Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Joe Duffy back in 1994 in a letter to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] stated, and I quote, ``TV Marti broadcasting is consistently being received by a sufficient Cuban audience to warrant its continuation.'' Havana, without question, is being heavily jammed. But outside of that area more people are able to pick it up. Plus areas near to Cuba-- other islands and other countries--can also pick it up.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Skaggs amendment and in support of the Diaz-Balart substitute amendment. The Skaggs amendment is aimed at the heart of what is sometimes called surrogate broadcasting. An even better term for it is ``freedom broadcasting.'' We are sending the message of freedom to people who live in countries where this message is not permitted to be carried by domestic radio or television stations. The Skaggs amendment would eliminate TV Marti. It would deprive Cubans of not only vital information about the free world but also of the hope that comes with knowing that a free world does care. The Diaz- Balart substitute guarantees fiscal responsibility without compromising our commitment to freedom. If the President wants to certify, as his substitute would so state, let the President certify that and live with the consequences of denying this very important surrogate broadcasting to the people of Cuba. Eliminating or crippling freedom broadcasting to Cuba, as the Skaggs amendment would do, would send exactly the wrong message at exactly the wrong time. The Castro dictatorship is at an all-time low, both in domestic support and international prestige. Like the two recent Clinton-Castro immigration agreements, the silencing of TV Marti would provide new hope for the Castro dictatorship and a fresh dose of despair to those who struggle for human rights in Cuba. The argument that TV Marti is technologically inadequate and that we should therefore not fund it is destined to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights which I chair has examined this question in public hearings over the last 3 years. We have discovered, in effect, that it is too soon to evaluate the success of TV Marti because the Clinton administration has not yet tried to make TV Marti work. The reason TV Marti does not reach more Cubans has less to do with technology and more to do with administrative timidity or perhaps a willful resistance to congressional mandate. Right now, because of jamming by the Castro regime, TV Marti is received primarily by those who live outside of Havana. It can also be received by government officials and by the Communist party elite who have access to satellite TV. It is important to let them know that the world is watching them and hopefully holding them to some account. But there is no question that we can do better. The technology is there for UHF broadcasting which would be far more difficult for the censors to jam, and would enable TV Marti to reach millions of more people. I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] made a very good point a moment ago. Had we during the 1970's and 1980's because of Russian jamming stood up and said, ``Let's just eliminate the program,'' we would have given Brezhnev and all his predecessors a real shot in the arm as they clamped down on human rights and freedom in the Soviet Union. Let me just say that the Diaz-Balart substitute would discontinue TV Marti if and only if the President certifies that its continuation is not in the national interest. Again, the ball would be in the President's court. I support that, and I would ask Members to go against the underlying amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo my statement earlier during general debate that I do think that Division A is a very responsible attempt to try to reform our State Department. As a matter of fact, I chair the subcommittee that oversees this. We have held hearings. We have looked at it very closely. My concern is that, if we wait for the President to come up with something and we basically surrender all of our prerogatives to the executive branch, then they come back and then--like the base closings legislation, the BRACC--we have an ability to overturn it; but the chances are slim to none that that will happen, for a variety of reasons. Here we have a responsible piece of legislation that tries. Glitches, if there are any, can be worked out in conference. It is a work in progress. But, for example, it protects the freedom broadcasting capabilities of USIA at the same time that it introduces economies of scale which will eliminate some duplication. I come to this somewhat reluctantly. Last Congress I felt that-- especially concerning USIA, but with ACDA as well--perhaps consolidation was not the right course to take. But now, upon reflection and looking at an ever-shrinking pie in terms of the amount of money that is available, this seems to be a very responsible move. I hope, with all due respect to my good friend from Indiana, that Members will vote down his amendment and go with the underlying bill.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recommend passage of H.R. 1757, and I hope that the House will adopt an important amendment that I will offer later on during consideration of this bill dealing with the pro life issue. I am also pleased to note that Division B of the bill was H.R. 1253, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, which I introduced earlier this year and which was marked up by our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. The plan to couple this bill with the foreign aid bill was aimed at expediting consideration of both bills over on the Senate side. Now that they are decoupled again, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act is proceeding separately, with another bill being attached to it which we will consider very shortly. Although I know many of my Democratic colleagues are unhappy with the procedural steps that have led to the consideration of this bill, and I share some of their frustration, believe me, I do believe that the substance of Division B is a solid, thoughtful product, and the result of bipartisan cooperation. In it, we fund most of our programs at or near the administration's request, but in some cases we shift some priorities in an effort to ensure that American foreign policy reflects American values. On a few items of compelling importance, such as refugee protection, the World Food Program, assistance to torture victims, and combating international child labor, the bill provides modest increases over and above the administration request. I fully support the language encouraging the United States Government to press the Turkish Government to permit true freedom of religion. Of premier concern is the continued closure of the Halki Theological School, which is a clear violation of international treaties to which Turkey has been a signatory, including but not limited to the Helsinki Final Act, the Treaty of Lausanne, the 1968 Protocol, and the Charter of Paris. The Turkish Government should allow the Theological School, which was closed by that government more than 25 years ago, to reopen and have unhindered training for the Orthodox Christian leadership. Full religious liberty does not exist when a religious group is not allowed to develop or openly train its leadership. We cannot stand by and simply observe this policy of gradual strangulation by the Turkish Government, but must make every effort to encourage Ankara to recognize the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to train its own leaders, consistent with Turkey's international commitments. In addition, the Turkish Government should work to ensure the security of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the property belonging to the Patriarchate. property restitution (sec. 1716) Mr. Speaker, the committee adopted the language pertaining to the issue of wrongly confiscated foreign properties, which I had offered as an amendment. This language stemmed from a hearing the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--which I chaired in the 104th Congress--convened last July. At that hearing, Under Secretary of Commerce Stuart Eizenstat and Chairwoman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Delissa Ridgway outlined the maze of programs and procedures which govern property claims in Central and Eastern Europe today. Section 1716 acknowledges the especially compelling plight of Holocaust survivors in Central and Eastern Europe, who were often denied compensation for their suffering at the end of the war. We call on governments in this region to stop discriminating in their restitution or compensation laws on the basis of citizenship or residency--provisions that, in one particularly egregious case--the Czech Republic--appear designed to exclude Americans from this process. deployment of democracy in the republic of serbia (sec. 1714) Section 1714 makes two critical points regarding democratization in Serbia. First, the language notes that even ethnic Serbs are denied basic human rights by the Milosevic regime, even though he claims to speak in their name. This fact was emphasized at a Helsinki Commission hearing last December, where representatives of opposition political parties, the alternative workers movement and the independent media in Serbia presented testimony regarding the regime's attempt to deny the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box. A meeting the Helsinki Commission had with Serbian student protesters in January confirmed that the people in the streets at that time did not just want election results recognized; they wanted the promise of a democratic future. Mr. Speaker, they deserve our support for that. The second point made in this section is that, while the United States decided-- rightly or wrongly--to end Milosevic's isolation and deal with him directly in Dayton to end the Bosnian conflict, we recognize that genuine peace and true regional stability rests not in making a deal with a dictator, but in the establishment of a democratic society. The Helsinki Commission first raised this point at the conclusion of a fact-finding mission to Serbia and Montenegro organized 1 year ago. Section 1714 supports the development of democratic institutions and civil society in Serbia, especially in regard to free media and the rule of law. We would also link normalization of United States relations with Belgrade to free and fair elections, the recognition of those results, and the toleration of democratic development. There are other critical issues linked to normalization, like cooperation with the International Tribunal for war crimes in the Hague and progress in Kosovo, and the language appropriately alludes to this fact. I know my good friend from Indiana noted that these additions were not asked for, but I remind Members that it was a bipartisan bill that asked for more money to combat the scourge of child labor. This bill gives $10 million each year to the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor of the International Labor Organization to try to combat this terrible exploitation of children for their labor. Like the subcommittee that produced it, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act is not only about international operations, but also about human rights. Every structural and fiscal decision has been taken with an eye toward preserving core humanitarian programs, saving lives and promoting the just interests of the American people. While providing adequate funding for foreign relations programs, the bill also attempts to improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability in these programs. It reforms the State Department retirement and personnel programs to prevent double dipping and restores the power of the Secretary of State to terminate the employment of convicted felons, a power that had been inexplicably curtailed by an administrative grievance board. H.R. 1757 also requires the State Department to report to the Congress on its efforts to get the government of Vietnam to cooperate on unresolved POW-MIA issues and on the deplorable human rights situation in that country, which includes the imprisonment not only of political dissidents but also of Buddhists, Catholic priests, and Protestant ministers. The Department would also be required to report on the progress of efforts to resolve claims by United States firms against the government of Saudi Arabia, claims that should have been resolved a long, long time ago, and it would put an end to the outrageous practice of requiring United States citizens to pay for a 900 number when they want to know why the Department is late in processing their passports. I want to say a word or two about the provisions to streamline and reform our foreign policy agencies. Mr. Chairman, this bill reduces the number of agencies by two. Just as important, it does so in a way that would not only increase efficiency and reduce costs but, importantly, will preserve the vital functions of these agencies. In particular, the provisions of the bill were designed to preserve the independence of our international freedom broadcasting services and other functions of public diplomacy that are performed by the U.S. Information Agency. We do not simply turn Radio Free Asia and Radio Marti over to the State Department so the country desks can do whatever they want on a short-term basis to promote what they think is important. By preserving the independence of these institutions within a new and distinct division of the State Department, we ensure that they will continue to reflect long-term American interests and values by supporting freedom and democracy around the world. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word or two about the pro life amendment that I will offer at the appropriate time during consideration of this bill. This amendment will clarify and will clearly define U.S. policy with respect to abortion around the world, particularly with respect to forced abortion. First, it will enact a positive law--the Mexico City policy--which prohibits United States population assistance funds from going to foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning overseas. Second, it will prohibit contributions to UNFPA, UN Population Fund, unless it ceases its support for the coercive population control program in the People's Republic of China. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that will ensure that the U.S. foreign policy really does reflect American values. Mr. Chairman, we need to support human rights across the board, including the rights of unborn children and of women who are brutalized by forced abortion. We can make a strong statement here that American foreign policy must reflect those values.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I think that is helpful, especially as the sensitive stage of negotiations is underway. So I do thank the gentleman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate the eighth anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, and the task of people who believe in truth and justice is more difficult than ever before. Eight years ago, the world watched in horror as the Chinese military, under the direction of General Chi Haotian, rolled into Tiananmen Square and gunned down thousands of people--young and old--who had gathered in the Square, the heart of China, to peacefully seek reform and greater freedoms from their government. In minutes, the hopes and dreams of people the world over united in solidarity with the Tiananmen Square protesters were destroyed, and millions stood in disbelief that any government could unleash such terror on its people while the world watched. I am sure that Chinese Government officials believed that, in time, the world would forget what happened in the early hours of June 4, 1989. But the spirit of those thousands who died there lives on. Their blood cries out so that we will not forget. Our hearts still ache for the dead, the injured, the arrested. Mr. Speaker, the world has not forgotten the martyrs of Tiananmen Square. But there is something going on now that would be even more tragic than forgetting the Tiananmen Square Massacre and those who gave their lives on that day 8 years ago. Now, the Chinese Government does not want us to forget this event happened, it wants us to believe that it never happened--that thousands of peaceful young people were not shot down in cold blood, that hundreds more were not injured. The Chinese Government wants us to believe that what we witnessed, what has been reported by observers, is a fabrication. A big lie. That instead of innocent students who were attacked, it was the People's Liberation Army which was under attack and on the defense. The Butcher of Beijing, Gen. Chi Haotian, who ordered the troops into Tiananmen Square, and who is ultimately responsible for every death, every injury, every arrest, is now the Defense Minister of China. Just 6 months ago, this man was the honored guest of the Clinton administration--meeting with the President, given full military honors, and addressing top U.S. military officials. The civilized world was stunned during his visit when General Chi told us that ``not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square'' and that the People's Liberation Army did nothing more violent than the ``pushing'' of ``hooligans.'' But, Mr. Speaker, we know the truth. We know that thousands died and more were injured. Witnesses have told of the horrors as people died standing up for freedom, democratic reform, and human rights. Mr. Speaker, today is not enough for us to just remember. We must raise our voices so that the lives and deaths of those martyred in Tiananmen Square will not be erased. The memory of those who died 8 years ago must burn in our hearts not just today but every day. We must not allow their deaths to be in vain. We must not allow the deeds of evil people to be rewarded and their lies to go unchallenged. Mr. Speaker, today, we stand as one, to remember the courage of those who gave their lives in Tiananmen Square, and to commit ourselves to continue working together to carry on their dreams to bring about a free and democratic China.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to congratulate the gentleman on his very fine amendment. The majority has looked at it very carefully. We like it. We think it will help the bill, so I thank him for his contribution to this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend for his amendment. I served as ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere for a couple of terms. It was very apparent that Latin America often got short-shrifted and did not get its fair share of developmental aid. In the heyday of the Nicaraguan and El Salvadoran crisis, the Contras and all of that, all of a sudden everybody cared about Central America. When that was over, it seemed a lot of people just wanted to look elsewhere. I think the amendment is a good step in the right direction, and in Asia as well. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], my friend and colleague, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Radanovich]. I share their interest to see a pipeline leave the Caspian Sea region and cross the Caucasus and Turkey to reach the Mediterranean. The energy reserves of the Caspian region and of central Asia may prove vital to the U.S. and its allies in the course of the next few decades. However, it is also important for the independence of the states of those two regions that some of the pipelines that will be built to export that energy follow routes outside the control of Russia. Frankly, there have been too many indications that Russia has tried to employ its control of the existing export pipelines to place political pressure on the other independent states of the former Soviet Union. And circumstances in surrounding areas such as the conflict in Afghanistan and the vast distances and high mountains of China have made it difficult to complete new export pipelines quickly. Mr. Chairman, I also support this amendment because I do not want to see the energy-exporting countries of the Caucasus and central Asian regions forced to build pipelines across the territory of Iran due to the instability and the conflict in the Caucasus and due to the Russian manipulation of existing pipelines. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and the more hard currency it makes by shipping oil and gas across its territory, the more the U.S. will have to guard against it. The answer is to build a major pipeline across Turkey to the Mediterranean. Perhaps such a pipeline, if it were to cross Armenia or Georgia, would also prove a means of ensuring stability for all of the countries of the Caucuses region. I support the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for his fine amendment. I think he helps the issue of deadbeat dads or parents and will, I think, make a very strong statement to the U.N. simply to enforce their own regulations. They ought to be a shining example rather than something other than that. So I think he does a very good service, and the linkages to arrearages could not come at a better time. So I rise in strong support of the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in very strong support of the gentleman's amendment. The need for various types of aid to the Ukraine cannot be underestimated. Last year, as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, we held a hearing on the ongoing crisis in Chernobyl. The G-7 has pledged a tremendous amount of aid to shut down the reactor and to encase it in a way that will make it less dangerous than it is currently, and very little of that money has been produced over the last couple of years. We also heard of the devastating impact of the cancers that are being suffered by children as a result of contamination from the nuclear fallout, and they cannot even begin to cope with the humanitarian medical and hospital needs in the Ukraine that should have been to that Chernobyl disaster. As the gentleman pointed out, they have been forthcoming when it comes to NATO. As partners, as friends, they have embraced NATO. They have unilaterally forfeited the nuclear warheads on their own soil. That is a grand gesture of peace in my view, especially given the potential animosities between themselves and Russia which we all know exists today. So I believe while there are problems, as is acknowledged in this resolution, dealing with corruption and it is insisted in this resolution that our economic interests be treated fairly, I think the resolution is a good one and deserves the support, and I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not insist on the point of order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to thank my good friend the gentleman from New York for offering this amendment. The majority has looked at it carefully and we like it. We have worked together on issues related to Albania for a number of years. I commend the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough]. I think my colleague does a really good and worthwhile service for the suffering Christians and the suffering people of faith in the Sudan. My Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights last year held two hearings. One was on the use of chattel slavery in the Sudan and the terrible policy of forced Islamization, where young boys and girls, mostly boys, are kidnapped and then during the course of 6 months to 2 years, or whatever time period it seems to take, they are brainwashed, Sun Myung Moon-like, with sleep deprivation and other things, to separate themselves from their families, which they are already physically separated from, but also from their faith and all past cultural ties; and then they have this radical Islamic perspective forced upon them. As we all know, in southern Sudan there has been horrific policy of what many of us consider to be genocide. Khartoum countenances this as part and parcel of it. So I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] does a very worthwhile thing by raising this issue on the House floor. We also had a hearing on the persecution of Christians worldwide, and it was the first hearing of its kind ever in the House, and heard from a large variety of panels and people and experts from Amnesty International to across the board. Nina Shay from Freedom House testified, and they bemoan the fact that there is a frightening rising tide of anti-Christianity and that this is a persecution that has to be addressed by anyone who believes in religious freedom and religious tolerance. So I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] does a great service with his amendment, and I fully support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special friend and a true military leader, an all-American hero, U.S. Navy Capt. Leroy Farr. Captain Farr is retiring from the Navy after 30 years of outstanding service to our country. He will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I have deep respect and admiration for Captain Farr's character, commitment, and dedication. He's a doer, highly competent, yet modest. With his easy going manner, you just can't help liking the guy. Capt. Leroy Farr has a diverse background in naval aviation and a distinguished one. Test pilot; landing signal officer; operations and maintenance officer; squadron commanding officer; air boss; program manger, and inspector general are some of the positions he has held. The veteran aviator graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1967. He majored in mathematics and aeronautical engineering. Ensign Farr attended North Carolina State University, receiving his master's degree in mechanical engineering in 1968. In April 1969, he earned the coveted naval aviation wings and entered the Light Attack community flying the A-7B. Lieutenant Farr served with VA-46, deploying twice with U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67). In 1972, he was selected to attend the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards AFB, CA. In 1976, Lieutenant Farr attended the Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, VA. He went on to serve as project test pilot at the Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, CA. He returned to the A-7 Light Attack community for a tour with VA-83 at NAS Cecil Field, FL where he deployed with U.S.S. Forrestal (CV-59). In 1979, Lieutenant Commander Farr returned to shore duty with VA-174, the A-7 Fleet Training Squadron. In 1980 Commander Farr went back to sea as executive officer and commanding officer of VA-37 flying the A-7E and deployed on both U.S.S. Saratoga (CV-60) and U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67). He began his air boss tour in 1983 on board U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67). Commander Farr was assigned to Naval Air Systems Command headquarters in Washington, DC in 1985. There he served as a branch head in the Test and Evaluation Division, then as the unmanned air vehicle class desk officer in Weapons Engineering Division. From 1987 through 1990, Captain Farr commanded the Naval Weapons Evaluation Facility in Albuquerque, NM. He was again assigned to Naval Air Systems Command Headquarters, first in the Inspector General's Office, then as head of the Ship and Shore Installations Division. In July 1992, Captain Farr was named program manager for the new established Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment Program (PMA251). He became commanding officer of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Lakehurst, June 1993. I am especially grateful for the critical role he played in saving Lakehurst from closing. Lakehurst, Mr. Speaker, is the heart of naval aviation. It is a unique, one-of-its-kind, world-class facility whose primary function is to ensure that aircraft safely launch and recover from the deck of a carrier or other platform, and that support equipment assist in the service of planes, parts, and ordinance at sea. The safety and success of every single naval aircraft depends on the work and skill housed at Navy Lakehurst. Despite it's military value, the Department of Defense erroneously targeted Navy Lakehurst for closure--and then for a radical realignment. As part of the realignment scenario, the critical manufacturing, design, and research that goes on at Lakehurst was to be split apart and relocated at other bases. As commanding officer of Lakehurst, Captain Farr was undoubtedly between a rock and a hard place. He knew the facts. But as a Navy officer, Captain Farr could not and would not violate his chain of command. At the same time, as a captain, a pilot, a former air boss and the current commanding officer of Navy Lakehurst, Captain Farr knew better than anyone just how devastating the close Lakehurst scenario would be for national security and pilot safety. It was an unusual situation where one's own military command was supporting a plan not in the best interest of American security. A predicament in which a man of less character, less courage, less fortitude, and less grit might decide to look the other way--and let the chips fall where they may. But not Leroy Farr. Captain Farr simply did what was right. I remember his wife, Barbara, telling me just how much he grieved for the future of Navy Lakehurst and the future of any pilot who might fly off an aircraft carrier without the support of the skilled workers and artisans at Navy Lakehurst. I had the good fortune of sitting in on Captain Farr's many briefings when BRAC officials would come to the base to see for themselves what went on at Navy Lakehurst. It was in these skillful presentations that Captain Farr laid the ground work for the ultimate reversal of the close Lakehurst scenario. Captain Farr was informed, clear, concise, fair, direct, honest, sincere, and effective. It has been my distinct honor and privilege to have worked with Captain Farr and I know I speak not only for myself but for all who support Navy Lakehurst and are dedicated to a strong, capable military defense when I say that we will sincerely miss him. I wish nothing but the best for Captain Farr because he, his wife, Barbara, and his family are the best of the best.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Netizens Protection Act of 1997. My legislation is aimed at protecting the internet user from the unseemly practices of the junk e-mailer. The internet user, or Netizen, is in a vulnerable position in the new medium and we in Congress cannot stand idly by as law-abiding citizens have their privacy invaded on an almost regular basis. And no one should have to pay for any such intrusion. This is a bill that has moved, as Justin Newton of the Internet Service Provider Consortium so succinctly stated, from the community to the legislature, not one that was produced by the legislature and then forced upon the community. We are empowering the consumer and the individual to take action against an egregious breach of consumer and individual rights. As increasing numbers of Americans go on-line and become passengers on the information superhighway, consumers' rights must not be eroded, abridged, or mitigated along the way. The Internet--and e-mail--are becoming part of our everyday lives. And no one--from the consumer to the small businesses who run servers-- should be forced to pay for unsolicited advertisements. This is not a question of curbing speech. I believe in the first amendment as much as anyone else. However, the idea of shifting the financial burden of speech on to an unwilling audience is one that needs to be addressed. From the netizen who may incur costs in the form of charges spent online reading and disposing of the messages--there are still millions of internet users who pay in increments of time spent online--to users who assume the costs of both accessing and storing mail they did not want, consumers should not be unwilling, and paying, recipients. Furthermore, junk e-mailers occupy time and space on an Internet Service Provider's ISP servers and forces the ISP to make technical improvements. The cost of these improvements are passed on to the consumer--you and me. In effect, the consumer is paying to have their privacy breached and invaded. And no one remains unaffected by these intrusions. The business owner or ISP with their own server often unwittingly distributes unsolicited advertisements by acting as an exploder site or mail relay site. Not only is this trespassing on another person's property, but it is an outright theft of another person's resources. Even more disturbing is the fact that a large portion of the unsolicited junk e-mail comes in the form of fraudulent get rich quick schemes, unproven medical remedies, and other unsavory solicitations. Let me reiterate that my legislation is targeted at unsolicited commercial e-mail. The paths of communications between friends and acquaintances and businesses and their customers remains wide open. As a matter of fact, this legislation still offers the opportunity for legitimate direct marketers to do business. Certainly, the traditional avenues of direct marketing which do not shift the burden of cost to the recipient, such as postal mail, remain unchanged; and individuals will have the right to opt-in and be reached by legitimate direct marketers via e-mail. And let us not forget that we will still be exposed to electronic billboard and banner advertising on the Internet. My legislation will make unsolicited advertisements unlawful by amending the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 which banned unsolicited junk faxes. The banning of junk e-mails is a natural extension of existing law. Based on a Ninth Circuit Court decision in Destination Ventures v. FCC (1995), there is substantial Government interest in protecting consumers from having to bear the costs of third-party advertising. In addition, the court also held that advertisers have no right to turn consumers into a ``captive audience'' that is ``incapable of declining to receive a message.'' I believe I have crafted a bill--although it is just the beginning of a process which includes hearings and committee work--that is acceptable to most parties involved. It allows people to ``opt in'' and receive unsolicited advertisements if they give their consent, but it does not put the onus on the individual to stop the unsolicited advertisers as an ``opt out'' plan would do. Today, at a press conference Ray Everett, a representative of the proconsumer group Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail, and Justin Newton, a representative from the pro-business Internet Service Providers Consortium--each coming at the issue from different sides--both came to the same conclusion--this legislation would be an effective way to put a stop to unsolicited advertisements.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and a true military giant, an American hero--U.S. Navy Captain Leroy Farr. Captain Farr is retiring from the Navy after 30 years of service to our country. As a test pilot, landing signal officer, operations and maintenance officer, squadron commanding officer, air boss, program manager, and inspector general, Captain Farr has a record in naval aviation that is second to none. In 30 years Captain Farr has racked up numerous accomplishments but one of the greatest achievements in his distinguished record is the quiet but critical role he played in helping to save a strategic military asset--the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ. Lakehurst, Mr. Speaker, is the heart of naval aviation. It is a unique, one-of-its-kind, world-class facility whose primary function is to ensure that aircraft safely launch and recover from the deck of a carrier or other platform, and that support equipment assist in the service of planes, parts, and ordinance at sea. The safety and success of every single naval aircraft depends on the work and skill housed at Navy Lakehurst. Despite its military value, the Department of Defense erroneously targeted Navy Lakehurst for closure--and then for a radical realignment. As part of the realignment scenario, the critical manufacturing, design, and research that goes on at Lakehurst was to be split apart and relocated at other bases. Knowing that we had to act quickly to respond to this disaster, I immediately called together business and community leaders to discuss a plan to defend our base. We formed the Save Lakehurst Committee and organized a massive effort to save Navy Lakehurst. But without reliable facts and figures, our effort would have been for naught. As commanding officer of Lakehurst, Captain Farr was undoubtedly between a rock and a hard place. He knew the facts; he knew the figures. But as a Navy officer, Captain Farr could not and would not violate his chain of command. At the same time, as a Captain, a pilot, a former air boss, and the current commanding officer of Navy Lakehurst, Captain Farr knew better than anyone just how devastating the close Lakehurst scenario would be for national security and pilot safety. It was an unusual situation where one's own military command was supporting a plan not in the best interest of the military. A predicament in which a man of less character, less courage, less fortitude and less grit might decide to look the other way--and let the chips fall where they may. But not Leroy Farr. Captain Farr drew strength from his own personal skills and attributes enabling him to strike a balance between the plans of his Pentagon and the needs of his Nation. I remember his wife, Barbara, telling me just how much he grieved for the future of Navy Lakehurst and the future of any pilot who might fly off an aircraft carrier without the support of the skilled workers and artisans at Navy Lakehurst. I had the good fortune of sitting in on Captain Farr's many briefings when BRAC officials would come to the base to see for themselves what went on at Navy Lakehurst. It was in these skillful presentations that Captain Farr laid the groundwork for the ultimate reversal of the close Lakehurst scenario. Captain Farr was informed, clear, concise, fair, direct, honest, sincere, and always careful to never publicly repudiate the Pentagon's plans. Yet, on those critical points and questions when the facts simply did not fit the Pentagon's proposal, Captain Farr was sure to let the facts speak for themselves. And the facts spoke volumes. Each fact introduced or underscored in a Captain Farr briefing became amplified by our community effort. We catapulted--to coin a phrase--the information to the BRAC Commission who in turn were persuaded not by rhetoric but by data--real hard evidence. They reversed the Pentagon proposal and secured the future of Navy Lakehurst and naval aviation and the safety of every Navy pilot. Captain Farr's love of his country and love of his military--and his ability to withstand the heat--enabled him to educate and guide all of us who could openly and publicly challenge the Pentagon on the basis of military value and pilot safety. He did it not in a brash, self- promoting, self-serving or destructive manner but with class, dignity, firmness, integrity, valor, and resolve. And in this effort Captain Farr demonstrated that he is the personification of what our future military leaders should always strive to be: brave, decent, honorable leaders who put the safety of the Nation at the forefront of every decision. It has been my distinct honor and privilege to have worked with Captain Farr and I know I speak not only for myself but for all who support Navy Lakehurst and are dedicated to a strong, capable military defense when I say that we will sincerely miss you and your brand of military leadership. Our gratitude for your dedication, contribution, and success is immeasurable. We wish you the absolute best in your future endeavors with your wife Barbara and your children, Patty, Sherry, and Andrew--you, Captain, have earned it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The State Department has notified the House International Relations Committee of the President's intention to invoke the national security waiver clause of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. That law bars U.S. assistance to any country which prohibits or restricts the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. The national security clause allows the President to waive the implementation of the law on the grounds of U.S. national security interests. The beneficiary of the administration's munificence is Turkey, which has refused since 1993 to let United States humanitarian aid transit its territory to Armenia. Referring to Turkey's ethnic kinship to Azerbaijan, which has been locked in conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh since 1988, and to the occupation of Azerbaijani territory by Nargorno-Karabakh Armenians, Ankara has closed all land routes to Armenia. The opening of an air corridor in 1995 has in no way mitigated the impact of this decision, which forces United States aid to transit Georgia. Last year, President Clinton also invoked the national security waiver clause of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, without bothering to inform Congress in advance. We learned of the administration's decision post facto, from Turkey's Foreign Minister, who announced it at a May 21, 1995, press conference. The waiver had actually been signed on May 16. This year, President Clinton, having learned his lesson and seeking to blunt criticism, at least gave Congress advance notification. President Clinton's graciousness in 1997 does not, however, compensate for maintaining a bad policy. The arguments in the administration's memorandum of justification for the waiver, neither individually or collectively, can explain away turning a blind eye to Ankara's flouting of basic principles of civilized behavior in the international community. True, Turkey has ethnic ties to Azerbaijan, and is a NATO ally, and the United States cooperates with Turkey on a spectrum of issues. But as I said when I introduced the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act in February 1995, it should be an obvious and unobjectionable principle of U.S. assistance that countries keeping U.S. humanitarian aid from reaching third countries should not receive U.S. aid. Nothing has happened in the intervening 2 years to change my view on this subject. However close Turkey may be to Azerbaijan, Turkey is not a party to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There is simply no reason for Ankara to block the delivery of United States humanitarian aid to Armenia. Moreover, as a member of the OSCE, Turkey has certain commitments: the 1991 Moscow Document calls on participating states to ``cooperate fully to enable humanitarian relief operations to be undertaken speedily and effectively; to take all necessary steps to facilitate speedy and unhindered access for such relief operations; [and to] make the necessary arrangements for those relief operations to be carried out.'' The administration's memorandum of justification is a poor attempt to defend the indefensible. Turkey is impeding the delivery of our humanitarian aid to refugees. That policy is unacceptable. So is the administration's policy of refusing to confront Ankara on this fundamental issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will provide for and coordinate greater research efforts on Parkinson's disease. I am introducing this bill for two reasons. First, I support expanding life-affirming research on Parkinson's. Increasing resources to find a cure is not only a compassionate response to the suffering experienced by over 500,000 Americans, but it is a wise and economical use of our nation's tax dollars. In addition to the human tragedy resulting from the condition, Parkinson's patient advocates note that this terrible disease costs our society some $25 billion a year in direct medical expenses and reduced productivity. Parkinson's is a progressive and debilitating disease that affects a large segment of our population. Therefore, the discovery of a cure or an effective treatment will pay dividends far in excess of the $100 million in authorized funds provided in this bill. As you already know, Parkinson's disease results from a degenerative condition in the brain whereby nerve cells lose the ability to produce the neurotransmitting chemical dopamine. Common symptoms include tremors--particularly in the extremities--rigidity, loss of balance, and bradykinesia, or very slow movements. Parkinson's disease is an incurable condition which afflicts roughly 1 in every 100 people over the age of 60. Existing treatments, such as L-dopa, a pharmaceutical substitute for dopamine, and pallidotomy, a surgical technique which can relieve symptoms, are not long-term solutions, and their effectiveness diminishes over time. While new drugs, medical devices, and surgical techniques which offer symptom relief are all extremely important, a real cure requires the ability to halt the neurodegenerative cycle and repair damaged brain cells. This year, it is estimated that another 50,000 Americans will be diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. Despite these troubling numbers, Parkinson's disease does not get the attention it deserves in our federal medical research institutes. Patient advocates correctly note that while federally funded medical research spends roughly $1,000 per person with AIDS, and $255 per person with cancer, Parkinson's disease receives only $21 per person in research from NIH. This does not mean that other, more prominently discussed, diseases and conditions should receive less, but it does mean that more Parkinson's research is desperately needed, and soon. Second, I continue to have a serious concern that under the Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research bill--H.R. 1260--introduced by our colleagues from Michigan and California, NIH could expand its research using tissue from intentionally aborted babies. As someone with a deep respect for life during all of its phases, I find the exploitation of these murdered innocents simply unethical. The end, even though I agree it is very worthy, does not justify immoral means. The Parkinson's research expansion bill being introduced today by me and 12 of our colleagues addresses this concern. It authorizes the same research funding level as the Udall bill, but bars the use of these funds for research using tissue from aborted babies. Unlike the Udall bill, this legislation will ensure that 100 percent of the funds authorized for Parkinson's research are ethically unimpeachable and noncontroversial. Let me be clear: Parkinson's research is vitally important and should be increased. However, unborn children should not be exploited in the process. In fact, were the Udall bill to come up before the House with the pro-life safeguards included in my legislation, I would enthusiastically support it. Unfortunately, there is a well-founded concern with respect to the issue of fetal tissue research. In January 1993, one of President Clinton's first acts was to overturn a Bush administration policy prohibiting NIH funding of research involving the transplantation of fetal tissue from intentionally aborted babies. In June 1993, a new NIH bill specifically authorized NIH funding of human fetal tissue transplantation research using tissue from any source: ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and induced abortions. Since 1993, there have been four awards by NIH for research on human fetal tissue transplantation, and every single one of them has been in the area of Parkinson's research. So the fetal tissue research issue is clearly relevant to a bill dealing with research to find treatments for Parkinson's disease. Another reason pro-life people have reason to be concerned about the issue of fetal tissue research as it relates to Parkinson's is provided by an April 1996 article in The Washingtonian. In that article, Morton Kondracke writes that the ``fight over lifting a ban on federal funding of fetal-transplant research is what got Joan Samuelson into Parkinson's activism.'' Joan Samuelson, as you may know, is the president of the Parkinson's Action Network, which is the principal organization lobbying Members of Congress to cosponsor H.R. 1260. Of course, there is nothing improper about people or organizations lobbying Congress to endorse fetal tissue research. If people disagree with my view on this issue, that is their right. However, many Members of Congress have been given the impression that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between fetal tissue research and Parkinson's disease. To the contrary, my colleagues should understand that the forces urging them to cosponsor H.R. 1260 are substantially similar to the forces that lobbied Congress during the Bush administration to endorse fetal tissue research involving intentionally aborted unborn children. Many of the same players also opposed an amendment to the NIH reauthorization bill in 1993 which would have ensured that all of the safeguards recommended by an NIH advisory panel were in place before tax dollars were used for fetal tissue transplantation research. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am offering is identical to the Udall bill both in structure and in the funding authorization provided. The only differences between my bill and the Udall bill are: First, the title, to prevent confusion; and second, the pro-life protections contained in the bill. Everything else is identical. Therefore, there is no debate over the commitment to fighting Parkinson's disease. There is no debate over funding levels. There is no debate over the structure of the new program. Indeed, if we could simply focus Federal funding toward the overwhelming majority of Parkinson's research that is uncontroversial, there would be no debate, and the expansion of Parkinson's research could begin almost immediately.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation that will assist disabled veterans who were exposed to extremely cold weather conditions for prolonged periods of time while defending our nation during World War II and the Korean war, and more recently while serving in the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Speaker, veterans of the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir in Korea are recognized as having suffered especially high rates of severe cold injuries. In many instances, service members did not seek or were unable to obtain medical care after cold injuries because of battlefield conditions, which impeded the ability of veterans to acquire supporting documentation, such as buddy letters, which are often used to support claims to the Veterans Administration. For too long, our Government has failed to recognize the severity of the injuries suffered by these veterans, and this legislation will help to right that wrong. Mr. Speaker, my bill instructs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to create and maintain a registry of veterans exposed to extremely cold weather for a great length of time. It will use that information to analyze all clinical data obtained by the Department of Veterans Affairs in connection with exams and treatment given to veterans that may help in determining what kind of association there is between the disability and the cold weather. In addition, if a veteran suffers from a cold weather injury after serving in a war or battle that was fought in prolonged, extreme weather circumstances, it would be presumed--for the purpose of disability benefits--that the injury was caused by the severe weather. Veterans from all over New Jersey, and the Nation, have been requesting that we provide a simplified process of recognizing and identifying this service-connected affliction, which has been ignored for far too long. We have the moral obligation and duty to ensure that our veterans are cared for when injuries and disabilities result from war and service to our country. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Larry St. Laurent, director, and John Dorrity, assistant director, of the Ocean County Veterans Service Bureau, for their hard work and assistance in writing the Veterans Cold Weather Injury Compensation Act. I would urge all of my colleagues to please consider supporting this bill.