Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond briefly, just to say to my good friend and just to point out that this is indeed a Federal funding, U.S. taxpayer funding issue. I am dismayed at attempts to suggest otherwise. In 1995, 73 percent of the money that was expended toward the purchase of health insurance for the Federal employees came directly from the U.S. taxpayers. The remainder was picked up by the premium payers.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time. We only have one speaker remaining.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has not obviously read the bill. On page 73, section 519, the text stipulates exceptions for the life of the mother, or the pregnancy is the result of an act of ``rape or incest.'' So the argument Mr. Durbin is making isn't at issue and misses the mark by a mile. Please, next time read the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself just 10 seconds to respond. Cheap shots like calling us extreme just do not have any place on this floor. If opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion is extreme then 72 percent of the American public, according to the CBS poll who are against Federal funding for abortion, our extremists. Virtually every poll where it is asked, people overwhelmingly say they do not want their tax dollars used to kill unborn babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa, Chairman Lightfoot, for his humane and courageous leadership in ensuring in this legislation that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize the killing of unborn baby boys and girls by abortion. Let me make it very clear that the taxpayers pay into this program approximately more than 70 percent of the total funding. The premium payers, all of us who are part of the Federal employees health benefits program, pick up the remaining 30 percent of the cost of our health insurance, but the taxpayers of the United States of America are paying for 70 percent of the cost associated with this program. So this is very much akin to the Hyde amendment because the taxpayers are indeed paying for abortion on demand if the Hoyer amendment is enacted into law. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I have always been struck by the considerable lengths some people will go to sanitize and to deny realities that are unflattering to their cause, inconvenient and messy to face. The plain fact of the matter is that abortion methods either dismember an unborn child's fragile body or burn her alive in a poison solution, while some babies are killed by the partial birth abortion method. Those victim babies are stabbed in the back of the neck with scissors and have their brains sucked out. Yet all of this cruelty is euphemistically referred to as choice and vigorously defended as an expression of freedom rather than the child abuse that it is. Whole societies, Mr. Chairman, have at times bought into gross evils dressed up as legitimate and good. The abomination of slavery was vigorously defended by the best and the brightest of its day. Just read Roger Taney's Dred Scott decision--an apologetic that looks and sounds remarkably like Roe versus Wade. The subjugation of whole nations, bride burning, female genital mutilation, and even human sacrifice have had their sincere and sophisticated apologists. Of course, they were and are dead wrong, but these human rights abuses have their apologists. In the past three decades, the abortion rights movement, a multimillion-dollar industry, takes the prize for intellectual dishonesty, the art of the skillful dodge, and the clever manipulation of euphemisms designed to conceal an utterly gruesome reality. All of the arguments marched out to justify the slaughter of unborn babies used in today's debate and used in other debates that we have had on this floor were first conceived, tested, and marketed by public opinion specialists, pollsters, and focus groups. Those talking points that routinely find their way into our offices from NARAL and Planned Parenthood are the best that market research can buy. Still, it is amazing to me that in 1996, with all of the breathtaking advances in fetology, the use of the ultrasound technology and microsurgery for the baby in the womb, that some can still stand here with straight faces and argue that the taxpayers and the premium payers should pay millions of dollars to dismember and to poison these precious little kids. The sanitizing of these child killings has so insulated some from the cruelty of abortion that they somehow believe that they are enlightened to take that point of view. Way back in 1976, Mr. Chairman, I asked my predecessor, then Congressman Frank Thompson, who swore he was personally opposed to abortion, and I kept saying to him, why are you personally opposed? He just came back and said, well, I am personally opposed. Well, I asked him if he thought that a baby was involved in abortion. Was a baby killed? He said, and I quote, ``You can't have an abortion unless there is a baby involved.'' Then he became a little bit red-faced, after he saw what he had just admitted. And a reporter who was on the scene at the time, and my wife, were frankly shocked, but pleased with his candor. He at least admitted that a human baby was killed as a result of abortion. Recently I read in the Weekly Standard an article by Tucker Carlson entitled, ``What Pro-choice Republicans Believe.'' I frankly was absolutely amazed by the answers given by some of my good friends and colleagues on our side of the aisle, and it was a kind of deja vu of the conversation that I had some 20 years ago with my predecessor, then Congressman Frank Thompson. One prominent lawmaker was asked why he was personally opposed to abortion. The article described it this way. Senator Specter stopped cold. Eighteen seconds of uncomfortable silence pass. The Senator has spent much of the past year talking incessantly about abortion, and yet he seems baffled by the question, as if it has never been asked before or even imagined that it could be asked. When Senator Specter finally replies, his tone has changed. He speaks through clenched teeth: ``Well, it is something I would not choose to do, and I would just leave it at that.'' And Senator Specter does leave it at that. Asked to elaborate on his views, he angrily refuses. ``I think it says all there is to say that I'm opposed to it. Now, do you have another question?'' Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that question of the Members that are arguing for abortion funding today. I especially want to ask this of my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. And again let me remind you, 70 percent of the funding used for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is taxpayers' dollars. So Mr. Lightfoot's language is very much a parallel to the Hyde amendment. Yes, there is some money that you and I and others kick in. It is only 30 percent in terms of premium payers, and even many of those, like myself, a premium payer, do not want that money as well to be bundled and used to pay for abortions on demand. That is what the Hoyer amendment would do. It is abortion on demand, abortion for birth control reasons. And if the Hoyer amendment is passed, if his amendment becomes law, the U.S. Government will subsidize the slaying of children. Back in 1983, before the pro-life rider was in effect, some 17,000 babies were killed each year, facilitated and subsidized by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and by the taxpayers. I would like to ask my friend from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, who is standing here waiting to speak, do you believe that an unborn child is a human being? Perhaps you would like to answer. On your time, I hope you will. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I do hope the gentleman will answer that when he takes the podium, whether or not there is a human life destroyed by abortion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate the House is voting today to extend permanently MFN for Romania. Just as a preface, let me remind Members that throughout the 1980's when the gentleman from Florida and others continually pushed for most-favored- nation status for Romania, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and myself were in the vanguard and fought to withdraw MFN status. I led three human rights missions to Romania. Under the Ceausescu regime, we fought to take MFN from Romania because of the brutal dictatorship that existed there. Therefore, I think I have some standing before this body on this issue. I care deeply about the Romanian people. I think the question before us is a matter of when. This is the wrong time. There is an important national election that will be held in November. There have been very serious allegations of media abuse, especially access to the media, by members of the opposition parties who find it increasingly difficult to get their message out. We all know as politicians, and as candidates, that if the media is biased and if it is somewhat government- controlled, particularly the television outlets, you do not get your message out to the voters. I respectfully submit that Members should be mindful that MFN is in place right now. Iliescu, the Romanian Government, the people of Romania have most-favored-nation status. The question is whether or not we make it permanent. I think that question should be settled after this very, very important national election that is scheduled for November. There were recent local elections held. We heard from objective observers that there were problems, problems with the accuracy of the voter lists in particular, problems with inconsistent interpretation of the election law, and those kinds of irregularities raise the stakes for the upcoming elections. If we now say, you have MFN, we are not going to review this anymore, I think we take away that pressure, that vigilance which that review, connected with most-favored-nation status will give us. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are laws on the books in Romania, and I think this is a very disturbing trend, that will put journalists into prison if they criticize or speak out against the government. If we had these laws in this country, that would be a gross violation of First Amendment rights, of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Yet, we see this disturbing trend occurring in Bucharest which will bring to bear the full weight of the law, with terms from 3-months to 3-years in prison for those tenacious, objective, and unbiased reporters who are willing to take on the government. All of us get bad editorials. We all get frustrated at times with the way that our own media handles what we consider to be the truth or the accuracy of our opinions, but we do not criminalize their actions. But, in Romania there is this disturbing trend which we need to speak out against. Again, the annual review gives us that ability to say, Wait a minute, let's look at the record and then let's look whether or not we want to confer for another year most-favored-nation status on Romania. Let us not remove that little bit of pressure which we have at this stage. I sincerely hope that Members will vote this down with the clear understanding when the 105th Congress meets, we will look again at this issue in light of the national elections that will have taken place in November 1996. Also, we are hoping that there will be domestic observers on the ground observing the upcoming elections. Little notice has been given to the fact that in 1992 there were domestic observers, but that provision will not be made this November unless there is a change. All of us know that, even in our own elections, if we do not have poll watchers standing by, checking those voter lists, fraud is a real potential. Provision for domestic observers is not available for this upcoming election. We know there will not be enough international observers to go around and the possibilities are ripe for election fraud. Mr. Chairman, I urge that the issue before the House be deferred. Let us look at the full record of the 1996 national elections and then make an informed and hopefully prudent decision on Romania's permanent MFN status.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding time to me, and I want to commend him on this excellent bill, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett], for their fine work in casting it, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] for the good work he has done as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill. This important provision adds bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma to the list of cancers that are presumed to be service-connected for veterans who were exposed to radiation in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 100-321. Mr. Speaker, in 1986--10 years ago--I became involved with the case of one of those victims, Joan McCarthy, a constituent from New Jersey. Joan has for many years worked to locate other atomic veterans and their widows, and she founded the New Jersey Association of Atomic Veterans. Joan's husband, Tom, was a participant in Operation Wigwam, a nuclear test in May 1955 which involved an underwater detonation of a 30- kiloton plutonium bomb in the Pacific Ocean, about 500 miles southwest of San Diego. Tom served as a navigator on the U.S.S. McKinley, one of the ships assigned to observe the Operation Wigwam test. The detonation of the nuclear weapon broke the surface of the water, creating a giant wave and bathing the area with a radioactive mist. Government reports indicate that the entire test area was awash with the airborne products of the detonation. The spray from the explosion was described in the official Government reports as an ``insidious hazard which turned into an invisible radioactive aerosol.'' McCarthy spent four days in this environment while serving aboard the McKinley. In April 1981--at the age of 44--Thomas McCarthy died, and the cause of death was a very rare form of lung cancer, bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma. This illness is a nonsmoking related cancer--which is remarkable given the estimate that about 97 percent of all lung cancer is caused by smoking. On his deathbed, Tom McCarthy informed his wife about his involvement in Operation Wigwam and wondered about the fate of other men who were present. Mr. Speaker, smoking is not considered a cause for this ailment, but it has been well-documented that exposure to ionizing radiation can cause this lethal cancer. The National Research Council cited Department of Energy studies in the BEIR V reports, stating that ``Bronchiolo-Alveolar Carcinoma is the most common cause of delayed death from inhaled plutonium 239.'' The BEIR V report notes that this cancer is caused by the inhalation and deposition of alpha-emitting plutonium particles. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Veterans Affairs has also acknowledged the clear linkage between this ailment and radiation exposure. In May 1994, Secretary Brown wrote to then-Chairman Sonny Montgomery of the Veterans Affairs Committee regarding this issue. Secretary Brown stated as follows: The Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards considered the issue of the radiogenicity of bronchiolo- alveolar carcinoma and advised me that, in their opinion, this form of lung cancer may be associated with exposure to ionizing radiation. They commented that the association of exposure to ionizing radiation and lung cancer has been strengthened by such recent evidence as the 1988 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the 1990 report of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations (the BEIR V Report), and the 1991 report of the International Committee on Radiation Protection. The Advisory Committee went on to state that when it had recommended that lung cancer be accepted as a radiogenic cancer, it was intended to include most forms of lung cancer, including bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma. I met with Secretary Brown last year and he assured me that the VA would not oppose Congress taking action to add this disease to the presumptive list. Notwithstanding this fact, however, the VA has repeatedly denied Joan McCarthy's claims for survivor's benefits. Unfortunately, Joan is not alone in being denied the survivor's benefits that she deserves. Consider the case of Gwen Poitras, who lives in Pasco County, FL. Gwen's husband, Robert Poitras, was in command of the U.S.S. Takelma, one of the ships that observed the nuclear tests of Operation Hardtack in the South Pacific. Just like Thomas McCarthy, Robert Poitras died of bronchiolo-alveolar pulmonary carcinoma. And just like Joan McCarthy, Robert's widow was denied the dependency and indemnity compensation which she applied for after her husband's death. The VA has claimed in the past that adjudication on a case-by-case basis is the appropriate means of resolving these claims. Unfortunately, the practical experiences of claimants reveal deep flaws in the process used by the VA. A key problem involves the reliance on radiation dose reconstructions that are based on information that is decades old. Problems with the individual adjudication process were summed up in the recent report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, which was presented only last week to the President. The panel urged the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group, in conjunction with Congress, to address some of these concerns. For example, the Advisory Committee noted that there are many concerns with the questionable condition of radiation exposure records that are maintained by the Government. It was also noted that the appeals process is especially cumbersome: Those who receive an initial denial of their claim are issued a form letter from the VA stating that it will take a minimum of 24 months--at least 2 years--to resolve the matter. Mr. Speaker, I believe the widows of our servicemen who participated in these nuclear tests deserve better than this. They should not be required to meet an impossible standard of proof in order to receive DIC benefits, which CBO estimates will cost the Government, on average, a mere $10 thousand a year for each affected widow. I am glad to see that today we are moving one step closer to achieving that. I want to note that this legislation is supported by the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Vietnam Veterans of America. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I ask the gentleman, did they write the amendment?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Chairman. We know they lobby and they do write legislation that ends up on this floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that explanation, Mr. Obey. It's still a mystery as to how the language disseminated by your staff to ours ended up as a fax from Planned Parenthood.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, every year Planned Parenthood counsels, refers or performs over 230,000 abortions, an absolutely staggering number of children who die. Taxpayers subsidize the counseling and the referring as part of title X. Every year tens of thousands of teenage moms, many of them frightened and extremely impressionable, walk into Planned Parenthood and other title X clinics carrying perfectly healthy babies only to leave that clinic having had their babies shredded and ripped apart by powerful suction machines or killed by chemical poison. In many of these cases the parents have no idea this is happening. The bottom line in this legislation and the amendment, which is really a sense of the Congress offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], is that our current policy trusts strangers more than they do the parents. There is a bypass in the legislation offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], that if there is a dysfunctional family, there is a way of getting around it. But I think we need to put our trust, invest our hopes more into the parents and stop looking for the government bureaucrats and so-called counselors, strangers, to take care of our daughters.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Lowey amendment which would appropriate taxpayer funds for harmful experimentation on and then the destruction of so-called test tube babies. The Lowey amendment reverses current law and guts the pro-life Dickey-Wicker amendment which the Committee on Appropriations wisely adopted and seeks to extend into fiscal year 1997. I believe the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] deserve high praise for their deep reverence for and sensitivity to human life. Their amendment to the Labor-HHS bill last year has prevented Federal funds from being used to turn test tube babies into human guinea pigs who are wanted and desired only for their research utility. The Lowey amendment is yet another manifestation of an extremist pro- abortion mindset that regards human life at its most vulnerable stages as innately worthless, expendable and cheap. The Lowey amendment dehumanizes and trivializes the miracle of human life. Mr. Chairman, like so many other ethical problems that Congress has been called upon to unravel in the last few years, this issue gained currency with the Clinton administration. The problem was this: There is no question that interesting information could be obtained by cutting up living human embryos to see what makes them tick. This is also true of unborn children at all stages of gestation, newborn babies, 3-year-olds and adults. Many things can also be learned from experiments on cadavers or on animals, but for some purposes there is just no substitute for cutting up living human beings. If researchers could only be allowed to set aside certain individuals for these purposes, the rest of us might deserve some benefit, or so the argument goes. Yet somehow deep down all of us know that this is wrong. Even some supporters of abortion on demand generally recognize that an unborn child still has some value, some real value and this dehumanizes those children. The illogic of the Lowey amendment is its tacit admission on the one hand that it is unethical and immoral to federally fund the creation of human embryos in a petri dish for the purposes of scientific experiments while at the same time declaring it ethical and worthy of Federal outlays to perform harmful experiments on and again then to destroy what is euphemistically called spare embryos. If the private sector makes them, the Feds will take them, keep them alive. Let them develop, perform all kinds of harmful experiments on them and then destroy them. If federally funded researchers need more embryos on whom to perform ghastly experiments, no problem. The network of IVF clinics will produce them, and this commodity of human life will then be poured down the drain. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote against the Lowey amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the question, they had no influence in writing this legislation?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I take these 5 minutes to make an inquiry of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the ranking member on the committee, to ask him a question, a very simple question. In looking at the amendment that he offered, the substitute to the Istook amendment, the Obey substitute, which in essence guts the parental involvement and makes it essentially a sense of the Congress, in looking at the language that has been given to us, at the top of it it has, from Planned Parenthood, their ID number, and it is a faxed copy of the language, apparently, and this is what I hope the gentleman will clarify, right from Planned Parenthood. In title V, section 503, the legislation reads: ``No part of any appropriations contained in this act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or contract recipient or agent acting for such recipient related to any activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pending before Congress.'' Mr. Chairman, this may be in error, but we have from the gentleman's staff a copy of the language of the bill, and it has, from Planned Parenthood, their ID number, which suggests to this Member, and I hope the gentleman will clarify this, that this language was written and then tendered and offered to this Congress, written by Planned Parenthood. Is that the case?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I take these 5 minutes to make an inquiry of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member on the committee. I am holding in my hand the amendment that Mr. Obey offered, the substitute to the Istook amendment, the Obey substitute, which in essence guts the real and tangible parental involvement provisions of Istook and makes it essentially a sense of the Congress. In looking at the actual page of text that was given to staff the amendment offered at the top of the page one immediately notices that it is a fax from Planned Parenthood. The question arises as to what role Planned Parenthood had in drafting the language. I hope the gentleman will shed light on this. Again, the top of the page reads as follows: From Planned Parenthood ID 202-293-4349. The Obey language then follows. Title V, section 503 of the labor HHS bill: ``No part of any appropriations contained in this act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or contract recipient or agent acting for such recipient related to any activity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pending before Congress.'' Mr. Chairman Planned Parenthood gets tens of million of dollars from title X--so its a fair question as to whether or not they are drafting amendments for themselves. Mr. Chairman, there may be a satisfactory explanation for this but we have from the gentleman's staff a copy of the language of the bill, and it has ``From Planned Parenthood,'' and their ID number, which suggests to this Member, and I hope the gentleman will clarify whether or not this language was written and offered to this Congress, by and for Planned Parenthood. Is that the case?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman let the Record show that this page of text with ``From Planned Parenthood'' came from your staff. It is clearly a fair question as to who wrote this amendment? Did Planned Parenthood influence the text?