all, a marketplace of disparate opinions and ideas. But don't lie to us. Interestingly, it took one of their own, Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, to blow the whistle on their fraudulent tactics. You will recall that Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted ``lying through (his) teeth'' in spouting the pack of lies dished out by the abortion lobby. Having raised serious questions concerning the credibility and reliability of Planned Parenthood and others, Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted that of the thousands of partial-birth abortions ``in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus * * *.'' Why is this relevant to the amendment Messrs. Barcia, Oberstar, Hyde, and I are offering today? Because each year Congress authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for population control organizations--and much of that cash will wind up in the hands of the very same abortion industry that so skillfully lied to you and me. After ``lying through (their) teeth'' on the partial-birth abortion ban here in the United States, is it so unreasonable to doubt the abortion lobby's commitment to truth-telling? Who then will expose their deceptive tactics in Warsaw of Lima or Cairo or Pretoria of San Salvador? We need to steer family planning funds to those who will pledge neutrality on abortion rather than the promotion of abortion in foreign capitals. Today, 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. My amendment permits the flow of funds to those organizations that pledge to provide only family planning, not abortion. The innocent children are held harmless. Who we subsidize--not just what--but who we give millions of dollars to, does matter. Some Members will argue today that no U.S. funds will be used for abortion. But money is fungible. The millions of dollars we give to a group immediately frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be used--and, in this case, are used--for performing and aggressively promoting abortion. If we give millions of dollars to those for whom abortion on demand is a way to plan family size, we put unborn babies at grave risk of death. It should matter greatly to each of us not just what an organization does with out specific donation, but the rest of its agenda as well. It is a package deal. Many groups use family planning as the Trojan horse to conceal their real agenda--abortion on demand. I urge Members to carefully consider the 1992 International Planned Parenthood Federation abortion manifesto called Vision 2000, a global strategic plan that Planned Parenthood and its 140 country affiliates adopted and have been implementing ever since to promote abortion in every corner of the world. The Vision 2000 strategic plan says, and I quote, that family planning organizations should ``bring pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against abortion.'' Can anything be more clear? Pressure governments to nullify their pro-life policies. Campaign for abortion on demand. And we are providing many, many millions of dollars to this group. Fred Sai, who is the former chairman of International Planned Parenthood, put it very succinctly: Now, for the first time, the IPPF strategic plan, Vision 2000, which was unanimously adopted at the Members' Assembly in Delhi, outlines activities at both the Secretariat and FPA level to further IPPF's explicit goal of increasing the right of access to abortion. IPPF has plans of action, as they call them, to promote abortion in Central and South America where unborn children are now legally safeguarded. They have plans to repeal the pro-life laws in Africa, the Muslim countries in the Middle East, and several Asian countries. In Poland, the chairman of the Parliamentary Group on the Family, Stanislaw Kowolikveouk recently lashed out at external factions in Poland for meddling in that country and pushing for liberalized abortion. As a result of strong lobbying by family planning groups, Poland recently reversed the pro-life policies of Lech Walesa and Solidarity and put in its place, the pro-abortion policy of the Communists. Only last week's action by Poland's high court stopped the new abortion law from going into effect. Another example of backlash over United States and Planned Parenthood pressure to legalize abortion on demand is the Philippines. A headline in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last July: ``Flavier Hits U.S. Pressure on Abortion.'' The article quotes Senator Juan Flavier: We had just celebrated our 50th anniversary of independence from America, but we can still see insidious methods of imperialism trying to subvert our self-determination by using [population control] funds as subtle leverage * * *. I strongly oppose abortion. It is prohibited by our laws and the Philippine Constitution. Hence, we should be prepared to lose foreign funding rather than be pressured into causing the death of unborn children. The abortion promotion by Planned Parenthood is so extreme in the Philippines that the president of IPPF's affiliate--the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines [FPOP]--resigned over what he called International Planned Parenthood Federation's ``hidden agenda'' and use of his affiliate as a Trojan horse to legalize abortion. The use of family planning as cover--the use of family planning as a Trojan horse for abortion law liberalization is now commonplace and must be stopped. Let me remind Members that the pro-life safeguards included in my amendment are nothing new; they were in effect for almost a decade. And they worked. The pro-life safeguards often referred to as the Mexico City Policy were in effect during the Reagan and Bush years as a principled way to fully fund family planning without promoting abortion. Specifically, the safeguards say this: We will donate funds only to those organizations that will not perform abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Funds may go to those organizations that will not lobby for or against abortion. We should have no part in empowering the abortion industry to succeed in its war on the unborn. If Members want to promote abortions, be up-front and legislate that. But don't hide behind counterfeit amendments like the Campbell substitute. The Mexico City Policy makes it very clear that there ought to be a wall of separation between abortion and family planning. The Campbell amendment--with all due respect to its author, a friend of mine--is a fake and a counterfeit. The second part of our amendment relates to forced abortion. Every day, forced abortion and forced sterilization devastate the lives of women and families in China while the U.N. Population Fund provides political cover and sustenance to those who practice these abuses. The Government of China compels women to abort their so-called unauthorized, illegal unborn children. It starts with intense persuasion using all of the economic, social, and psychological tools a totalitarian State has at its disposal. If these methods fail, women are taken physically to abortion mills. Forced abortions are often performed very late in pregnancy, even in the ninth month. Sometimes the baby's skull is crushed with forceps as the baby emerges from the birth canal. Other times the baby gets an injection of formaldehyde or some other poison into the baby's cranium. The mass murderers, euphemistically called family planning cadres, are at it every day-- killing babies, devastating women's lives. Forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. Today, it is employed aggressively and with chilling effectiveness and unbearable pain upon women in the People's Republic of China. Women in China are required to obtain a birth coupon before conceiving a child. Chinese women are hounded by the population control cadres and even their menstrual cycles are publicly monitored as one means of ensuring compliance. The New York Times has pointed out in an expose that the authorities, when they discover an unauthorized pregnancy, an illegal child, normally apply a daily dose of threats and browbeating. They wear the women down. Eventually, if the woman does not succumb to the abortion, she is physically forced to submit. In the mid-1990's, the PRC issued a decree on eugenics which nationalizes discrimination against the handicapped. In a move that is eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Communist Chinese Government is implementing forced abortion against handicapped children simply because they suffer an anomaly like Downs Syndrome, and forced sterilization against parents who simply do not measure up in the eyes of the State. Since 1979, the U.N. Population Fund has provided funds, materiel, people on the ground and what no money could buy, the sort of shield of respectability that the PRC Program so desperately wants. Mr. Chairman, in July 1995, victims of the Chinese forced abortion program testified to the truth. Our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights heard the testimony of three women who testified that they had been forced to have abortions. One of those witnesses, Li Bao Yu [Lee Bough You], told us how her troubles started in earnest after she removed an IUD that the population cadres had forced her accept, but which had been making her sick. She became pregnant. The family planning program officials, who came to inspect every woman in the village several times a year--the involuntary inspections a serious violation of each woman's privacy-- discovered her pregnancy and threatened that if she did not have the abortion, her first child would be denied education and health care. In her own words, They threatened me that I do not agree to have this abortion, then my first child will forever have no chance of being a registered, normal citizen. Mr. Chairman, this is the human cost of the shameful program that for years has been assisted, praised, coddled, and protected by the U.N. Population Fund, the UNFPA. The supporters of this amendment argue that if it were not for UNFPA, the Chinese program would be even worse. But this is an assertion without evidence. UNFPA officials including Nafis Sadiq have repeatedly praised the Chinese program. UNFPA has provided demographic capabilities--a tracking system that hunts down women bearing babies--a system that enables the Beijing population commissars to tell where they need to enforce their program more vigorously. They have trained thousands of cadres--the implementors of this egregious policy. They have provided major elements of the infrastructure that systematically oppresses the women of China and murders their babies. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Campbell amendment would delete the pro-human rights language in my amendment and insert a substitute that looks good and does next to nothing. UNFPA could spend all the money it wanted in China so long as it kept a separate set of books that showed our money going only for projects outside China. There would also be a reduction in the U.S. contribution--but past experience has shown that a reduction is not enough. The language of the amendment is almost identical to language that has been adopted in the past by the Appropriations Committee, and when this language has been adopted, UNFPA has stayed in China. Only when there was a real threat of serious action--an absolute condition that UNFPA get out of China or lose our money--did UNFPA even go through the motions of getting out. So the substitute language is simply not enough. It absolutely trivializes these crimes--it should not be enough for those of us who are pro-life, and it should not be enough for those who think of themselves as pro-choice. If there is anything UNFPA's involvement in China is not about, it is not about free choice. This House has voted countless times to condition United States funding for UNFPA on its disengagement from the PRC forced abortion program. Last year, we gave UNFPA some flexibility. They insisted they were no longer giving grants in China. They still had an office there, which they said they were using to administer old grants. Now it turns out that they are actively negotiating with the Chinese Government for future grants and contracts. So we were misled last year: UNFPA was not getting out of China and, unless we take decisive action, has no intention of getting out of China. Congress gave UNFPA the flexibility their supporters said they needed. This is as far as we can go. Loyalty to these women--these victims of unspeakable torture--will allow us to go no further.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that the language in our amendment says if the President can certify that there is no more forced abortion, and if they get out of China, which is what we are advocating, because they have had this duplicitous, egregious policy, working hand in glove with the dictatorship, we are saying get out and they get their full $25 million. And there will also probably be about $400 million of other family planning money that is also in the bill that is conditioned by the first part of the amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentleman will continue to yield, unless the forced abortion is ended, sure. They have had a hand-in- glove relationship.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time. We have 25 speakers, many of whom thought this would be starting at 10:30, so many are probably on their way over at this time. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today two diametrically opposed resolutions will be on the floor, in the next order of business dealing with population control. The Campbell-Greenwood substitute, which is a substitute to a bill or amendment that I am offering along with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], promotes abortion on demand overseas and not family planning. The Campbell-Greenwood amendment does not add any pro-life conditions to current law. Rather, it blurs the distinction between abortion and family planning in U.S.-supported programs overseas. It allows U.S. dollars to go to the U.N. Population Fund, the UNFPA, even though that organization continues to support China's brutally enforced one-child- per-couple policy, and to nongovernmental organizations that are engaged in a crusade for abortion on demand around the world. My amendment does not reduce family planning by even one penny. It conditions those funds to those organizations that are all about family planning and not about abortion promotion. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Campbell-Greenwood, a ``yes'' vote on Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 50th anniversary of former Secretary of State George Marshall's commencement address to the graduating class at Harvard University. In that address, Secretary Marshall laid the foundation for the historic foreign aid program that would come to be known as the Marshall plan. Mr. Speaker, most historians would agree that the Marshall plan was the most dramatically successful peacetime foreign policy implemented by the United States. However, when our Nation moved so swiftly and sincerely to assist the war-ravaged landscape, economy and political structure of Europe in the late 1940's, it also marked the beginning of the United States' role as worldwide peacekeeper and protector of democracy. Beginning with the Yalta Conference in 1945--when some argued that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had given away Eastern Europe to Joseph Stalin--the world entered a new arena of confrontation unlike any before. When Winston Churchill referred to the borders of the Eastern Bloc Communist countries as the ``Iron Curtain'', the stage had been set for the cold war. The Revolutionary War brought us our independence; the Civil War gave us our national identity; the First World War made us players in the international arena; and the Second World War turned America into a superpower. For those veterans, there can be no doubt. Their participation in the combat theater ensures that their selflessness and contribution to our great Nation will never be overlooked or be taken for granted. Yet, Mr. Speaker, for those veterans who gave just as selflessly to this country, but may have never looked directly into the eyes of the enemy, there is honor for them as well. From the policy of containment in the late 1940's to detente in the 1970's to confrontation in the early 1980's to the revolution in 1991, the veterans of the cold war stared unwaveringly into the depths of communism, and they did not blink for an instant. Rather, these veterans made it manifestly clear that democracy--that government by, of, and for the people--would be secure not only for America, but also for the entire world. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, from Capt. Gary Powers to every sailor who stood ready off the shores of Cuba, I salute all cold war veterans, and thank them for their service to our great Nation.