Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of the conference report on H.R. 2202, the illegal immigration bill, because it includes many important provisions to help the United States get control of its borders: 5,000 new Border Patrol agents, stricter penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud, and procedural reforms that would make it easier to deport people who have abused our hospitality. I strongly support these provisions. Mr. Speaker, we no longer live in an age when everyone from anywhere in the world who would like to live in the United States can do so. In an age of instant communication and easy transportation, border control has become not just a national prerogative but a practical necessity. Particularly when it comes to illegal immigrants, the American tradition of generosity is tempered by commitment to fairness and orderly procedures. I am pleased that the House deleted provisions in the bill that would have imposed drastic cuts in the numbers of legal immigrants and refugees. The House adopted my amendment to delete a provision that would have imposed a statutory cap on the number of refugees who can be admitted into the United States. The cap would have been 75,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 50,000 in each year thereafter--less than half the number we admitted in fiscal year 1995. This may sound like a fairly high number, but even at their current levels, refugees are only about 8 percent of those who immigrate to the United States each year. Proportionally, refugees would have taken an even bigger hit than family or business immigrants. The cut would have hurt people who are in trouble because they share our values: ``old soldiers'' and religious refugees from Vietnam, Christians and Jews from extremist regimes in the Middle East, Chinese women who have fled forced abortion, and those who have escaped the tyranny of Fidel Castro. So I am pleased that the House adopted the Smith-Schiff-Gilman-Schumer- Boucher-Fox-Souder amendment to preserve the American tradition of providing safe haven for genuine refugees. Unfortunately, the bill still contains provisions that subject legal immigrants, refugees, and U.S. citizens to unnecessarily harsh treatment. I think in particular of the requirement that a U.S. citizen must earn 140 percent of the official national poverty level in order to sponsor other family members. This provision leaves the unfortunate impression that family reunification is a luxury for the well-to-do, rather than a fundamental and laudable goal of millions of American families. An even more unfortunate provision, section 633, would explicitly authorize the State Department to discriminate, by race, gender, and nationality in the processing of visas for legal immigrants. The case of LAVAS versus Department of State, which this provision would attempt to overrule, is a carefully reasoned opinion by Judge David Sentelle, a highly respected Reagan appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It reflects the court's shock and dismay that the State Department was violating Federal statutes as well as its own regulations by practicing nationality-based discrimination in order to force legal immigrants from Vietnam--typically the immediate relatives of United States citizens--back to the country they had fled. The tragic consequence of the State Department's position is that many of those who have returned to Vietnam, on the assurance that their immigrant visas will be expeditiously processed by the United States, have languished for months or years because hostile and corrupt Vietnamese Government officials have refused to give them exit permits. Fortunately, the harsh effects of section 633 can be cured by regulation, or even by sound administration. The President should direct the State Department to change its policy and to process these legal immigrants--and never, never again to discriminate invidiously by race, by gender, or by national origin. Despite these and other deficiencies in the bill, I am voting in the affirmative, not only because I support the provisions that are directed against illegal immigrants, but also because of two provisions that cure important deficiencies in current law. Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism bill passed by Congress in April contained several provisions that had nothing whatever to do with terrorism. One of these sections provided for the summary exclusion of persons attempting to enter the United States without proper documentation. It is important that we exclude persons who would abuse our generous immigration laws, and it is important that the process of exclusion be a speedy one. It is also important, however, that the process be fair--and particularly that it not result in sending genuine refugees back to persecution. The counterterrorism legislation provided that no person shall be summarily excluded if, in the opinion of an asylum officer at the port of entry, he or she has a credible fear of persecution. Unfortunately, the definitions of ``asylum officer'' and of ``credible fear of persecution'' were not as clear as they might be. H.R. 2202 goes at least part of the way toward the necessary clarity. In particular, the antiterrorism legislation defined an asylum officer as someone who has ``professional training'' in asylum law, country conditions, and interviewing techniques--but did not state how much training or what kind. The immigration bill makes it clear that this training is to be equivalent to that of members of the highly respected Asylum Corps. The best way to ensure that this standard is met is to provide by regulation that only experienced members of the Asylum Corps--people who by training and experience think of themselves as adjudicators rather than as enforcement officers--will exercise the extraordinary power to send people summarily back to dangerous places. I think it should also be clear that our asylum officers will need to be very careful in applying the ``credible fear'' standard. In a close case, they must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. There are also some countries--such as Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq--in which persecution is so pervasive that almost any credible applicant would have a significant chance of success in the asylum process. I hope that regulations will be promptly adopted that explicitly provide for these and other safeguards in the expedited exclusion process. In any event, however, the current legislation is a substantial improvement over the regime that would go into force on November 1 if this legislation were not adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, section 601(a)(1) of the conference report will restore an important human rights policy that was in force from 1986 until 1994. It would simply provide that forced abortion, forced sterilization, and other forms of persecution for resistance to a coercive population control program are ``persecution on account of political opinion'' within the meaning of U.S. refugee law. Restoration of asylum eligibility for these victims of persecution is supported by human rights advocates from across the spectrum. Protection for these refugees has also enjoyed wide bipartisan support in Congress. Section 601(a)(1) is identical to section 1255 of H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which passed both the House and Senate but was vetoed by the President for reasons unrelated to this provision. Section 601(a)(1) is also identical to the DeWine amendment to the Senate immigration bill, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Senate but was withdrawn after objections had been raised to its germaneness under postcloture rules. Finally, the Clinton administration, which initially opposed this provision, recently announced its support. As in every other asylum case, an applicant under this provision must prove his or her claim. Contrary to the cartoon being promulgated by opponents of this provision, we would not have to let in 1.2 billion people. In fact, during the Reagan and Bush administrations the number of people granted asylum on this ground was usually less than 100 per year, and never more than 200 per year. Mr. Speaker, this provision merely states the truth. Forced abortion, forced sterilization, and other severe punishments inflicted on resisters to the PRC program are persecution on account of political opinion. PRC officials have repeatedly attacked resisters to the Chinese program as political and ideological criminals. The infliction of extraordinarily harsh punishment is also generally regarded as evidence that those who inflict such punishment regard the offenders not as ordinary lawbreakers but as enemies of the state. Forced abortions often take place in the very late stages of pregnancy. Sometimes the procedure is carried out during the process of birth itself, either by crushing the baby's skull with forceps as it emerges from the womb or by injecting formaldehyde into the soft spot of the head. Especially harsh punishments have been inflicted on persons whose resistance is motivated by religion. According to a recent Amnesty International report, enforcement measures in two overwhelmingly Catholic villages in northern China have included torture, sexual abuse, and the detention of resisters' relatives as hostages to compel compliance. The campaign is reported to have been conducted under the slogan ``better to have more graves than more than one child.'' The dramatic and well-publicized arrival in 1993-94 of a few vessels containing Chinese boat people has tended to obscure the fact that these people have never amounted to more than a tiny fraction of the undocumented immigrants to the United States. The total number of Chinese boat people who arrived during the years our more generous asylum policy was in force, or who were apprehended while attempting to do so, was fewer than 2,000. This is the equivalent of a quiet evening on the border in San Diego. Nor is there evidence that denying asylum to people whose claims are based on forced abortion or forced sterilization will be of any use in preventing false claims. People who are willing to lie in order to get asylum will simply switch to some other story. The only people who will be forced to return to China will be those who are telling the truth-- who really do have a reasonable fear of being subjected to forced abortion or forced sterilization. The solution to credibility problems is careful case-by-case adjudication, not wholesale denial. Opponents add rhetorical punch to the asylum-as-magnet argument by asserting that treating forced abortion victims decently will be a unique incentive to smuggling and criminal gangs. Everyone is against smuggling. But let's prosecute the smugglers. Let's not take it out on the victims. The passengers on the St. Louis who were forced back to occupied Europe in 1939 were smuggled aliens too. Finally, we should be extremely careful about forcibly repatriating asylum seekers to China in light of evidence that a number of those sent back by the United States since 1993 have been subjected to ``re- education camps,'' forced labor, beatings, and other harsh treatment. The passage of this legislation, despite its defects, should be good news for the dozens of people who are still being detained by INS, even though they were found to have testified credibly to a well-founded fear of forced abortion or forced sterilization--or even that they have already been subjected to these procedures. People whose claims were rejected under the discredited case of Matter of Chang and its progeny should be released from detention immediately, and their asylum cases should be reheard under the rule that is restored by this law. Mr. Speaker, the problem is not people fleeing persecution, and it is not people who obey our immigration laws. The problem is illegal immigration. The solution is to cut illegal immigration from 300,000 per year to zero, and to provide speedy deportation proceedings for millions of illegal immigrants who have abused our hospitality. As President Reagan said in his farewell address: ``The shining city upon a hill is still a beacon for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.'' We are still the land of the free, still the most generous nation on Earth, but we must also insist on fairness and on respect for law. We must continue to work for the swift and sure enforcement of our immigration laws, without sacrificing American values.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4036) to strengthen the protection of internationally recognized human rights, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4036, the bill just passed.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 515, offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who has been a tireless ally in defending the helpless, the imprisoned, the enslaved, and the persecuted, particularly persecuted Christians. I want to commend my colleague for authoring this legislation and recognizing the modern-day travesty of religious intolerance, imprisonment, and increasingly, the growing numbers of people who are martyrs. In recent years, Pakistani Christian Javid Mashi was martyred; Iranian Christians, including Bishop Haik, have been killed and martyred by those regimes; Catholic and Protestant Church leaders in China, as well as ordinary believers, are regularly being arrested, regularly being beaten and fined by the dictatorship. I have led three human rights trips to the People's Republic of China, Mr. Speaker. I have seen people in this country, the community that has made it to this country and gotten asylum, and also people who have risked much to tell stories in China itself, about the incredible repression that the house church movement and the Catholic Church that is aligned with Rome endures on behalf of their belief in Christ. It is unbelievable, the beatings, the middle of the night visits by the security police, who drag them off to be interrogated, and then the long incarcerations for their faith. As a matter of fact, we met with one bishop who is aligned with Rome who actually celebrated mass in his apartment, only to be arrested and then get thrown back into prison for that expression of his religious belief, having already spent more than a dozen years in incarceration because of his faith. We see that the same thing is happening in Vietnam. There are a number of believers who are not aligned with officially recognized churches, which are controlled by the dictatorship, who are languishing in prison and often being tortured and imprisoned for their faith. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, held a series of hearings in the springtime on religious persecution, and we spent an entire day looking at the rising tide of persecution against Christians. The most compelling stories at that hearing and those that were submitted to us came from the actual victims who told us of the sufferings and of what they had endured. Persecution occurs in countries including Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and Turkey, where Government policies repress religious practice and where Islamic extremists stir public uprisings against Christians, particularly those who seek to share their faith and perhaps to witness for Christ or those who convert from Islam to Christianity. People can be killed simply for changing their faith. Where is the religious freedom in those countries where that is practiced? Persecution also occurs, as I said, in the People's Republic of China, in Cuba, in Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam, where Communist regimes feel threatened by Christians whose faith ultimately transcends the reach and control of political authorities. In many parts of the world, those in political power rightly see that the inner freedom and human dignity inherent in the Christian faith undermines the pervasive thought control imposed by those dictatorial regimes. Tragically, the testimony heard by our subcommittee confirmed that in countries governed by antidemocratic and anti-Western regimes, Christians even become the scapegoats and as a means to vent and popularize hatred of the West and of the United States. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the worldwide persecution of Christians continues to this day, and regrettably it is on the rise, one of the most compelling human rights issues in modern times. The martyrdom of Christians has reached absolutely staggering and shocking levels in this century. People of conscience have committed themselves to prayer and to action on behalf of those who are suffering. I commend the National Association of Evangelicals for their clarion call to action. Pope John Paul II earlier this year denounced the persecution of Christians by Islamic extremists and by Communist regimes. The World Evangelical Fellowship has spearheaded an international day of prayer for the persecuted church. The first annual day of prayer is set for Sunday, September 29. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has raised all of our attention for years to this. I have traveled with him to such disparate places as the PRC and Romania, and we have seen persecuted Christians. This is another manifestation of his concern for our suffering brethren. I hope everybody votes for this and supports it and joins in this effort to provide freedom and some help for our suffering brethren.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 515, offered by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Wolf of Virginia, who has been a tireless ally in defending the helpless, the imprisoned, the enslaved, and the persecuted--particularly persecuted Christians. I commend my colleague for authoring this resolution which recognizes the modern day travesty of religious intolerance, imprisonment and even martyrdom. In recent years, Pakistani Christian Javid Mashi was martyred; Iranian Christian Mehdi Dibaj, Minister Tateos Michaelian and Bishop Haik Hovespian-Mehr were martyred; Catholic and Protestant church leaders in China, as well as ordinary believers, are regularly being arrested, beaten and fined; Christians in Sudan have been executed, enslaved, tortured, and sent into forced labor for their refusal to convert to Islam; for the last 18 years, about one dozen Catholic priests and monks in Vietnam have been imprisoned; in nearby Cuba, Pastor Orson Vila remains under house arrest following his 10 months imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, the entire century has been plagued with the martyrdom and persecution of religious leaders and their faithful flocks--the number of Catholic, Evangelical, and Orthodox Christians who have died for their faith will never be fully accounted. The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, held hearings this past spring on religious persecution, particularly Christian persecution. The most compelling stories were from the victims themselves. Persecution occurs in countries, such as Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Turkey, where government policies repress religious practice and where Islamic extremists stir public uprisings against Christians, particularly those who seek to share their faith or those who convert from Islam to Christianity. Persecution also occurs in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam, where Communist regimes feel threatened by Christians whose faith ultimately transcends the reach and control of political authorities. In many parts of the world, those in political power rightly see that the inner freedom and human dignity inherent in the Christian faith undermines the pervasive control sought by dictatorial regimes. Tragically, the testimony heard by the Subcommittee confirmed that, in countries governed by anti-democratic, anti-Western regimes, Christians become scapegoats as a means to vent and popularize hatred of the West and of the United States. Clearly, if the United States is to retain its moral leadership, we must initiate policies that distance the United States from governments which engage in these persecutions, or allow rampages against the Christian communities and believers to go unchecked. The United States must seek to insure that the inalienable right to freedom of religion, along with the concomitant rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and the freedom to change one's religion, are supported through the United States foreign policy. Governments and tyrannical religious groups must be put on notice that persecution of Christians violates numerous international treaties and covenants and will not be tolerated by the United States. The Unites States must exercise decisive leadership and consistently raise these issues in bilateral negotiations and relations, and in multilateral fora. My colleagues, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Porter, and I had encouraged the White House to appoint a Special Advisor on matters of religious persecution. Recent press reports indicate that a special advisory committee is being appointed, headed by Department of State Assistant Secretary John Shattuck. While the stated mandate of the committee has not been made public, I would suggest that the mandate be unequivocal with a focus on the tragedy of religious persecution, particularly of Christians. The committee should have precise reporting deadlines. Proposing specific recommendations of policy, diplomatic action and other initiatives appropriate for government to undertake should be part of the committee's mandate. The worldwide persecution of Christians is one of the most compelling human rights issues in modern times. The martyrdom of Christians has reached alarming levels in this century and people of conscience have committed themselves to prayer and to action on behalf of those suffering. I commend the National association of Evangelical for their clarion call to action. Pope John Paul II, earlier this year, denounced the persecution of Christians by Islamist and communist regimes. The World Evangelical Fellowship has spearheaded an international day of prayer for the persecuted church. The first annual day of prayer is set for Sunday, September 29. I urge my friends and colleagues of all faiths to join in this call to action. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before the House, House Resolution 515.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on September 16, the European Court of Human Rights for the first time rules that the Government of Turkey must compensate Kurdish villagers whose houses had been destroyed by security forces. The Court found that the burning of homes violated European Human Rights Conventions. The Court also found that the Turkish Government had interfered with the applicants' right to appeal to the European Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Speaker, presently, more than 150 cases involving more than 400 individuals have been submitted to the European Commission. These cases relate to the destruction of Kurdish villages, extra-judicial executions, disappearances, rape, and torture. Already, 56 such cases have been deemed admissible by the European Commission, and a handful have proceeded to the European Court. Mr. Speaker, the sheer volume of cases brought against Turkey and declared admissible, as well as the circumstances surrounding each, leave little doubt that the Government of Turkey is not only conducting a violent campaign against its own citizens, but also trying to cover up its abuses with intimidation and propaganda. Earlier this year, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki released a report which documented efforts by Turkish authorities to prevent individuals from pursuing cases at the European Commission and Court. The report referenced numerous incidents in which applicants, as well as their family members and lawyers, had faced harassment, torture and murder in attempts to prevent them from pursuing their cases. Mr. Speaker, Turkish officials often recognize the European Court's jurisdiction and the right of Turkish citizens to appeal to the Court as proof of a commitment to human rights. Yet following this first ruling against Turkey, officials have called the ruling wrong and criticized the Court as being politically biased. Following a familiar pattern in which public proclamations bear little resemblance to actuality, other international human rights commitments are similarly dismissed when implementation would bring attention to serious abuses. Last July, at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Stockholm, members of the Turkish delegation agreed to invite an assembly delegation to Turkey. One week later, Turkey's Ambassador to the OSCE in Vienna stated that his government would not cooperate in issuing such an invitation. Not only has Turkey reneged on the OSCE invitation, efforts by the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC] to discuss questions of access to conflict areas have also been rebuffed. Mr. Speaker, the ruling by the European Court will surely be the first of many. The longer Turkish rulers refuse to acknowledge the true reality of the Kurdish situation the more all citizens will pay in precious blood and resources. Turkish economic and political development has been stunted by the crisis in southeast Turkey and its human dimension; 21,000 lives have been lost, 3,000 villages have been destroyed and approximately 3 million people forced from their homes in Kurdish regions by Turkish troops. And, despite what officials and their mouthpieces in the media claim, restrictions on free speech and the media persist. The U.S. Government should use every opportunity to press for real reform. If we want to fully develop a deep and lasting relationship with NATO ally Turkey, our policymakers must not continue to downplay human rights problems to advance economic and strategic interests.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, partial-birth abortion is child abuse. That some otherwise respectable and pleasant and well-mannered people would permit killing babies in this way--which Congress can stop if it has the will--is both baffling and extremely sad. That some otherwise smart and even brilliant people have been so easily fooled by the abortion industry's outrageous lies, distortions, half-truths, and surface appeal arguments is, at best, disappointing and unsettling. How can anyone in this Chamber or in the White House defend sticking a pair of scissors into a partially born baby's head so as to puncture the child's skull so a suction catheter can be inserted to suck out the child's brains? How can anyone support this and then say they're for kids? My wife, Marie, is an elementary school teacher, and she said this morning that if a young student were to stab her doll in the back of the head, alarm bells would go off and we would say that this child might have deep psychological problems, was in need of professional help, and posed a potential threat to others. If anyone did such an act to a young animal--a puppy or a kitten--we would say that he or she was sick and guilty of animal abuse. Yet the abortion President Bill Clinton, seeks to continue legal sanction for this gruesome assault on children. Finally, we're seeing what the right to choose really means: Executing untold thousands of children by stabbing them and sucking out their brains? Let's face it. Partial-birth abortion is a gross violation of human rights--it's child abuse. Why the blind spot? Why the unwillingness to see the brutality and savagery of brain- sucking abortion? I guess we now know how far the so-called pro-choice movement will go to sustain the Orwellian super-myth that abortion is somehow sane, compassionate--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 the unborn child, injections of high concentrated salt solutions and other kinds of poisons that chemically burn and then kill the baby, or this particular method, a brain-sucking method of abortion. They will see that the real extremists are those who actually do these acts. The dangerous person is not the one who shows us the pictures or who describes abortions, the dangerous person--the child abuser--is the person holding the scissors at the base of the baby's skull. I would respectfully submit to my abortion-minded friends on both sides of the aisle, that the coverup is over. For more than two decades the abortion industry has sanitized abortion methods by aggressively employing the shrewdest and most benign euphemisms market research can buy. I say to my friends on the other side of this issue, choose the path of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL--the National Abortion Rights Action League--and former big league abortionist who turned pro- life because he finally had to admit, in a fit of intellectual honesty, that the unborn child was a patient, too, in need of nurturing and caring and love, just like his or her mother. For the first time ever, the debate over partial-birth abortion requires us to begin coming to grips with the grisly specifics of how abortion actually pains, tortures, and destroys innocent human babies. If slaughtering a partially born child is wrong, why is it OK to slice and suction a baby in utero with a high-powered vacuum, 20 to 30 times more powerful than an average household vacuum cleaner, a procedure that turns the baby into bloody pulp. In a later term D&E abortion, the baby is decapitated and dismembered, limb by limb, inside the womb. The dirty secret of the abortion rights movement--the violent, painful methods of abortion--are finally getting scrutiny because of this debate. The partial-birth abortion debate is allowing us to just scratch the surface of the usually secret, hidden, and Byzantine world of abortion and the methods used to painfully kill unborn children. Even the Washington Post shed some light on the methods this week. The Post article says, in part, Most abortion doctors circumvent this problem by dismembering the fetus and removing it in pieces small enough to pass through the cervix . . . The physician generally injects the fetus with one or more toxic substances a day before surgery, a maneuver that softens the tissue and makes dismemberment easier. It also eliminates any possibility a live birth will occur. Alternatively, some doctors cut the umbilical cord, which kills the fetus, 15 or 20 minutes before the procedure. Perhaps some of you are having--or beginning to have--second thoughts concerning the bill of goods the abortion lobby has been selling all these years. They even lied about the number of partial-birth abortions performed each year in the United States. This past Sunday, The Record of Bergen, NJ, published a lengthy investigate report about the partial-birth abortions. I was appalled to read that a single facility in New Jersey--Metropolitan Medical in Englewood--performs at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions every year. This is three times the number of brain suction abortions that the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other pro- abortion groups have estimated are performed annually throughout the country. This revelation belies the statement of Bill Clinton that the process of sucking a baby's brains out moments before his or her full delivery is limited to 500 children per year nationally. Even if the lower number were true, however, I am stunned that he or anyone else could belittle the horror of partial-birth abortion by saying it ``only'' kills 500 children each year. This is a higher death toll than the Oklahoma City bombing--an act that has been rightfully condemned. What is equally as frightening is the fact that the same Record article reveals that most partial-birth abortions in New Jersey were done to teenagers, and they were done as elective procedures, not for medical reasons. Let me quote from the article. ``We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount,'' said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there. ``Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers.'' And let us not forget Dr. Martin Haskell, the medical doctor who boasts about this grisly procedure and goes on tour teaching it to others. Dr. Haskell says 80 percent of his partial birth abortions are ``purely elective.'' This contradicts everything the abortion President has said to justify his veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban bill passed by both the House and the Senate. President Clinton should stop hiding from the truth. Override this antichild veto.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, let us stop kidding ourselves. Partial birth abortion is child abuse. That some otherwise smart and even brilliant people have been so thoroughly fooled by the abortion industry's outrageous lies and distortions and half-truths and those surface appeal arguments is at best disappointing and unsettling. How can anyone in this Chamber or in the White House defend sticking a pair of scissors into a partially born child's head so as to puncture the child's skull and then a suction catheter is inserted to suck out the child's brains? How can anybody defend that? My wife Marie is a former elementary schoolteacher. This morning she said that, if a child or a student were to do that to her doll, stick the doll in the back of the head with scissors, we would think the child needed psychological counseling and would immediately call for that kind of help. Yet the abortion President, Bill Clinton, seeks to continue legal sanction of this gruesome assault on children, with real scissors and real babies. Finally, we are seeing what the right to choose really means executing untold thousands of children by stabbing them and sucking out their brains. I guess we now know how far the so-called prochoice movement will go to sustain the Orwellian supermyth that abortion is somehow sane, somehow compassionate, and even prochild. Americans will now see that the real extremists are not the people who insist on calling attention to the grisly details of abortion, dismemberment of the baby's fragile body, brain-sucking abortions or chemical injections. They will see that the people who actually dismember, poison, or hold the scissors at the base of the skull, they are the dangerous people. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of myths that the abortion lobby has circulated about partial-birth abortion. This past Sunday in the Sunday Record (of Bergen), a proabortion newspaper in my State, again exposed the lie that there are 500 partial-birth abortions in the country each year. The proabortion lobby seeks to trivialize the issue by grossly undercounting the actual number. The article, however, points out that in one New Jersey abortion mill alone, each year 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed. The Record article also points out that the indicators for most of those abortions are nonmedical in that abortion clinic. Just like Dr. Haskill, one of the pioneers in this gruesome procedure, who has said that 80 percent of those who he sees are doing it for purely elective reasons. The Sunday Record pointed out, and I quote: Interviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in New Jersey alone at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year, three times the supposed national rate. Moreover, doctors say that only a minuscule amount are for medical reasons. Mr. Speaker, it is time to begin to stand up for these unborn children and these partially born children and these newly born children. This is a matter of human rights. The abortion side, the abortion lobby, has sanitized these killings, they have kept people in the dark. But, the dirty secret of the abortion rights movement is finally out: Abortion kills babies, it is child abuse and we can stop some of that abuse by overriding Bill Clinton's antichild veto.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, New Jersey's Bergen Record published a lengthy investigative report about the partial-birth abortions. I was appalled to read that a single facility in New Jersey--Metropolitan Medical in Englewood--performs at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions every year. This is three times the number of brain suction abortions that the National Abortion Federation, NARAL, and other pro-abortion groups have estimated are preformed annually throughout the country. This revelation belies the statement of Bill Clinton that the process of sucking a baby's brains out moments before his or her full delivery is limited to 500 children per year nationally. Even if the lower number were true, however, I am stunned that he or anyone else could belittle the horror of partial-birth abortion by saying it only kills 500 children each year. This death toll exceeds the Oklahoma City bombings--an act of terrorism we have all condemned as barbaric. What is equally as frightening is the fact that the same Record article reveals the most partial-birth abortions in New Jersey were done to teenagers, and they were done as elective procedures, not for medical reasons. Let me quote form the article. ``We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount,'' said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there. ``Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers.'' This contradicts everything the abortion President has said to justify his veto of the partial-birth abortion ban bill passed by both the House and the Senate. President Clinton should stop hiding from the truth. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that partial-birth abortions are infanticide and should be banned. Bill Clinton is now not only ignoring the American people, but facts and figures coming from the States and the press.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, the new Government of Turkey has demonstrated a familiar disregard for international human rights commitments and earlier promises made to secure entry into a European Union customs agreement. On August 26, 41 members of the Peoples Democracy Party [HADEP], including its leadership, were charged for alleged ties with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party [PKK]. The same day, two editors of the Turkish Daily News were charged with ``damaging the prestige of the armed forces'' by publishing an opinion poll. And, on September 3, Akin Birdal, president of the Human Rights Association of Turkey, was detained for participating on a delegation negotiating the release of Turkish soldiers captured by the PKK. Mr. Speaker, the HADEP case follows an all too familiar pattern. The Turkish Government is stepping up efforts to delegitimize and dismantle HADEP, Turkey's only Kurdish-based political party. Supported by more than 1.2 million votes in last December's elections, HADEP was increasingly viewed as a possible interlocutor in the bloody conflict between government forces and Kurdish militants. Yet, like its director predecessor, the Democracy Party [DEP], whose 13 parliamentarians were imprisoned or exiled for speech crimes, HADEP has now become the government's target. In June, following a party convention at which a Turkish flag was torn down, 28 HADEP leaders were detained and have been held ever since, without being charged--despite their disavowal of any connection to the flag incident. Following the convention three HADEP members were murdered and party offices in Izmir were bombed. Two men accused of tearing down the flag have been charged with treason and could face the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, nationalist hysteria over the flag incident also had negative consequences for a former DEP Member of Parliament, Sirri Sakik, who has been charged for saying, ``People who desire that a certain respect be paid to their own flags should also be respectful of others' flags''. Prosecutors deemed this statement to be advocating separatism and charged Sakik under article 8 of the Anti-Terror law. Mr. Speaker, you may recall that article 8 was amended with great fanfare last fall to mollify European concerns about Turkey's human rights record in advance of the vote on Turkey's customs union entry. Dozens of people have since been jailed under the new and improved article 8, and hundreds of others under similarly restrictive statutes. Mr. Speaker, the Turkish Daily News case demonstrates how mainstream journalists also face continued repression. Ilnur Cevik, who participated in a Helsinki Commission briefing on Turkish elections, and Hayri Birler face up to 6 years in prison for publishing results of a poll on preferences for government alternatives following last year's elections. The polls were published in February and some speculate that the belated decision to prosecute was based on growing displeasure in military circles with Cevik's perceived support of Refah, the Muslim- based party. Mr. Speaker, another troubling case involves Human Rights Association [HRA] President Akin Birdal, who participated in a 1995 Helsinki Commission briefing. A valuable source of information on human rights abuses in Turkey, the Association and its president, Akin Birdal, have received numerous awards in the United States and Europe. Since its inception, HRA activists have faced severe repression. Fifteen branches have been closed in southeast Turkey, activists and leaders have been murdered by government-supported death squads, and hundreds of HRA members have been arrested and imprisoned. The absurd justification for the latest detention, however, made the authorities look even more capricious than usual. Akin Birdal participated in a delegation seeking the release of Turkish soldiers captured by the PKK. The delegation, led by a Member of Parliament from the ruling Refah Party and including other well- known human rights activists, was discussed in the press and government circles for weeks. Although unsuccessful, the delegation's mission fueled speculation that the government might be reconsidering its purely military approach to the Kurdish insurgency. Such speculation caused sufficient consternation in ruling circles to order detention of delegation members. Although the government released the delegation members on September 6, it remains unclear whether they will be charged under Penal Code Article 169 for aiding an illegal organization, for which they could face up to 5 years in prison. These recent incidents, Mr. Speaker, punctuate the routine repression occurring daily in Turkey. None accused in these incidents committed acts of violence, but are being silenced rather for speaking against government-sponsored violence and policies that have prolonged a bloody internal war. And, if the pattern of past convictions of former parliamentarians and others repeats itself, the only evidence that will emerge to suggest support for terrorism will be clumsy fabrications and testimony coerced under torture. Our important ally Turkey, Mr. Speaker, is facing a serious multidimensional crisis. If we are to help Turkey address this crisis, we must be firm in our support for a political solution to the conflict which has claimed more than 21,000 lives and created more than three million internal refugees. Recent events in northern Iraq have underscored regional instability complicated in no small part by Kurdish unrest in Turkey. Clearly, Turkey's leaders will pay little more than lip service to human rights commitments when it become necessary to secure cooperation with Western governments. They will continue such policies as long as Western governments remain willing to overlook abuses in order to advance security or economic objectives. Turkey's allies should undertake every effort to support the victims of this peculiar form of democracy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to speak out against recurring restrictions imposed on free speech in Turkey and call upon the Turkish Government, once again, to release all those imprisoned for nonviolent expression, including the HADEP members and former DEP parliamentarians.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge passage of House Concurrent Resolution 120, a measure which I am pleased to have cosponsored, supporting the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine and progress of its political and economic reforms. I commend Chairman Gilman for his introduction of this important resolution and efforts to ensure its passage. On August 24, Ukraine celebrated its fifth anniversary of independence. In doing so, Ukraine confounded the predictions of some Western analysts--made only a few years ago--that it would break up or soon return to Russia's orbit. Despite the considerable challenges Ukraine continues to face, this strategically important country has emerged as a stable state where political differences, while at times intense, are resolved peacefully and democratically. The most recent evidence of this is the Ukrainian parliament's adoption of a new constitution in June. During the last 5 years, Ukraine has made significant progress both at home and abroad. On the international scene, Ukraine has exhibited stability in a volatile region. United States-Ukrainian relations are now on a solid footing and are stronger than ever. The United States is committed to helping Ukraine consolidate its independence through economic and political reform. In 1994, Ukraine signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] at the OSCE Summit in Budapest and ratified START-I, and just a few months ago, on May 31, the last former Soviet nuclear weapons were removed from Ukrainian soil. While strengthening its ties with the West, Ukraine is also attempting to forge a constructive relationship with all its neighbors, especially Russia, while emphasizing its independence and resisting Russian attempts at greater CIS military and political integration. In fact, just last month, Ukraine's defense minister refused to sign a CIS statement on NATO expansion. In so doing, he underscored Ukraine's belief that every independent state has the right to make its own decision on entry into NATO consistent with OSCE principles. While outstanding problems with Russia remain, including the contentious issue of basing for the Black Sea Fleet, efforts are continuing toward their resolution. The consolidation of Ukraine's statehood is also evident in the domestic arena. In June, the Ukrainian parliament adopted a constitution after years of wrangling, further stabilizing the political situation and paving the way to more vigourous reform efforts, particularly in the economic sphere. Also, tensions in Crimea have diminished in the last year and the new Crimean authorities appear to be more cooperative with the Ukrainian Government. Moreover, human rights, including minority rights, continue to be generally respected in Ukraine and the interethnic conflicts so common in many other countries of the region have not appeared in Ukraine. In the past year, Ukraine has also witnessed the beginnings of an economic overhaul: Prices for many goods have been freed; the budget deficit has been reduced; and inflation has gone down. Just a few days ago, Ukraine's long-awaited new currency, the hryvna, was introduced. Mr. Speaker, despite the positive developments I have outlined, Ukraine still faces serious challenges--economic ills; a crippling bureaucracy; corruption; the lack of a legal structure which hampers business and foreign investment; the growth of organized crime and the lack of developed democratic institutions and civil society. House Concurrent Resolution 120 underscores the dependence of Ukraine's economic and social stability on its ability to build a stable market- based economy and a legal system based on the rule of law. This resolution, I am pleased to say, also addresses another major challenge for Ukraine, by urging Kyiv to continue its cooperative efforts with the G-7 to safely and expeditiously shut down the nuclear reactors at Chornobyl. Last May, the House unanimously approved a resolution that I introduced on the Chornobyl disaster which underscored the importance of G-7 efforts to assist Ukraine in closing down Chornobyl, and I am pleased that the international community has recently showed signs of greater willingness to assist Ukraine in this important endeavor. Indeed, Ukraine's struggle toward political and economic reforms--to overcome the devastating legacy of Soviet rule--will be formidable. But this process, too, must be kept in perspective. Let us keep in mind that, historically, the Ukrainian people have shown a tremendous ability to overcome extremely unfavorable odds. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have long tracked developments in Ukraine and supported the Ukrainian people in their struggle for freedom--well before Ukraine became independent. I am familiar with the tremendous sacrifices it took to achieve independence. Despite the fact that independence arrived peacefully 5 years ago, in 1991, it was hard won, and there are still some in Russia, including among the political elite, who have not reconciled themselves to an independent Ukraine. Throughout this bloody century, millions of Ukrainians sacrificed their very lives or well-being because of their commitment to freedom and independence. In short, you might say that the Ukrainian people, in achieving independence and maintaining and strengthening it over the last 5 years, have already beat the odds. Mr. Speaker, I also think of how far Ukraine has already come since independence. Given that 5 years ago Ukraine in many repsects had to start from scratch--lacking the necessary institutions and state structures--I am optimistic with respect to Ukraine's future and confident that the people of Ukraine will overcome any challenges that lie ahead. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 120 stresses the importance which this Congress attaches to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and urges continued United States assistance to Ukraine for its political and economic reforms. By providing this support, we will help the Ukrainian people to overcome the challenges that lie ahead and will be acting in a way that comports with both our national interests and our long-standing values.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the joint declaration adopted in Budapest on July 5 by representatives of the Hungarian Government and by representatives of Hungarian communities abroad--the so-called Hungarian-Hungarian summit declaration. The status of the various and sizable Hungarian minority communities in Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia is of considerable interest to many in Congress. How governments treat their minority communities is often a significant barometer of how they will treat their citizens as a whole, and a strong indicator of the progress of democratization in countries in transition. In fact, I remain concerned about the minority situation in each of these countries, and, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, have raised such concerns on a number of occasions. Many hoped the Hungarian-Hungarian summit document would provide some useful insight into the concrete concerns of Hungarian minorities. Unfortunately, the summit document adopted in Budapest does not address the kind of specific and concrete issues that are usually raised with the Commission, such as minority language schooling or electoral districting. Instead, the declaration stands as a broad and somewhat ambiguous endorsement of ``autonomy'' and ``self-government.'' Those terms--guaranteed to alarm those already afraid of alleged Hungarian irredentism--were unfortunately left undefined, fostering the perception in some quarters that the declaration represents only a thinly veiled effort by Budapest to extend its influence beyond current Hungarian borders and, implicitly, to turn back the clock to the days when Hungarians were united in a single country. I appreciate the Hungarian Embassy's willingness to clarify for the Commission the underlying intent of his declaration. In particular, the Embassy asserted that the word ``autonomy'' was in no way intended to signal ``territorial autonomy.'' I also believe the declaration's positive emphasis on the importance of the accession of all Hungary's neighbors into NATO and the European Union should not be overlooked and, indeed, is especially important in light of the recent congressional debate on NATO expansion. Nevrtheless, I believe that the declaration, through the use of wording that is ambiguous at best and, at worst, predictably inflammatory, stands in contradiction to Hungary's stated goal of pursuing ``good neighbor'' policies. Surprisingly, Hungary implies that its goal of gaining admission to NATO and other European organizations should be dependent on ``the fundamental interests of Hungarian national communities abroad''--a message that suggests a qualified interest in accession to NATO. Finally, I must note that concerns about this declaration were only heightened by the statement of the Hungarian representative to the OSCE in Vienna, Ambassador Martin Krasznai. In defending the use of the word ``autonomy,'' Ambassador Krasznai presented the Basques, Catalans, and South-Tyroleans as positive examples of Europe's experience with autonomous movements. The irony of these particular references was probably not lost on the representatives of Italy or Spain--especially in the wake of the numerous terrorist bombings attributed to Basque separatists last month. Mr. Speaker, while a rare opportunity for discussion about real minority concerns may have been missed, I also see the Hungarian- Hungarian summit declaration as an aberration from the current government's usually constructive approach. I will continue to follow the situation of minority communities in central Europe and the inseparable issue of the progress of democratization in general. As I do so, I hope that Hungarian representatives will join with the Commission in seeking to promote democracy for all the citizens of all the countries of the OSCE.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, was briefed by Kim Sang-Chul, chairman of the Korea American Friendship Society. I am inserting his comprehensive statement in the Record for the information of my colleagues: Remarks by Kim Sang-Chul, Chairman, Korea America Friendship Society Honorable Chairman, and members: I wish to thank you for inviting me here to speak on the human rights situation in Korea. i. introductory remarks Korea has a checkered history. It has experienced numerous foreign invasions throughout its 5000-year history. However, it has managed to keep its independence and its people have made the country what it is today--a democratic, independent and economically thriving country--through patience, perseverance, and hard work. From ancient times, we have been called the white-clad people for our love of purity and justice, symbolized by Koreans' traditional white clothing. Korea is a small nation in terms of its territory. But it is not small in terms of its aspirations. We have achieved miraculous economic growth and established a democratic government through fair elections in a short period of time. We are optimistic about our future. We will probably be able to join the ranks of advanced countries in the first part of the next century, thereby allowing us to play a more important role in the international community for the promotion of world peace, freedom, justice and prosperity. Our successful journey on the path toward economic prosperity and political freedom could not, by any means, be described as smooth. We endured hardship for 36 years under Japanese colonial rule. The nation was in chaos and the national economy was completely devastated as a result of the Korean War. Thanks to the sacrifices of our allies, we were able to fend off communist aggression and achieve peace, however fragile it may be. Thanks to the support of our allies and friends, we were able to overcome the devastation of the tragic war, rebuild the nation and its economy, achieve freedom and establish a democratic government. The road leading to freedom and democracy in Korea has been bumpy. We were under the rule of military governments for almost 30 years from 1961 through 1992. There is no denying that many human rights violations occurred during this period.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the House voting to extend permanently MFN for Romania, H.R. 3161. Romania has just completed, after three rounds, its election of local officials throughout the country, and national elections are now set for early November. I strongly believe that the House should consider the legislation before us only after Romania's national elections. There are a number of issues, from freedom of the media and rights of the minorities to democratic reform, which remain unresolved. Romania enjoys all the benefits of MFN under the current semiannual review process, and granting permanent MFN now will remove this important review of these remaining issues of concern and the conduct of the upcoming elections. Mr. Speaker, we all know that within a democratic system, the political will to address outstanding problems is always greater during an election season. Let the 105th Congress consider this issue after Romania's national elections. The current MFN review process has served as a helpful opportunity to gauge Romania's democratic reform and their respect for human rights. Freedom of the media, for example, continues to be a concern. Under Romanian law, individuals who are convicted of insulting or defaming public officials can be subjected to prison terms. The Romanian Senate recently passed legislation which would increase these criminal penalties if the insults are committed in the written or audiovisual press. This type of potential liability, in my opinion, has a chilling effect on the media. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Romania should ensure absolutely the freedom of the media--at all times--but particularly during the heat of election campaigns. Unfavorable commentary by the media regarding government officials should not be viewed as a threat to national security and result in calls for restrictions on those who dare to criticize. I was dismayed by the reaction of the chairman of the ruling party in Romania to critical news reports filed by the local BBC correspondent during the recent local election campaign. Chairman Adrian Nastase, who is also President of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies, attacked the BBC for its critical reporting and called on the national licensing agency to review that respected international news organization's right to rebroadcast on local Romanian radio stations. Minority rights continue to be of concern. Ethnic minorities face certain restrictions to their receiving, at the higher levels in particular, instruction in their native language, and a law was passed which now limits the taking of college entrance exams solely in Romanian. This law was not implemented this year but the law remains on the books. And official obstacles remain which prevent the restoration of the Hungarian university in Cluj. Human rights are best protected by governments which must answer to their electorate. As with any fledgling democracy, the campaign season for the just completed local elections and the conduct of the national elections in the fall are particularly important tests for Romania's commitment to freedom of the press, their conduct of orderly, free, and fair elections, and their provision for domestic observers for the national elections. Reports from objective election observers clearly indicate that the conduct of the local elections did not allay the potential problems which had been raised by NGO's. The most serious concerns included widespread, gross inaccuracy of the voter lists; significant logistical problems which arise when campaign periods are truncated; and uneven interpretation of the election law by local officials with no central election bureau to serve as arbiter, which contributed to inconsistencies around the country and even a lack of trust in the system. In my view, Mr. Speaker, projecting a vote in the U.S. Congress on the political landscape of Romania would certainly be seen as a congressional judgment on Romania's current political leaders. The vote tallies of the recently held local elections indicate strong, grassroots support for the opposition parties. In fact, the ruling Party of Social Democracy in Romania and the opposition Democratic Convention of Romania [CDR] received about equal percentages of the vote in the mayors' races. The CDR and other opposition parties, including representatives of the Hungarian minority, significantly out- polled the ruling party in country, city, and mayoral races in many regions. Mr. Speaker, this is a political environment in which every issue, especially closely watched foreign policy issues such as Romania's MFN status with the United States, affects the voters' perception of the effectiveness of the ruling party. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of areas in which the Romanian Government could take timely and constructive steps to ensure that the national elections are conducted in a way which garners confidence in the electoral process. I hope and expect that the Government of Romania will make every effort to ensure that the national elections in November are conducted on the basis of up-to-date, accurate voting lists in each locality, backed up by consistent and uniform interpretation of the election law by local officials. In my view, the establishment of a permanent, professional election bureau would ensure such consistency and accuracy, and go a long way toward enhancing voter confidence in the system. Finally, it is unclear at this time whether domestic election observers will be permitted at the polling stations in November. A one- time provision for local observers was made during the 1992 national elections, however this authorization has not been renewed. Mr. Speaker, in my view domestic as well as international observers are crucial to ensuring the conduct of free and fair elections. Domestic observers play a positive role in enhancing public confidence in the electoral process and the experience of election monitoring gives ordinary Romanian citizens an opportunity to develop skills and experience applicable to other aspects of democratic citizenship. I am hopeful and expectant that Romania's next leaders will be chosen through elections which will be free, fair and representative, and that the protection of human rights will continue to improve under the newly elected government. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3161 today. The people of Romania have had the benefits of MFN since 1992. Making the judgement about the transition to permanent status should be undertaken only after these critical elections are completed in November.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], my good friend, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Gilman for his leadership in ensuring the timely consideration of H.R. 3564, the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, a strong advocate of NATO enlargement, and Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have consistently emphasized the importance of human rights in the expansion process. In addition, I am keenly interested in encouraging states interested in NATO membership to take concrete steps to strengthen civilian democratic control of the military. During the International Relations Committee's consideration of this important initiative, language which proposed on each of these aspects of enlargement was approved with the Chairman Gilman's support, for which I am grateful. As a result, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today includes an unqualified statement that the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights are integral aspects of genuine security. The legislation also makes clear that the human rights records of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe interested in joining NATO should be evaluated in light of the obligations and commitments of these countries under the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Helsinki Final Act. I would note that all 27 states of the Partnership for Peace [PfP] are participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. That membership has committed each to act in accordance with all OSCE documents, including the Helsinki Final Act. Mr. Speaker, the enlargement process provides an excellent opportunity for countries desiring membership to demonstrate their commitment to the shared values of NATO--including respect for human rights--as well as their ability to fulfill the military and political obligations expected of all member states. Prospective members should meet the criteria set forth in the NATO Participation Act of 1994 and other relevant legislation before they are admitted as full members of NATO. It is also important to recognize that the present process of enlargement is taking place under significantly different circumstances that existed when a limited number of states were added in the past. Given the growing number of countries actively seeking full membership in the alliance, it is essential to establish clear criteria which all new members must meet. Mr. Speaker, in recent days there has been some discussion about including Croatia among the prospective recipients of assistance under this legislation. To set the record straight, nothing in the pending legislation precludes Croatia from receiving assistance provided that country--or any other prospective recipient--meets a series of criteria, including respect for human rights. I welcome the recent decision of the OSCE to deploy a mission to Croatia and look forward to the findings and recommendations of that group which could contribute to establishing the conditions necessary for Zegreb to pursue eventual membership in NATO. In the meantime, Croatia should press for inclusion in the PfP, widely viewed as the first step toward possible NATO membership. Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn briefly to the issue of civilian democratic control of the military. At the outset, let me say that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have made tremendous strides in overcoming the legacy of communism. Perhaps one of the most delicate aspects of this transition has been establishing civilian control of the military an important prerequisite for those wishing to join NATO. Significant progress has been made in the emerging democracies leading to increased transparency with respect to military activities and budgets. Another key component, in my view, is the naming of a civilian to serve as minister of defense. Beyond mere symbolism, this action underscores the willingness of the military to subordinate itself to the democratic civilian leadership--a fundamental aspect of democratic society. I applaud those countries which have already undertaken this important step and encourage others to pursue that course. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as a demonstration of our determination to move NATO expansion forward and our commitment to the people of East Central Europe, including those from the Baltic States and Ukraine, as they strive to overcome the legacy of communism and pursue democracy firmly rooted in respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman for his outstanding amendment and the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Hal Rogers, for his good work in accepting it, my friend from West Virginia, as well, for accepting this language. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I think that is a given now since there is a consensus. Just let me say that throughout human history, the most important battles have not been those whose object was to control territory. The battles that really matter have always been about values and ideas. When the history of our century is written, it will be in large part the story of a long struggle for the soul of the world, the struggle between the values of the free would on the one hand and those of communism, fascism, and other forms of totalitarianism on the other. Throughout most of the world, the values of the free world have been victorious, not only because we had better values but because we were not afraid to stand up for them. Some say we no longer need the presence of surrogate broadcasting now that the cold war is over, but just let me remain Members, and everyone is increasingly aware of this, that in Asia there is a major problem with human rights. We have, unfortunately, reneged in our responsibility on these issues. MFN has been conferred for another year without linkage. Radio Free Asia, it seems to me, is the least we can do. H.R. 1561, the authorization bill, was vetoed by the President, provided $10 million per year. So this is well within the range what we have already done on the floor of the House, and that legislation again was vetoed. But this will not be and this will become law and I commend the gentleman for his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment to save Radio Free Asia. Throughout human history the most important battles have not been those whose object was to control territory. The battles that really matter have always been about values and ideas. When the history of our century is written, it will be in large part the story of a long struggle for the soul of the world--a struggle between the values of the free world on the one hand, and those of communism, fascism, and other forms of totalitarianism on the other, Throughout most of the world, the values of the free world have been victorious--not only because we had better values, but because we were not afraid to stand up for them. Some say that we no longer need a presence in the world now that the cold war is over. I think this view is misguided, for several reasons. First, there are places in the world where the values of freedom have not yet been victorious. These places include the few remaining Communist countries, such as Cuba, China, Vietnam, and North Korea, as well as an increasing number of countries governed by ``rogue regimes,'' such as Burma, Iraq, and Libya. This is why we still need Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and freedom broadcasting to Cuba. And this is why we need Radio Free Asia. Mr. Chairman, the repeated cuts, rescissions, delays, and consistent underfunding of Radio Free Asia since Congress ordered its creation in 1994 appear to be evidence that this important profreedom program is being subjected to the old Washington two-step: If you don't like a program but don't have the votes to kill it, first you render it ineffective. Then you can kill it by pointing out how ineffective it is. In H.R. 1561--the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, passed by the House and Senate but vetoed by President Clinton--we authorized $10 million for a no-year account for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997, as in fiscal year 1995. This was based on the estimates of those who conceived Radio Free Asia--distinguished human rights advocates such as Ambassador Charles Lichtenstein, who was our principal Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations under Jeane Kirkpatrick--that it would take at least $30 million to get Radio Free Asia up and running. Because it was fairly clear that the process would take at least 2 years, only $10 million was authorized for a no-year account in fiscal year 1995. The idea was that over the 3 years it would take to establish Radio Free Asia, the necessary $30 million would accumulate in the account. Through a series of rescissions and reductions, this start-up amount has been reduced to less than $10 million--which will be insufficient to establish Radio Free Asia as an effective voice against tyranny in the region. The Clinton administration, which has taken deep cuts in international broadcasting over the last 3 years, nevertheless recognizes that Radio Free Asia needs at least $14.4 million--that is, $10 million in fiscal year 1997 in addition to the $4.4 million already appropriated in a no-year account from fiscal year 1996--in order to survive its crucial first year of operations. The bill before us cuts this amount in half, to $5 million. The subcommittee report points out that the Board of Broadcasting Governors should have filed a more detailed report by now about its plans for Radio Free Asia. I agree with this criticism. But let's not blame the victim. If we must impose punishment for the failure to file a better report, let's find a way to impose it on the bureaucrats who should have filed the report--not on the innocent and freedom-loving people of China, Vietnam, Burma, and other countries who have been waiting 2 years already for Radio Free Asia to get up and running. In order to avoid killing this important human rights program without increasing the Federal budget deficit, it was necessary to find a $5 million offset from another program. This has been done by taking a tiny reduction--less than three-tenths of 1 percent--in the State Department's largest operating account, the $1.7 billion Diplomatic and Consular Services. Don't be fooled by the title of this account: it is simply the State Department's way of describing its largest salaries and expenses account. The State Department's operating accounts have remained essentially level since fiscal year 1994, at a time when other international relations activities have taken far deeper cuts. During these same 3 years, our freedom broadcasting programs have been cut over 20 percent. So the choice is simple: will we kill a voice for freedom in Asia in order to fund a few more bureaucrats? Mr. Chairman, the free world needs Radio Free Asia, and so do the enslaved peoples of the last outposts of the evil empire. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just so the record clearly reflects what is happening here, there were some bogus assertions made earlier that somehow the pro-life side was trying to box the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia from offering her amendment. Yet the simple fact of the matter is that we all have to abide by the rules here. There was a clear window of time here. Mrs. Norton's amendment was clearly in order but she physically was not here to offer. Many Members have done that over the years. I've been here for 16 years there have been times that bills have moved so fast that members have missed their opportunity. When that happens they have sought unanimous consent to bring it up, sometimes consent is granted, sometimes not. They did not then claim foul, though. If one knows what the rules are then its incumbent on a member to get here on time, and many Members have found this to be the case. But, really, if you're late getting here, don't turn around and cry foul. I want the record to show clearly that right now by bringing this amendment up out of order we are providing special treatment, to the gentlelady. Last year when the Norton amendment was offered it was defeated with 281 noes. I think the outcome was very predictable and would have been predictable if we had indeed had a rollcall vote. Mr. Chairman, the issue is one of whether or not we will provide funding in prisons and also for women detained by the Marshals Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the INS. This language that the chairman has wisely put into the bill provides for abortion funding only in cases of rape or endangerment to the life of the mother section 103. It is a carryover from last year. I believe it is very good legislation. Finally, and I said this earlier in this debate, why do we seek to proscribe funding for abortion? It is very simple. Many of us have come to the inescapable conclusion based on all of the available documentation that is out there that abortion kills babies, plain and simple. It dismembers babies' bodies. It results in the injection of chemical poisoning. I hope that a comprehensive debate on abortion occurs in this country, that this sense of denial that so many Americans are living with regarding abortion gets stripped away. The partial-birth abortion ban and the fight that occurred on this floor regarding that hideous procedure where the so-called doctor stabs the child's head with a scissors then hooks up a suction device to suck the brains out of the baby. Many people began to see abortion not as freedom but cruelty to children. The other methods are equally gruesome. It just happens in utero. You do not see the baby get dismembered unless you do what Dr. Nathanson did and utilize a sonogram and watch, as he did in his movie ``The Silent Scream,'' a child actually getting picked apart by a loop- shaped knife which is as sharp as a razor blade. Abortion kills babies. That is why we fight it. We also believe very strongly--and I know many women who have had abortions, many women--I believe that they are exploited, they are victims, they are covictims with the baby. Our real concern and love and compassion is for them. Reconciliation for those who have had abortions and efforts to try to prevent those who might be in a vulnerable situation from going forward with that irreversible decision to have her baby killed. Mr. Chairman, I am glad we had this short debate and we are able to accommodate the gentlewoman from the District. Let me make it very clear however that had she been here at the right time when the reading of the appropriate paragraph occurred, she would have easily offered her amendment. Still, I am glad to be accommodative in providing this opportunity again for her to offer her amendment. I urge Members to defeat it and yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, abortion on demand is child abuse and in no way can be construed as humane or compassionate. A child's worth is not determined by who his or her mother happens to be, and the value of a baby is not diminished one iota because mom happens to be an inmate. As a matter of fact, her God-given value is not diminished, either. The Norton amendment which would have been offered tonight and will not be offered because that point in the legislation has passed. This would have forced taxpayers to subsidize violence against children; in this case, the child of an inmate. Mr. Chairman, many Americans are either uninformed or living in a state of denial on the general issue of abortion, especially as it relates to the gruesome reality of abortion. Abortion methods include dismembering innocent children with razor blade tip suction devices or injections of chemical poisons designed to kill the baby. If the abortion President, Bill Clinton, has his way, both partial birth abortions will remain legal and available for taxpayer subsidy as well as the newest form of baby poison, RU-486. Mr. Chairman, abortion on demand treats pregnancy as a sexually transmitted disease. The growing child is viewed as a tumor, as a wart, a piece of trash to be destroyed. Earlier today my dad underwent some major surgery to remove cancer from his stomach. Every member of my family has been deep in prayer all day and over the last week, hoping that the surgeon removes every vestige of that horrible disease. My dad's courage--and I just say this parenthetically--his faith in God throughout all of this has been absolutely inspiring, and he is now in intensive care. But the whole ordeal reminds me anew that the role of medicine is to heal. The role of medicine is to heal and to nurture, to cure a disease, to excise life-threatening tumors. It is not to destroy innocent unborn babies as if they were cancer. Mr. Chairman, if you have ever watched an unborn child's image on an ultrasound or sonogram screen, you cannot help but be awed by the miracle of human life, by the preciousness of a child's being, and moved to pity by the helplessness and vulnerability of that child, by the fragility of those tiny fingers and toes. To see an unborn child turning, twisting, kicking and sucking his or her thumb while still in utero shatters the myth that abortion merely removes tissue or the products of conception. Peel away the euphemisms that sanitize abortion and the cruelty to children, and yes, the cruelty to their mothers as well, becomes readily apparent to anyone with an open mind. The entire smoke screen of choice turns the baby into property, a thing, a commodity, and not a someone. The whole rhetoric of choice dehumanizes our brothers and sisters in the womb and puts them in the same category as cars, TV sets, stereos, and toasters. The whole rhetoric of choice reduces unborn babies to objects. The feminists had it right: Do not treat women as objects. The unborn are not objects, either, that can be killed by chemical injections or by dismemberment. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Mother Teresa was right when she said the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child. Any country that accepts abortion, as she goes on to say, is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, and she pleads and says, ``Please don't kill the baby''. Last year the Norton amendment was voted down by 281 members. It probably would have had the same fate tonight. It will not be considered by the House because of the lateness in arriving, but just let me say this amendment and others like that use taxpayer funds to subsidize the killing of unborn babies always ought to be defeated. announcement by the chairman

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Walsh for his moral courage and leadership in putting this important language in the underlying bill--the D.C. appropriations bill. The Norton amendment, the pending amendment, would nullify Mr. Walsh's lifesaving legislation and should be defeated. Let me make it very clear that the only way to ensure Hyde-type protections for the taxpayers is to reject this pro-abortion amendment. The net consequence, the absolutely predictable consequence, if this amendment prevails, is that we will pay for abortions on demand in the District of Columbia. We have, as a Congress, jurisdiction over the Federal and the congressionally authorized funds and in many parts of this bill that are not being contested we have taken action to limit how certain funds will be spent. So this is hardly a precedent. Home rule isn't absolute. A moment or two ago, Mr. Dixon said that the Supreme Court's Roe versus Wade permits first trimester abortions in the District of Columbia. That's only part of the tragic holding in Roe. Roe versus Wade did not just allow first trimester abortion on demand. It also allows the slaughter of unborn babies in the second trimester and in many cases in the third trimester as well. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we are talking about children at various stages of their development in the District of Columbia whose death, whose killing would be paid for and subsidized by the taxpayer. Let me remind Members that the Norton amendment wants to subsidize a deed--the act of aborting a baby. Some will try to sanitize this issue and package it as a freedom or liberty. It is not. Abortion is child abuse. And the so-called right to abortion was forced on us by the Supreme Court of the United States. Some day that gross injustice will be reversed. Because all babies, these unborn children, boys, girls, black, white, Hispanic, and Asian, right now are very precious but today they are construed to be persona non grata. It seems to me that we ought to, as a Congress, if we care, if we believe their lives to be precious, do all that is humanly possible to mitigate the possibility of their death. And it seems to me that if we take away the subsidy that actually buys and administers the chemical poison, the salt solutions and the other kinds of lethal drugs that are used to kill the babies, if we take away the subsidy that kills the baby by way of dismemberment of arms and legs and even sections of the child's fragile body are cut and the baby is removed, this is the reality of the deed that the gentlewoman's amendment would seek to have us give authorization to pay for. If you really take the time to think about what abortion does to the baby, this amendment becomes more repulsive and wrong. It seems to me that where we can step in and save the life of even one baby, we ought to do it. I take a back seat to no one in this Chamber when it comes to maternal health care and other kinds of assistance for mothers both domestically and internationally. But when it comes to killing unborn babies, we ought to say ``no.'' This amendment would authorize the killing of unborn babies by way of subsidy. When we used to pay for abortions on demand in the District of Columbia we paid for over 3,000 child killings per year. In 1988, for example, the number of kids destroyed was 3,139. Vote down this antichild amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, I would first like to commend Mr. Shaw and Mr. Archer, along with the other members of their respective committees, for once again forging legislation which will truly end welfare as we know it. Although we had previously passed welfare reform legislation on two separate occasions, Mr. Clinton, in failing to keep his promise to the American people twice vetoed our welfare bills. Madam Chairman, I am hopeful that once this monumental legislation is again passed and presented to the President, he will sign the bill this time, if for no other reason than it will be politically expedient for him to do so. As you are aware Madam Chairman, this welfare proposal includes a general rule which prohibits States from providing cash assistance under the family assistance block grant to a child born to a recipient of cash welfare benefits or who received cash benefits anytime during the pregnancy. This has been referred to as the ``family cap'' provision. However, the bill does permit States to opt out of this prohibition if a State passes legislation specifically exempting the State program funded under the family assistance block grant from application of the prohibition. I worked hard for this relief option and I am hopeful that most States will utilize it. For those States, however, that do not opt out, Madam Chairman, and in particular for the children of these States, I am pleased that the bill includes my amendment that permits States to provide vouchers for children born to families receiving assistance. I worked diligently to have this amendment included in our original welfare reform bill (H.R. 1214 and H.R. 4), where it was passed overwhelmingly during consideration of that bill--352 to 80. I admit the original family cap-child exclusion had surface appeal to many Americans who are fed up with people being on the dole. Americans want the abuse of the system to end. However, the voucher-exception provision to the family cap will help the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society--children. I am sure everyone agrees that we must not punish children for the sins of their parents. My voucher-exception amendment now included in this legislation enables us to accomplish the goal of the family cap provision--i.e., discouraging out-of-wedlock pregnancies--without driving children further into poverty or forcing their mothers to have an abortion. My provision maintains the restriction on cash benefits, but allows vouchers to be used to pay for particular goods and services specified by the State as suitable for the care of the child involved. This means that State's will be able to provide for the most essential needs of the children: clothing, shoes, diapers, powders, bedding, laundry detergents, and travel to the doctor. Over the years numerous studies have shown that money--or more precisely the lack of it--heavily influences a woman's decision to abort her child. Without my amendment, we would be saying to mothers, ``the State will not help you feed your child, but we will--as they do in many States--pay for you to destroy your child.'' A major study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research organization associated with Planned Parenthood, which performs or refers for 230,000 abortions a year found that 68 percent of women having abortions said they did so because ``they could not afford to have a child now.'' Among 21 percent of the total sample, this was the most important reason for the abortion; no other factor was cited more frequently as most important. The voucher-exception provision permits states to provide compassionate care for children--care which offers help to women who do not want to have abortions, or who may otherwise feel trapped by a State program that limits their ability to care for another child.