Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, ``Dogs have more freedom than us; at least they are not afraid to go outside.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the conclusion of a young Romani father in Slovakia who recounted his experience with growing skinhead violence in his country. His story is, regrettably, just one of the many documented in a January 1997 report prepared by the European Roma Rights Center [ERRC] entitled ``Time of the Skinheads: Denial and Exclusion of Roma in Slovakia.'' This study describes a grim pattern of violent assaults against Roma perpetrated by skinhead extremists; it also suggests that local police forces have been, at best, unwilling to fulfill their obligation to protect their citizens and, at worst, have themselves actually engaged in violence against Roma. Descriptions of a 1995 organized attack on the entire Romani community in the town of Jarovnice--something that reads like a pogrom from a bygone era--were especially chilling. Since Slovakia became an independent state in 1993, a great deal of international attention has, rightly, focused on the status of the Hungarian minority in that country, a community that makes up approximately 10 percent of the population. Slovakia also has another large minority population which is less well known abroad. While the exact number of Roma in Slovakia is contested, it is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands. These people--the survivors of Nazi efforts to eradicate the Roma altogether--now face increasing violent attacks against their homes, their villages, and their lives. The problems of Roma in post-Communist European countries are many, and often defy easy answers. But at least three of the problems described in ``Time of the Skinheads'' do have obvious solutions. First, the Slovak Government has failed to demonstrate any serious effort to acknowledge and address the widespread problem of violent skinhead attacks on Roma. On the contrary, some public officials-- members of the ruling coalition--have repeatedly made crude racist remarks about the Roma. As long as such remarks stand uncontested or unchallenged by Prime Minister Meciar, skinheads will believe that they can attack Roma with impunity. Clearly, local police officials take their cues from the top. Accordingly, any improvement in the situation of Roma in Slovakia must begin with the leadership of that country stating that racism and bigotry will not be tolerated. Second, the ERRC report described a pattern of excessive use of force by the police against Roma. When the victims seek to bring a complaint against the police, the charges are, in effect, reversed and the Rom is charged with assaulting the police. Significantly, the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture released a report on April 3, which also documented a problem of police brutality in Slovakia. That report, like the report of the ERRC, noted that the failure to ensure that those charged with a criminal offense have adequate legal representation has significantly contributed to this miscarriage of justice. One of the purposes of providing such representation is to guarantee a fair trial, consistent with the due process of law, and to ensure that those accused of crimes do not have confessions extracted from them by force. The failure to provide the accused with defense counsel violates one of the most important provisions of the international human rights system--the right to an attorney, a right articulated in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as para. 5.16 of the OSCE Copenhagen Document. I hope the Slovak Government will take immediate measures to redress this problem. Finally, the ERRC report on Slovakia indicates that Slovak localities continue to use a system of tightly controlled residency permits to restrict the freedom of movement of Roma. Not only does this practice offend the nondiscrimination provisions of the Helsinki process, this system also harkens back to the rigid controls of the Communist days. If people are not permitted to move where the jobs are, how can a free market system flourish? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this pattern of violence against Roma is not unique to Slovakia. The ERRC, which was founded to defend the human rights of Roma, has also issued major reports on Austria and Romania. In addition, its most recent newsletter reported on problems Roma face in several other European countries. Clearly, there is much more that many governments in Central Europe can and should do to address these problems. I realize that Slovakia is in the midst of grappling with a very broad range of fundamental questions regarding its development and future. The basic human rights of Roma should be a part of that agenda. I see no better time. Will Slovakia enter the 21st century as a country which seeks to unite its citizens in achieving common goals, or will it lag behind with those countries which have permitted nationalism and racism to divide their people and weaken the very state they worked so hard to create?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on this 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's major league debut, I am proud to say that I am and always have been a fan of Jackie Robinson. Not just for his athletic prowess, but for what I believe is his greatest achievement: his ability to keep his eye on the goal of playing baseball and doing his best in the face of the catcalls, the hissing, and the jeers. With all the societal pressures placed on him, Jackie Robinson breathed life to the idea of community and equality; and proved to his contemporaries that the only color that mattered to him was Dodger blue. But more importantly, he made sure he was judged not by the petty mans' standard of skin color, but by the higher standard of merit, performance, ability, tenacity, and perseverance. No doubt, Jackie Robinson had tough times and dreary days throughout his career. His gift to baseball and, indeed, to America, was his sensibility to see past the setbacks, the biases, the bigotry, and the prejudices directed at him and focus on the enormous task of playing baseball, well, and proving that shades of skin color do not make the player or the man. In high school, I was on the track and field team, and now, as many of my colleagues know, I play annually on the Republican baseball team. I cherish those times on the field. It's hard to imagine that, before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, so many were excluded from the opportunities and rewards that playing organized and professional sports provide us. Some of life's greatest skills--teamwork, stick-to- itiveness, determination, diligence and comradery--are learned and reinforced on the ball field, and to have excluded an entire race from our national pastime is unconscionable. I have four children, Mr. Speaker, who, like myself, have a passion for sports. Every sport my children participate in, from baseball--that would be my son, Chris--to lacrosse--my daughter Melissa--to soccer--my son Mike and my youngest daughter, Elyse, is a lesson in unity and selflessness. And no one lived that lesson better than Jackie Robinson. With two out and one on in scoring position, and your teammate coming to the plate for the possible game winning RBI, you stand and root him on. And your teammate isn't Jackie, the African-American kid, he is Jackie, your friend, and the best darn player on the team. Each time my children step on to a field with their teammates and I see the matching colors of their jerseys worn by a vibrant mix of ethnicity and race, I know that we are getting closer to an equal and unified society. I thank Jackie Robinson for breaking the color barrier and laying the foundation. Yet, I know Jackie Robinson would be disappointed in all of us if we didn't finish what he so courageously began. By remembering and honoring him today we rededicate ourselves and our nation to equality and liberty and justice for all.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, over the last year, we have witnessed a steady deterioration in the human rights situation in Belarus. Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka has flouted international commitments by infringing on the human rights of the citizens of Belarus. He has violated elementary human rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, assembly and association, and has stifled democracy by clamping down on the media, on the democratic opposition, and on fledgling nongovernmental organizations. Lukashenka has amassed near-dictatorial powers, using an illegitimate constitutional referendum held last November to extend his power, disbanding the Parliament and creating a new legislature and constitutional court subservient to him. The international community has widely censured Lukashenka for his blatant disregard for international commitments. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] has repeatedly called upon the Government of Belarus to respect human rights and democratic principles, to enter into dialog with the opposition and to ensure freedom of the media. The chairman in office of the OSCE has stated that neither the preparations for the November 1996 referendum nor the new constitution comply with OSCE norms, principles, and commitments. The OSCE hopes to send a mission to Belarus this month if it receives assurances that the mission can meet with members of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the human rights situation in Belarus has taken a turn for the worse in recent weeks. Last week, on April 3, the leadership of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe-- Helsinki Commission--wrote to President Lukashenka expressing our dismay at recent developments in Belarus and urging President Lukashenka to reverse the deterioration of human rights in his country and live up to obligations freely undertaken as an OSCE member. Mr. Speaker, I request that the letter be included in the Record. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Washington, DC, April 3, 1997. His Excellency Alyaksandr Lukashenka, President, Republic of Belarus, Miensk, Belarus. Dear President Lukashenka: We are writing to express our heightened concern about the further deterioration in the human rights situation in your country and to protest a series of actions by your government in blatant violation of OSCE principles and norms. Within the last few weeks, two American citizens, including a U.S. diplomat, have been expelled from Belarus. First Secretary Serge Alexandrov was unjustly and illegally detained and expelled for observing an opposition rally, a routine practice of diplomats. A few days earlier, on March 16, Belarusian Soros Foundation Executive Director Peter G. Byrne was prevented from reentering Belarus, detained, held incommunicado for over 12 hours in flagrant violation of diplomatic and consular conventions in effect between the United States and Belarus, and forcibly expelled the next day. Mr. Byrne ostensibly was expelled for illegal activity, but in reality, was expelled for supporting efforts to develop Belarus' fledgling civil society. These expulsions come on the heels of other repressive actions, including arrests and beatings of demonstrators who have been protesting your policies over the last few months. Organizers of these rallies, such as former Chairman of Parliament Mechyslau Hryh have received stiff fines or have been arrested and jailed for up to 15 days. We are alarmed by reports of beatings that resulted in injuries and detentions of several hundred protestors and journalist during yesterday's demonstrations in Miensk. We are deeply concerned about the Belarusian Government's restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and assembly-- as manifested by your March 5 decree which also bans the display of Belarusian national symbols at rallies--and the arrest of peaceful protestors, as well as journalists, at a number of these rallies. We are also alarmed by the political intimidation of leading opposition figures, as illustrated by police visits to their homes demanding they admit they violated a presidential edict that restricts demonstrations, and by police searchers of various political party headquarters. In February, two opposition leaders were attacked in Miensk in separate incidents by unidentified assailants under suspicious circumstances. Also, we have received reports of the intimidation of university professors and other examples of crude threats by police against democratic activists. We are especially troubled by the plight of Henadz Karpenka, Deputy Chairman of the 1996 parliament and chair of the opposition shadow cabinet, who was on a hunger strike to protest the special police guard placed outside his ward in a hospital where he is currently a patient. Another example of apparent intimidation is the March 10 decree calling into question important tax exemptions granted to the Belarusian Soros Foundation and other non-governmental organizations and the March 18 announcement that all nongovernmental organizations in the country will be investigated. We understand that these investigations by government security officials have commenced. Furthermore, freedom of the media in your country continues to be assailed, most recently by the withdrawal of press accreditation from and the expulsion of Russian NTV reporter, Alexander Stupnikov, the March 23 decree banning of several Russian television networks from broadcasting footage from Belarus, and the recent announcement by your government that all foreign journalists must obtain new accreditation. Earlier this year, OSCE Chairman-in-Office and Danish Foreign Minister Helveg-Petersen, urged your government to take action to respect fully OSCE norms, principles and commitments, to enter into dialogue with the opposition and to ensure freedom of media. Unfortunately, actions since that time have only further called into question your government's commitments under the Helsinki Final Act and subsequent OSCE agreements. We urge you to take to heart the concerns of the OSCE and other international entities, as well as individual countries, including the United States, and to begin to reverse the serious deterioration of human rights that has occurred in your country during the last year. Mr. President, last week you spoke to your countrymen about the international isolation that Belarus is now facing. The best way that you can prevent this international isolation, if you so desire, is to live up to obligations you have freely undertaken as an OSCE member. Sincerely, Christopher H. Smith, Co-Chairman. Steny H. Hoyer, Ranking Member. Alfonse D'Amato, Chairman. Frank Lautenberg, Ranking Member.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the last Congress, I introduced a resolution on the difficult subject of property claims arising from Fascist- and Communist-era confiscations in Central and Eastern Europe. As with the previous resolution, I am joined by my colleagues from the Helsinki Commission in introducing this resolution. Mr. Porter, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Cardin have agreed to be original cosponsors of this resolution. This resolution stemmed from a hearing I convened in July with Under Secretary of Commerce Stuart Eizenstat and Chairwoman of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Delissa Ridgway. In compelling testimony presented to the Helsinki Commission, these two individuals outlined the maze of programs and procedures which govern property claims in Central and Eastern Europe today. Chairwoman Ridgway's Commission is primarily concerned with adjudicating agreements on behalf of American claimants in those instances where agreements between the United States and foreign governments have already been reached. Under Secretary Eizenstat has sought to engage these governments in a dialog about these issues, to foster a greater acknowledgment of past wrongs, and to discern the ways in which the process of making compensation or restitution can be further advanced. I commend both of these people for the strong leadership they have shown in their work. Mr. Speaker, the procedures that exist for compensation or restitution differ from country to country, often requiring claimants to travel a road so encumbered with conditions and qualifications that it must be a miracle for anyone to have any property returned. And that, of course, is only in those countries which have actually adopted restitution or compensation laws--many countries in this region have not even taken that step. I am particularly anxious to ensure that the survivors of Nazi persecution--people who, in many instances, were unable to receive compensation made available to their counterparts in the West or in Israel--receive the belated compensation that may enable them to live their remaining days in dignity. Moreover, I am deeply troubled that several countries in this region have adopted compensation or restitution laws that discriminate on the basis of citizenship or residency, a move that clearly and unfairly discriminates against American claimants. I hope other Members of Congress will join me in signaling the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and, in particular, calling for the urgent return of property formerly belonging to Jewish communities as a means of redressing the especially compelling problems of aging and often destitute survivors of the Holocaust. In addition, this resolution calls for countries to remove from their books restrictions which require claimants seeking compensation or restitution to have the citizenship of, or residency in, the country from which they seek compensation or restitution. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record at this point. H. Con. Res.-- Whereas Fascist and Communist dictatorships have caused immeasurable human suffering and loss, degrading not only every conceivable human right, but the human spirit itself; Whereas the villainy of communism was dedicated, in particular, to the organized and systematic destruction of private property ownership; Whereas the wrongful and illegal confiscation of property perpetrated by Fascist and Communist regimes was often specifically designed to victimize people because of their religion, national or social origin, or expressed opposition to the regimes which repressed them; Whereas Fascists and Communists often obtained possession of properties confiscated from the victims of the systems they actively supported; Whereas Jewish individuals and communities were often twice victimized, first by the Nazis and their collaborators and then by the subsequent Communist regimes; Whereas churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious properties were also destroyed or confiscated as a means of breaking the spiritual devotion and allegiance of religious adherents; Whereas Fascists, Nazis, and Communists have used foreign financial institutions to launder and hold wrongfully and illegally confiscated property and convert it to their own personal use; Whereas some foreign financial institutions violated their fiduciary duty to their customers by converting to their own use financial assets belonging to Holocaust victims while denying heirs access to these assets; Whereas refugees from communism, in addition to being wrongly stripped of their private property, were often forced to relinquish their citizenship in order to protect themselves and their families from reprisals by the Communists who ruled their countries; Whereas the participating states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have agreed to give full recognition and protection to all types of property, including private property, as well as the right to prompt, just, and effective compensation in the event private property is taken for public use; Whereas the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the Caucasus and Central Asia, have entered a post- Communist period of transition and democratic development, and many countries have begun the difficult and wrenching process of trying to right the past wrongs of previous totalitarian regimes; Whereas restrictions which require those whose properties have been wrongly plundered by Nazi or Communist regimes to reside in or have the citizenship of the country from which they now seek restitution or compensation are arbitrary and discriminatory in violation of international law; and Whereas the rule of law and democratic norms require that the activity of governments and their administrative agencies be exercised in accordance with the laws passed by their parliaments or legislatures and such laws themselves must be consistent with international human rights standards: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring, That the Congress-- (1) welcomes the efforts of many post-Communist countries to address the complex and difficult question of the status of plundered properties; (2) urges countries which have not already done so to return plundered properties to their rightful owners or, as an alternative, pay compensation, in accordance with principles of justice and in a manner that is just, transparent, and fair; (3) calls for the urgent return of property formerly belonging to Jewish communities as a means of redressing the particularly compelling problems of aging and destitute survivors of the Holocaust; (4) calls on the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and any other country with restrictions which require those whose properties have been wrongly plundered by Nazi or Communist regimes to reside in or have the citizenship of the country from which they now seek restitution or compensation to remove such restrictions from their restitution or compensation laws; (5) calls upon foreign financial institutions, and the states having legal authority over their operation, that possess wrongfully and illegally property confiscated from Holocaust victims, from residents of former Warsaw Pact states who were forbidden by Communist law from obtaining restitution of such property, and from states that were occupied by Nazi, Fascist, or Communist forces, to assist and to cooperate fully with efforts to restore this property to its rightful owners; and (6) urges post-Communist countries to pass and effectively implement laws that provide for restitution of, or compensation for, plundered property.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the pro-abortion movement are highly skilled and extraordinarily savvy in masking the violence and cruelty to baby girls and boys killed by abortion and the harmful effects to women. Nobody muddies the water like they do. That leadership has now been exposed once again by one of its own as a fraud. And to think they almost got away with it again. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, has publicly confessed that he, ``Lied through his teeth'' when he told a TV interviewer, according to the New York Times, that partial-birth abortion was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged. It seems I heard a lot of my colleagues say that in the last debate on this matter. According to the AMA News and the New York Times, Mr. Fitzsimmons now says that his party line defense of this method of abortion was a deliberate lie and that in the vast majority of cases the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. Mr. Fitzsimmons says that the abortion folks knew it, which means the whole antibaby gang deliberately tried to deceive us all and the Nation. And they almost got away with it. Interestingly, he also said the antiabortion people, the pro-lifers, we knew it as well, and we did, and we said it on this floor. Unfortunately, there were very few who listened when we pointed out these facts. As a matter of fact, most in the media believed and amplified as true the falsehoods and lies put out by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the ACLU, NARAL, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, NOW, the National Republican Coalition for Choice, People for the American Way, Population Action International, Zero Population Growth and others who signed letters that went to my office and yours, one of them on October 25, 1995 that said, ``This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer than 500 per year, and most often performed in the case of wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong.'' We know that is not true. It is a lie. We know that these groups have lied to us, and it is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that these groups have lied to us. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the former abortionist who did thousands of abortions and one of the founders of NARAL, has said that lying and junk science were and continue to be commonplace in the pro-abortion movement. It is the way they sell abortion to a gullible public. Dr. Nathanson has said that in the early days they absolutely lied about maternal mortality, they lied about the number of illegal abortions, they lied and said that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer, and there is a link, and they lie about the so-called safety of abortion, and of course, the big lie on partial-birth abortion has been exposed for everybody in this Chamber to see. The procedure is not rare. It is common. It is common, and it is used with devastating consequences on both the mothers as well as on the babies. Remember last year several of you took to the floor and said that anesthesia caused fetal demise. That falsehood was blown right out of the water as well as another big lie that was used by my friends on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle and spoon fed to you in fact sheets and talking points by the pro-abortion lobby. The president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. Noring Ellison came forward and testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17, 1995 and said: I believe this . . . to be entirely inaccurate. I am deeply concerned, moreover, that the widespread publicity given to Dr. McMahon's testimony may cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps life-saving medical procedures, totally unrelated to the birthing process, due to misinformation regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus. In my medical judgment, it would be necessary--in order to achieve neurological demise of the fetus in a partial-birth abortion--to anesthetize the mother to such a degree as to place her own health in serious jeopardy. I have not spoken with one anesthesiologist who agrees with Dr. McMahon's conclusion, and in my judgment, it is contrary to scientific fact. It simply must not be allowed to stand. Remember all this when Planned Parenthood, which performs or refers for 230,000 abortions each year, lobbies you and plies you with talking points and fact sheets. They simply are not to be trusted--even their ideological soulmates in the government and media should have serious doubts about these groups' credibility. These same pro-abortion groups--many of which get huge Federal, State, and local government subsidies--also wrote us that, ``lawmakers . . . have no place . . . in the operating room.'' But unless you construe an unborn baby to be a disease or tumor, it is the abortionists who have turned the operating room into an execution chamber. Like some deranged horror movie doctor who dresses well and looks respectable on the outside, the abortionist in these execution rooms partially delivers a helpless child, only to thrust a pair of scissors into the baby's head so a suction device can vacuum out his or her brains. This is madness. This is inhumane. And lawmakers should not shrink from our moral responsibility to stop it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield? The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. McInnis]. The request of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is denied. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I guess everybody now knows how far the so-called pro-choice movement will go. They will lie, as one top pro-abortionist recently admitted, to sustain the myth that abortion is somehow sane, compassionate, and even pro-child. Americans will now see that the real extremists are not the people who insist on calling attention to the grisly details of abortion, such as dismemberment of an unborn child, injections of poison, or puncturing the child's skull and sucking out his or her brains. Americans now know that the real extremists are those who actually do these abusive acts, and then lie through their teeth to sanitize and conceal the truth. The dangerous person is not the one who shows the pictures of partial-birth abortion, the dangerous person is the child abuser who holds the scissors at the base of the skull of that baby's brain. Let us end partial-birth abortion. We have the opportunity today. I hope we have a good bipartisan vote to do so later on this afternoon.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is all too easy to get discouraged when reading the latest statistics showing that marijuana and heroin use among teenagers has skyrocketed over the last 5 years. Day after day, it seems that our media reports are filled with reports of violence; depression, and lost opportunities. Yet as a counter- balance against these reports, I am encouraged to share the experience and success of the Anchor Connection in Trenton, NJ. Anchor Connection is a specialized program operated within the Anchor House, a nationally recognized basic service center for runaway and homeless youth, and has served the residents of central New Jersey since 1979. The Anchor House also operates a Transitional Living Program, which helps reduce drug abuse by teaching independent living skills to troubled teens. I am proud that Anchor Connection is being honored today for its hard work by three of our Nation's top drug prevention organizations at the Federal level: Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Nelba Chavez, Ph.D., Administrator of the Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], and Stephania O'Neill, Acting Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention [CSAP]. Anchor Connection's outreach director, Heidi Camerlengo, and their drug prevention counselor, Ann Suabedissen, are doing marvelous and critical work in Mercer County and have earned our Nation's collective applause today. Anchor Connection, as the only comprehensive alcohol, tobacco, and other drug [ATOD] prevention program for runaway and homeless youth in central New Jersey, saw over 800 youth and families last year to help them resist the deadly allure of drugs and alcohol. These children stayed in the custody of Anchor Connection for an average of 6 to 8 months, where they were introduced to Anchor House's enormously successful family of comprehensive programs that help troubled runaway youths. Anchor Connection's programs include resistance skills education and social skills training so that these teens can adapt and cope with life's day-to-day problems without having to resort to illicit substances of alcohol. Their programs also provide transportation to needed services within the community, drug and alcohol screening, as well as life, education, and job skills training. This is in keeping with the idea that people who lack these basic life skills are more likely to succumb to the temptation of drugs. Through these programs, Anchor Connection enables these teens to adapt more readily for a normal, drug-free life. Anchor Connection also conducts community awareness and education seminars to get the facts out about drug and alcohol abuse, and conduct individual, group, and family counseling to help those whose lives are directly touched and affected by our Nation's drug epidemic. This overall approach has paid big dividends to the troubled kids and teens of Mercer County. Anchor Connection boasts a drug-reduction rate of at least 25 percent for children who remain with the program for 12 months. Heidi Camerlengo has estimated that the program has an 80- percent success rate in reducing drug use and getting the youth participants interested in school and other activities. Another important aspect of Anchor Connection's drug prevention program is its individual written service plan, which helps young persons understand and achieve set goals. Since the program has a focus on runaway youths, it actively gets involved in resolving family conflicts. Where possible, it encourages family reunification, and where this is not a viable option, Anchor Connection will place children into foster care or other families. I have been a longtime supporter and advocate for the Anchor House and its family of runaway youth programs, including the Drug and Alcohol Prevention Program run by Anchor Connection, as well as the Transitional Living Program administered by the Anchorage. Over the years, I have been honored to author many letters of support and have followed-up with the key Federal officials who administer Federal grant programs. Given the solid record of accomplishment they have built for themselves, Anchor House and Anchor Connection have proven that every cent of Federal support they have earned has been well worth the investment in our children. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the employees and volunteers at Anchor Connection have every right to be proud and gratified by this national award today. Today's award honors not only Mercer County's successes, but all the heroes across America who work in obscurity and anonymity on the front lines and in the trenches of America's war on drugs. These are the heroes who are out there on the streets of America day and night saving our children from the scourge of drugs one kid at a time. When the fanfare from today's ceremony ends, their quiet, patient task of rebuilding and repairing lives will go on. The hope and promise of a drug-free America that Anchor Connection has amply demonstrated in 1996, is and should be inspiration to teachers, parents, and students everywhere. It is right and fitting that we honor their arduous efforts and successes today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation in conjunction with my colleague, Mr. Sanders of Vermont, to end a wasteful corporate welfare policy which uses taxpayer money to subsidize defense contractor mergers. This legislation--the Payoffs for Layoffs Corporate Welfare Elimination Act of 1997--will put a stop to the practice of artifically stimulating layoffs with taxpayer funds. As some of you know, under the guise of an obscure Clinton administration policy change made in July 1993-at the specific request of four CEO's representing America's top defense contractors--DOD began to allow defense contractors to begin charging the taxpayers for the merger-related costs of laying off workers and shutting down plants. The premise behind this policy is as dubious now as it was back then: that unless Uncle Sam dishes out big corporate subsidies, defense contractors would rather remain uncompetitive and risk going out of business than use their own money to pay for mergers and restructuring. Already, 11 defense contractors have put in 17 requests totaling $817.3 million, and the meter is running. Lockheed Martin alone could eventually claim $1.2 billion in merger subsidies, according to statements by their CEO, Norman Augustine. When the Loral, McDonnel Douglas, Rockwell International, Texas Instruments, and Hughes merger subsidy requests come in, this total will skyrocket into the billions. DOD claims that by paying more money on contracts now, DOD will realize savings due to lower overhead at some unspecified time in the future. This justification is really nothing more than an updated and more sophisticated version of the old cartoon character adage of ``I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.'' The fact of the matter is that claims of savings are greatly exaggerated. Indeed, the very concept of savings assumes the contractor will put off or delay restructuring unless they are given subsidies. In December 1996, an investigation by CBS's 60 Minutes correctly pointed out that, ``Even without the subsidy, defense companies are required by law to pass savings back to the Government when they reduce their overhead.'' My legislation does not hinder or prevent mergers from happening. It simply states that mergers should happen on their own and without DOD prompting and use of our tax dollars. I concur with the Honorable Don Yockey, who was Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology during the Bush administration, when he stated ``the defense department would be better served if they simply did not discourage acquisition, but stayed at arms length in the encouragement of the business financial process. If the deal does not make sound stand alone business sense the company should not proceed. To rely on Government- subsidized support is the worst of reasons to merge.'' While we must always be concerned when government subsidies warps business decisions, equally disturbing is the fact that the so-called savings to be realized from restructuring have thus far been mostly illusory. Not a single weapon system can be truly identified as having a lower cost due primarily to corporate restructuring. The fact of the matter is that DOD's very own report on restructuring stated: ``it is not feasible to isolate completely the effect of restructuring from other complex determinants of the difference between projected and actual costs over a long period of time.'' In plain English, DOD essentially admits that savings cannot be attributed to restructuring. What we really have here is a policy with unknowable assumptions and unverifiable effects. GAO found that in just one case, contractor estimates of savings fell 85 percent short of initial claims. And that is just the estimates--there is no way of knowing if there will ever be real savings. GAO also has stated on more than one occasion that contractors have been projecting future increases--not decreases--in overhead rates. While savings cannot be attributed directly to these subsidies, additional layoffs have unquestionably resulted from the policy. In the first merger analyzed by GAO, it found that ``the contractor's proposed savings were based entirely on work force reductions.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues--on all sides of the aisle-- to join with me to put a stop to this payoffs for layoffs policy. Not only is this policy not really saving any money, it actually increases the deficit because DOD is spending hundreds of millions of our tax dollars chasing after savings to which it is entitled to receive anyway. This type of corporate welfare is unconscionable and Members with defense contractors in their districts should be especially wary of it. In my district alone, over 3,200 jobs will be lost because of this policy. If you have a plant in your district, you should not have to worry about your own tax dollars being used to encourage it to shut down.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume Mr. Speaker, just let me remind Members that, when Mr. Clinton sent up his 1994 rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act, he intended and it was in the bill to absolutely repeal the Helms amendment so that direct funding would be used to pay for abortions overseas. So the administration on numerous occasions has signaled that they are every bit in favor of promoting abortion overseas. As I said earlier in debate when they failed in that effort, we did not do plan 2, and that was to enlist the support of surrogates, namely groups like International Planned Parenthood Federation, based in London, and others to promote abortion for that under this subterfuge of saying that it is not our money. Well, we are giving to a group that is again promoting aggressively the abortion on demand. And just to show how far down it gets, we recently came across a manual that was put out in the Dominican Republic by the affiliate of the IPPF, which is based in London, and it said this. It is called the Sex Education Manual, and the chapter on abortion makes it clear to the teachers at the end of the lesson that the students should, quote, become aware of the need to change the Dominican Republic's legislation on abortion. So not only do they lobby legislators and governments and health officials again, and we empowered this group to be the bully on the block, but they also get into the schools and try to indoctrinate these children to bring down their right-to-life laws, and this is being replicated in every one of these countries. Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the manual if anybody wants to see it. Let me also point out and use this chart to do so that the legislation that is pending before the House will provide more family planning money than the resolution just passed, not more over the cycle of an appropriations, but more up front. And that is very important. The Clinton finding earlier this month essentially said that, if the money does not come now, it is money denied, and that means terrible things will happen. Mr. Speaker, if that be true, then the more up front the better. Our legislation, the Smith-Oberstar bill, provides $410 million in fiscal year 1997 for family planning. Three hundred and eighty-five is for the family planning account, 25 for the United Nations Population Fund. The administration's request, 240 in fiscal year 1997. So we push out the door with our legislation more money for family planning. It is in the bill. Please, I urge Members and friends just to read it. The previous speaker said that the intent of what we are trying to do is to defund family planning. Nothing could be further from the truth. The plain language of the bill makes it clear we are putting more money, not less. The argument was made back in 1984; I will never forget it, when the Mexico City policy was first put into effect, that the nongovernmental organizations, the NGO's, would never accept it. Well, friends, 350 and upward of 380 family planning organizations signed on the dotted line and said they would divest themselves from abortion and just do family planning. Only the International Planned Parenthood Federation of London and only Planned Parenthood Federation of America stood out and said we are so committed, so obsessed with promotion abortion overseas that we would loose the money rather than take the money and divest themselves of abortion. So this will be a vote on abortion today. It is pro-family planning, and it is indeed both pro-life and pro-family planning. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make one point. In the earlier debate it was pointed out that World Vision wants to release these funds. I think it should be made very clear, World Vision is a group that I strongly support. They are into helping to alleviate suffering brought about by famine. Let me read a letter dated February 7 from the president of World Vision, and it reads as follows: ``Our organization supports the release of funds with the so-called Mexico City policy, which prevents U.S. Government funding from subsidizing foreign organizations which perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning, and lobbying to ease or diminish anti-abortion laws--either in the United States or in foreign countries.'' ``We believe,'' the World Vision letter goes on to say, and it is signed by Robert Seiple, ``We believe these pro-life safeguards are important to protect the integrity of our efforts and those of many other humanitarian aid organizations.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full letter be made part of the Record, but I would point out that World Vision supports this legislation, they support the Mexico city policy. The letter referred to is as follows: World Vision, Washington, DC, February 7, 1997. Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Pitts: World Vision has not changed its position on abortion. I am writing to reiterate our position to you and other members of Congress following a January 31 letter regarding the release of funding for international family planning services. I signed the letter, along with the presidents of CARE and Save the Children. Since it was established in 1950, World Vision has always and will continue to oppose abortion as a means of birth control. Abortion runs contrary to our core beliefs as a Christian organization. All of World Vision's efforts, both in the United States and in more than 100 countries around the world, seek to save, extend and enhance life. Toward our goals of enhancing and extending life, World Vision supports programs in developing nations to save children's lives. These programs include immunizations, disease prevention and treatment and efforts to improve nutrition. In addition, we encourage efforts to educate parents about maternal health, to avoid high-risk pregnancies and to advocate birth spacing. These strategies help to avoid risky and unplanned pregnancies both to protect the life of the mother and to prevent women from resorting to abortion as a means of birth control. As President of World Vision, I have visited many of the programs in some of the most difficult places in the world. I have met with women in Africa, Asia and Latin America and other regions of the world who personally have benefited from these services. We believe these pro-life safeguards are important to protect the integrity of our efforts and those of many other humanitarian aid organizations. Serious health concerns for women, children and families are at stake, including unintended pregnancies which will likely increase, not reduce, the number of abortions performed on women in developing nations. Should you have any questions on this issue, or on World Vision's position on abortion, please contact Ken Casey, Senior Vice President, in Seattle at 206-815-1000. Sincerely, Robert A. Seiple, President. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], a cosponsor of our legislation, H.R. 581.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time. This is a vote on the rule to allow H.R. 581 to be considered by the House. This is legislation that would provide additional monies beginning March 1 for family planning, and it would front-load $385 million, metering, which is an 8-percent-per-month payout that is in the current law, and would be continued even if the Clinton resolution is adopted by the Senate. This gets rid of metering completely. So all of the money would be available. Importantly, this legislation will also provide important pro-life safeguards so that the entities and the organizations that we contribute to do not continue their crusade with our money in one pocket and their money in the other pocket to bring down the right-to- life laws in the various countries. Let me again remind Members that almost 100 countries around the world protect their unborn babies from the cruelty of abortion on demand. And let me remind Members again, abortion takes the life of a baby, whether it be suction abortions or dismemberment, where the babies' arms and legs are torn off. These are unpleasant realities, but they are the reality of what abortion does to unborn babies. We have to make the world abortion free, not provide free abortion. The pro-abortion organizations, like the International Planned Parenthood Federation, based in London, and others, are absolutely vociferously committed to providing abortion overseas on demand. It is against the cultural values and the moral values of these countries. That does not matter. Their own literature is replete with admonishments, and it pushes and promotes their organizations to try to bring down these laws regardless of what the local populace thinks. It is the ugly American all over again when we are part of that, trying to impose our cultural values upon these particular people. Human rights ought to be for the unborn and for all people. It seems to me that birth is an event that happens to all of us. It is not the beginning of life. Human rights are indivisible. Life is a continuum. To say that everyone after birth has human rights and those before do not is contrary to reality and science. And again, these organizations are trying to promote an antithetical view with regard to human rights. Let me also remind my colleagues that the Organization of American States has a human rights document that recognizes the right to life from the moment of conception. These organizations are working against that basic human right, and I think we should be very careful about to whom we contribute. This rule allows H.R. 581 to come up for a vote. It is fair. Then we can have our debate on the merits. I think that is as it should be. Vote for the rule.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. We are saying where we can protect an unborn child and a generation of unborn children from aggressive lobbying by a non-governmental organization, we are going to do it. If we cannot save all of the kids, we try to save some. To say we have to have some kind of equal policy, just because we like to say everything is the same everywhere, that to me is not productive. When we can save a child in Kenya or we can save a child in Central or South America from an assault on the law that protects them, we ought to do it. Let me also point out to the gentleman, if the gentleman from Minnesota will continue yielding, we are talking about discretionary funding. This is not entitlement funding. We in this Congress appropriate every year certain amounts of money to be used for this purpose. It should not be the NGOs to dictate to us that, we will not take your money unless we do this, that, and the other thing. We should put simple conditions and say, do family planning; do not permit abortions.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No, we do not, because it would be construed to be unconstitutional. Otherwise, we would like to do it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Mexico City provisions were litigated. Planned Parenthood brought a suit, and they were found to be completely constitutional. Let me make a point.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, foreign nongovernmental organizations are not governed by the same laws that domestic nongovernmental organizations are.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during the last session of Congress, the House voted six times to restrict aid to foreign organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas. We also voted to restrict aid to the U.N. Population Fund unless the UNFPA, the U.N. Population Fund, ended its participation in the forced abortion program in the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, there is evidence, I think, looking at today's vote and talking to a large number of Members, that there still are a large number of Members who are still committed to the sanctity and preciousness of human life and said that they would vote yes--yes. I happen to disagree that that was the way to go, but we now have H.R. 581 on the floor and there is an opportunity to manifest ourselves and put on the record very clearly and unambiguously that we want to release the funds for family planning, we want to release the $385 million that otherwise would wait until July 1, but we want to do it with principle. We want to make sure that the money only goes to those organizations that will erect a wall of separation between family planning, which is preventive, and abortion, which takes the life of a baby. Mr. Speaker, I think more and more Members in the partial birth abortion debate that we had last year began what I truly believe to be an awakening about the gruesomeness of abortion. Abortion takes the life of a baby, whether it be dismemberment of an unborn child's body or chemical poisoning by way of injection or the suction machines which decimate the infant, abortion is violence. It kills babies. Whether it be illegal or legal abortions, the net effect on the child is always the same, one dead baby. I think our aim in Congress and our aim in humanitarian efforts ought to be to eradicate abortion, to make the world abortion free. Family planning certainly plays a part in that. That is why my legislation and Mr. Oberstar's legislation and Mr. Hyde's legislation, H.R. 581, makes it very clear that we front-load the family planning money. There is no waiting for it. The Clinton administration can have every dime, $385 million, and that is a lot of money, to be used for family planning on March 1. The President will actually get more in our legislation, not more in the cycle of the appropriations, but more quicker as a result of this legislation if he accepts this rather than the resolution just passed. What is the Mexico City policy? Just let me remind my colleagues that yes, there is such an amendment known as the Helms amendment. It says that we will not directly fund abortion overseas. But we found in the early 1980's, and I have been here for 17 years, I would remind my colleagues, we found in the early 1980's that that law was not preventing the promotion and performance overseas of abortion by these international organizations. They very simply took our money which we were providing, put it in one pocket, provided an accounting saying that if they did not spend it, then it freed up megadollars in their other pocket to be used for the performance of abortion. Paper and accounting tricks does not, if you are talking about human life being destroyed, really does not cut it. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are mitigating the promotion of abortion with this approach. It has not worked. It is only half a loaf. We need, if we are serious about making the world abortion free and not promoting abortion, take that other step and reestablish the Mexico City policy. In sum, what the Mexico City policy will do is say we will not contribute to those organizations that perform abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. It also says that we will not provide moneys to those organizations that lobby for or against abortion. It is abortion neutral in that regard. If you are doing family planning, you should not also be wearing that other hat of being the abortionist organization in that given country. This is very, very significant, Mr. Chairman, in light of what these groups are actually doing on the ground day in and day out. In the last debate I pointed out that there is a document, and this is one of many, but this document in particular is the abortion manifesto of the family planning groups. It is called Vision 2000: A Strategic Plan. This Vision 2000, adopted in 1992 and agreed to by the 140 Planned Parenthood affiliates around the world, states, and I quote, and it says it throughout the document but this is one direct quote: The IPPF will ``bring pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against abortions.'' This is the abortion lobby in the developing world. We ought to be very careful about to whom we contribute if that is what they are doing, if we care about abortion promotion. If we do not care about it, if we think that is fine and dandy, then you should not be for our bill but if you do care about abortion promotion, look at the consequences, giving money to these organizations means that, yes, they provide family planning, but they also promote abortion very, very aggressively. Let me also point out that this particular policy known as the Mexico City policy, where did it gets its name, at a conference on population at Mexico City in 1984, has worked, and worked extremely well. During the 9 years that it was in operation, more than 350 family planning organizations and providers accepted the Mexico City clauses and said that they would divest themselves of abortion and be exclusively family planners. That is what we are all about here, honesty, transparency, no hidden agendas. If family planning is your game, that is what you get the money for, that is what your organization should be all about. But these organizations like to fudge that line of demarkation and say that abortion is just family planning after a conception has occurred and they try again to make no distinction, or very little distinction, between the two. I urge Members, because this will be the beginning of a long fight in the 105th Congress on this. Yes, the Clinton resolution passed today. That will not be the end of it, I can assure you. We will be back on the authorizing bills, we will be back on the appropriations bills when the fiscal 1998 and the 1999 funds come up, and again we are going to continue with this 1997 effort as well. I hope that by the end of this Congress, every Member of this Chamber whether they are pro-abortion or pro-life will be fully aware of what these organizations are doing. The Trojan horse is this. They say they are all about family planning, they get into the country, they start networking, their real agenda is abortion. They say it in Vision 2000. I urge Members to become acquainted with it intimately so that they know to whom we are giving. They are acting as surrogates for the Clinton administration in bringing down the right-to-life laws. We need to stand up for those innocent children in these developing countries, provide humanitarian aid. And I take a back seat to no one on providing child survival aid and all kinds of other aid. I offered the amendments in the mid-1980's to provide money for immunizations, oral dehydration, and other kinds of helps. That is what it is all about. Family planning is a part of that, but not when it is linked with abortion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 46, I call up the bill (H.R. 581) to amend Public Law 104-208 to provide that the President may make funds appropriated for population planning and other population assistance available on March 1, 1997, subject to restrictions on assistance to foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortions, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that the materials that we provided to Senator Hatfield clearly showed that the organizations were promoting, performing abortions on demand in these developing countries. No one is suggesting that they were doing it with U.S. tax dollars. The issue here is fungibility. The money that we give to an organization frees up other money that then can be used to lobby for abortion in the developing world. Let me remind everybody in this Chamber that approximately 100 countries around the world protect the lives of their unborn children. The International Planned Parenthood Federation has made it their mission, their goal explicitly to bring down every one of those pro- life laws. When we give to these organizations, we then empower them to be the super lobby to bring down the laws in Brazil, Peru. Poland recently flip-flopped and went from a pro-life country to a pro- abortion country. In early February, a new law went into effect in South Africa, again a flip-flop from pro-life to pro-abortion. It is the organizations that are mounting this offensive against the unborn child. When we contribute to them, we are facilitating abortion overseas.