Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, when the People's Liberation Army massacred, maimed, and incarcerated thousands of peaceful pro- democracy activists in June 1989, the well intentioned but wishful thinking that, somehow, the People's Republic of China was turning the page on repression was shattered. The brutal crackdown on the reformers was not the end, however, it was the beginning of a new, systematic campaign of terror and cruelty that continues still today. Each year since Tiananmen Square the savagery has gotten worse and the roster of victims grows by the millions. It is my deeply held conviction that in 1989 and by the early 1990's, the hardliners in Beijing had seen enough of where indigenous popular appeals for democracy, freedom, and human rights can lead. The Communist dictatorships in control in Eastern and Central Europe--and even the Soviet Union--had let matters get out of hand. And Beijing took careful note as, one by one, tyrants like Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, Erich Honecker of East Germany, and Wojeiech Jeruzelski of Poland were ousted. Everything Beijing has done since Tiananmen Square points to a new bottom line that we ignore and trivialize at own peril and that is democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights won't happen in the PRC any time soon. The dictatorship's not going to cede power to the masses especially when we fail to employ the leverage at our disposal. We are empowering the hardliners. Accordingly, stepped up use of torture, beatings, show trials of well known dissidents, increased reliance on the hideous, and pervasive practice of forced abortion and coercive sterilization and new, draconian policies to eradicate religious belief, especially Christianity, have been imposed. Genocide is the order of the day in Tibet. Repression on a massive scale is on the march in the People's Republic of China. Some have argued on this floor that conditions have improved, citing the excesses of the Cultural Revolution as the backdrop to measure improvement. But that's a false test. The depths of depravity during that period has few parallels in history and the Chinese leaders knew themselves that such extreme treatment of its people could not be sustained. But the real test is the post-Tiananmen Square reality--and the jury is in--China has failed miserably in every category of human rights performance since 1989. Mr. Speaker, I chair the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee. Since the 104th Congress began my subcommittee has held nine hearings on human rights in China and an additional half dozen hearings, like a hearing on worldwide persecution of Christians, where China's deplorable record has received significant attention. I have led or co-led three human rights delegations to the People's Republic of China. On one trip, Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia and I actually got inside the Laogai Prison Camp and witnessed products being manufactured for export by persecuted human rights activists. Mr. Wolf and I met with Le Peng, who responded to our concerns with disbelieving contempt and arrogance. Mr. Speaker, each representative of the most prominent human right organizations made it quite clear--things have gotten worse in China and current United States policy has not made a difference for the better and has sent the wrong message to the Chinese Government and other nations in the region and around the world. Last week at my subcommittee's hearing Dr. William Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International testified that ``the human rights condition in China has worsened since the delinking of human rights and MFN. Despite rapid economic changes in recent years in China, which has led to increased freedom and some relaxation of social controls, there has been no fundamental change in the Government's human rights practices. Dissent in any form continues to be repressed.'' While Amnesty International takes no position on MFN, it is significant to note, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Schulz reported that ``the delinking has given a clear signal to the Chinese Government that trade is more important than human rights considerations'' and that ``the message is clear, good trade relations in midst of human rights violations is acceptable to the U.S.'' Nina Shea, the director of the Puebla Program on Religious Freedom at Freedom House testified that ``China ranks at the bottom of the 1996 Freedom House Freedom in the World survey among the `18 Worst Rated Countries' for political and civil liberties.'' And if I might be allowed one more example of what my subcommittee heard, Mr. Speaker, Mike Jendrzejczyk, the Washington Director of Human Rights Watch/Asia testified that ``in recent months, Chinese authorities have ordered increased surveillance of so-called `counter- revolutionaries' and `splittists' (Tibetans, Uighurs and other national groups) and given even harsher penalties for those judged guilty of violating its draconian security laws. China has silenced most, if not all, of the important dissent communities including political and religious dissent, labor activists, and national minority populations. Their members have been exiled, put under house arrest, `disappeared,' assigned to administrative detention, or subjected to economic sanctions and systematic discrimination in schooling and employment. Dissidents also continue to suffer criminal charges, long prison sentences, beatings and torture.'' Mr. Speaker, I've met with Wei Jingsheng in Beijing--before he was thrown back into jail--and was deeply impressed with his goodness, candor, and lack of malice toward his oppressors. it is unconscionable that this good and decent democracy leader is treated like an unwanted animal by the dictatorship in Beijing. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration's celebrated delinking of most-favored-nation status from human rights in 1994 was a betrayal of an oppressed people of breathtaking proportions. Unfortunately, it was only the worst example of a broader policy, in which the U.S. Government has brought about an almost total delinking of human rights from other foreign policy concerns around the globe. As a candidate, Bill Clinton justly criticized some officials of previous administrations for subordinating human rights to other concerns in China and elsewhere. He called it ``coddling dictators.'' But the Clinton administration has coddled as few have coddled before. Each year, as the time approaches for Congress and the President to review the question of most-favored-nation status for the Government of the People's Republic of China, members of Congress are approached by representatives of business interests to support MFN. Their argument is that constructive engagement is the best long-term strategy for promoting human rights in China. The biggest problem with this strategy is that it has not yet succeeded in the 20 years our Government has been trying it. Our Government has been embroiled in a 25-year one-way love affair with the Communist regime in Beijing. There is no question that increased contact with the West has changed China's economic system, but there is little or no evidence that it has increased the regime's respect for fundamental human rights. I have made an honest effort to try to understand why this is, if, as we Americans believe, human rights are universal and indivisible, then perhaps the extension of economic rights should lead to inexorable pressure for free speech, democracy, freedom of religion, and even the right to bring children into the world. And yet it has not worked. One possible reason is that although there has been economic progress in China, this has not resulted in true economic freedom. In order to stay in business, foreign firms and individual Chinese merchants alike must have government officials as their protectors and silent or not-so- silent partners. Yes, there is money to be made in China, and every year at MFN time, we in Congress get the distinct impression that some of the people who lobby us are making money hand over fist, but this is not at all the same as having a free economic system. Large corporations made untold millions of dollars in Nazi Germany. Dr. Armand Hammer made hundreds of millions dealing with the Soviet government under Stalin. Yet no one seriously argues that these economic opportunities led to freedom or democracy. Why should China be different? For 20 years we coddled the Communist Chinese dictators, hoping they would trade communism for freedom and democracy. Instead, it appears that they have traded communism for fascism. And so there is no freedom, no democracy, and for millions of human beings trapped in China, no hope. Another reason increased business contacts have not led to political and religious freedom is that most of our business people--the very people on whom the strategy of ``comprehensive engagement'' relies to be the shock troops of freedom--do not even mention freedom when they talk to their Chinese hosts. After the annual vote on MFN, the human rights concerns expressed by pro-MFN business interests often recede into the background for another 11 months. During those 11 months, Mr. Speaker, the United States trade deficit with China continues to grow. In 10 years China rose from being our 70th largest deficit trading partner to our second largest. The deficit has grown from $10 million to over $33 billion. One-third of all of China's exports come to the United States and are sold in our markets. If China did not have the United States as a trading partner they would not have a market for one-third of their goods. China needs us, Mr. Speaker, we do not need China. Our State Department's own country reports on human rights conditions for 1995 make it clear that China's human rights performance has continued to deteriorate since the delinking of MFN from human rights in 1994. In each area of concern--the detention of political prisoners, the extensive use of forced labor, the continued repression in Tibet and suppression of the Tibetan culture, and coercive population practices--there has been regression rather than improvement. And every year we find out about new outrages, most recently the ``dying rooms'' in which an agency of the Beijing government deliberately left unwanted children to die of starvation and disease. Since February 1994--just 1 month into the Clinton administration-- the United States has been forcibly repatriating people who have managed to escape from China. Some, although not all, of these people claim to have escaped in order to avoid forced abortion or forced sterilization. Others are persecuted Christians or Buddhists, or people who do not wish to live without freedom and democracy. Still others just want a better life. For over 3 years now, over 100 passengers from the refugee ship Golden Venture have been imprisoned by the U.S. Government. Their only crime was escaping from Communist China. In the last few months, several dozen of the Golden Venture passengers have been deported to China--some by force, some voluntarily because they were worn down by years in detention. A few days ago I received an affidavit signed by Pin Lin, a Golden Venture passenger who through the intervention of the Holy See has been given refuge in Venezuela. He has received information from families of some of the men who have returned. The Chinese Government had promised there would be no retaliation. Contrary to these promises, the men who returned were arrested and imprisoned upon their return to China. Men who had been mentioned in U.S. newspapers or who had cooperated with the American press were beaten very severely as an example to others. The men and women remaining in prison--the men in York, PA, and the women in Bakersfield, CA--are terrified by these reports. And yet they are still detained, and they are still scheduled for deportation to China. I ask the Clinton administration, please, let these people go. They have suffered enough. And I hope this House will send a strong message today--to the totalitarian dictatorship in Beijing, to the enslaved people of China and Tibet, and to the whole world--that the time has come to say enough is enough. It is clear that most-favored-nation status and other trade concessions have not succeeded in securing for the people of China their fundamental and God-given human rights. Now we must take the course of identifying the Beijing regime for the rogue regime that it is, a government with whom decent people should have nothing to do. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to send a clear and uncompromising message to China and to the rest of the world: Human rights are important, human lives are more valuable that trade, the people of the United States do care more about the people of China than we do about profit. Now is the time to disapprove MFN.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friends for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when the People's Liberation Army massacred, maimed and incarcerated thousands of peaceful prodemocracy activists in June 1989, the well intentioned but wishful thinking that, somehow, the People's Republic of China was turning the page on repression was shattered. The brutal crackdown on the reformers was not the end, however, it was the beginning of a new, systematic campaign of terror and cruelty that continues still today. Each year since Tiananmen Square--the savagery has gotten worse and the roster of victims grows by the millions. It is my deeply held conviction that in 1989 and by the early 1990's, the hardliners in Beijing had seen enough of where indigenous popular appeals for democracy, freedom, and human rights can lead. The Communist dictatorships in control in Eastern and Central Europe--and even the Soviet Union--had let matters get out of hand. And Beijing took careful note as, one by one, tyrants like Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, Erich Honecker of East Germany, and Wojciech Jeruzelski of Poland were ousted. Everything Beijing has done since Tiananmen Square points to a new bottom line that we ignore and trivialize at our own peril--and that is democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights won't happen in the PRC any time soon. The dictatorship's not going to cede power to the masses, especially when we fail to employ the considerable leverage at our disposal. We are empowering the hardliners. We are standing with the oppressors, not the oppressed. Accordingly, stepped up use of torture, beatings, show trials of well known dissidents, increased reliance on the hideous and pervasive practice of forced abortion and coercive sterilization and new, draconian policies to eradicate religious belief, especially Christianity, have been imposed. Genocide is the order of the day in Tibet. Repression on a massive scale is on the march in the PRC. Some have argued on this floor that conditions have improved, citing the excesses of the cultural revolution as the backdrop to measure improvement. But that's a false test. The depths of depravity during that period has few parallels in history--and the Chinese leaders knew themselves that such extreme treatment of its people could not be sustained. But the real test is the post-Tiananmen Square reality--and the jury is in--China has failed miserably in every category of human rights performance since 1989. Mr. Speaker, I chair the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee. Since the 104th Congress began my subcommittee has held 9 hearings on human rights in China and an additional half dozen hearings, like a hearing on worldwide persecution of Christians, where China's deplorable record has received significant attention. I have led or co-led 3 human rights delegations to the PRC. On one trip, Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia and I actually got inside the laogai prison camp and witnessed products being manufactured for export by persecuted human rights activists. Mr. Wolf and I met with Le Peng--who responded to our concerns with disbelief, contempt, and arrogance. Mr. Speaker, each representative of the most prominent human rights organizations made it quite clear--things have gotten worse in China and current United States policy has not made a difference for the better and has sent the wrong message to the Chinese Government and other nations in the region and around the world. Last week at my subcommittee's hearing Dr. William Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International testified that ``the human rights condition in China has worsened since the delinking of human rights and MFN. Despite rapid economic changes in recent years in China, which has led to increased freedom and some relaxation of social controls, there has been no fundamental change in the government's human rights practices. Dissent in any form continues to be repressed.'' While Amnesty International takes no position on MFN, it is significant to note, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Schulz reported that ``the delinking has given a clear signal to the Chinese government that trade is more important than human rights considerations'' and that ``the message is clear, good trade relations in the midst of human rights violations is acceptable to the U.S.'' Nina Shea, the director of the Puebla Program on Religious Freedom at Freedom House testified that ``China ranks at the bottom of the 1996 Freedom House Freedom in the World survey among the `18 Worst Rated Countries' for political and civil liberties.'' And if I might be allowed one more example of what my subcommittee heard, Mr. Speaker, Mike Jendrzejczyk, the Washington Director of Human Rights Watch/Asia testified that-- In recent months, Chinese authorities have ordered increased surveillance of so-called ``counter- revolutionaries'' and ``splittists'' (Tibetans, Uighurs and other national groups) and given even harsher penalties for those judged guilty of violating its draconian security laws. China has silenced most, if not all, of the important dissent communities including political and religious dissent, labor activists, and national minority populations. Their members have been exiled, put under house arrest, ``disappeared,'' assigned to administrative detention, or subjected to economic sanctions and systematic discrimination in schooling and employment. Dissidents also continue to suffer criminal charges, long prison sentences, beatings and torture. Mr. Speaker, I've met with Wei Jingsheng in Beijing, before he was thrown back into jail, and was deeply impressed with his goodness, candor, and lack of malice towards his oppressors. It is unconscionable that this good and decent democracy leader is treated like an unwanted animal by the dictatorship in Beijing. For Wei--for countless others who have been brutalized by a cruel and uncaring dictatorship. Vote to take MFN away from this barbaric regime. Each year, Mr. Speaker, as the time approaches for Congress and the President to review the question of most-favored-nation status for the Government of the People's Republic of China, Members of Congress are approached by representatives of business interests to support MFN. Their argument is that constructive engagement is the best long-term strategy for promoting human rights in China. The biggest problem with this strategy is that it has not yet succeeded in the 20 years our Government has been trying it. Our Government has been embroiled in a 25 year one-way love affair with the Communist regime in Beijing. There is no question that increased contact with the West has changed China's economic system--but there is little or no evidence that it has increased the regime's respect for fundamental human rights. I have made an honest effort to try to understand why this is--if, as we Americans believe, human rights are universal and indivisible, then perhaps the extension of economic rights should lead to inexorable pressure for free speech, democracy, freedom of religion, and even the right to bring children into the world. And yet it has not worked. One possible reason is that although there has been economic progress in China, this has not resulted in true economic freedom. In order to stay in business, foreign firms and individual Chinese merchants alike must have government officials as their protectors and silent or not-so- silent partners. Yes, there is money to be made in China--and every year at MFN time, we in Congress get the distinct impression that some of the people who lobby us are making money hand over fist--but this is not at all the same as having a free economic system. Large corporations made untold millions of dollars in Nazi Germany. Dr. Armand Hammer made hundreds of millions dealing with the Soviet Government under Stalin. Yet no one seriously argues that these economic opportunities led to freedom or democracy. Why should China be different? For 20 years we coddled the Communist Chinese dictators, hoping they would trade Communism for freedom and democracy. Instead, it appears that they have traded Communism for fascism. And so there is no freedom, no democracy, and for millions of human beings trapped in China, no hope. Another reason increased business contacts have not led to political and religious freedom is that most of our business people--the very people on whom the strategy of comprehensive engagement relies to be the shock troops of freedom--do not even mention freedom when they talk to their Chinese hosts. After the annual vote on MFN, the human rights concerns expressed by pro-MFN business interests often recede into the background for another 11 months. During those 11 months, Mr. Speaker, the United States trade deficit with China continues to grow. In 10 years China rose from being our 70th largest deficit trading partner to our second largest. The deficit has grown from $10 million to over $33 billion. One-third of all of China's exports come to the United States and are sold in our markets. If China did not have the United States as a trading partner they would not have a market for one-third of their goods. China needs us, Mr. Speaker, we do not need China. Our State Department's own Country Reports on Human Rights Conditions for 1995 make it clear that China's human rights performance has continued to deteriorate since the delinking of MFN from human rights in 1994. In each area of concern--the detention of political prisoners, the extensive use of forced labor, the continued repression in Tibet and suppression of the Tibetan culture, and coercive population practices--there has been regression rather than improvement. And every year we find out about new outrages--most recently the ``dying rooms'' in which an agency of the Beijing Government deliberately left unwanted children to die of starvation and disease. Since February 1994, just 1 month into the Clinton administration the United States has been forcibly repatriating people who have managed to escape from China. Some, although not all, of these people claim to have escaped in order to avoid forced abortion or forced sterilization. Others are persecuted Christians or Buddhists, or people who do not wish to live without freedom and democracy. Still others just want a better life. For over 3 years now, over 100 passengers from the refugee ship Golden Venture have been imprisoned by the U.S. Government. Their only crime was escaping from Communist China. In the last few months, several dozen of the Golden Venture passengers have been deported to China--some by force, some voluntarily because they were worn down by years in detention. A few days ago I received an affidavit signed by Pin Lin, a Golden Venture passenger who through the intervention of the Holy See has been given refuge in Venezuela. He has received information from families of some of the men who have returned. The Chinese Government had promised there would be no retaliation. Contrary to these promises, the men who returned were arrested and imprisoned upon their return to China. Men who had been mentioned in U.S. newspapers or who had cooperated with the American press were beaten very severely as an example to others. The men and women remaining in prison--the men in York, PA, and the women in Bakersfield, CA are terrified by these reports. And yet they are still detained, and they are still scheduled for deportation to China. I ask the Clinton administration, please, let these people go. They have suffered enough. And I hope this House will send a strong message today to the totalitarian dictatorship in Beijing, to the enslaved people of China and Tibet, and to the whole world, that the time has come to say enough is enough. It is clear that most-favored-nation status and other trade concessions have not succeeded in securing for the people of China their fundamental and God-given human rights. Now we must take the course of identifying the Beijing regime for the rogue regime that it is, a government with whom decent people should have nothing to do. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to send a clear and uncompromising message to China and to the rest of the world: Human rights are important, human lives are more valuable than trade, the people of the United States do care more about the people of China than we do about profit. Now is the time to disapprove MFN.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for yielding me this time and for the privilege of closing debate on this extremely important legislation that he has offered today. Mr. Cox is deeply committed to human rights and has fashioned an approach today that will lead to meaningful sanctions. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administrations absolute delinking of trade from human rights in 1994 was a betrayal of an oppressed people of breathtaking proportions. The Clinton administration flip-flopped on promoting human rights in China. After issuing a comprehensive Executive order that laid out a number of threshold items that had to be reached in order to confer MFN on China. The bottom line was performance--``significant progress in human rights'' was the clear standard that had to be met. When the Chinese regressed and human rights violations increased, the President turned tail and backed down. The dictatorship won. And the courageous Chinese democracy advocates were sold out and abandoned. I led a human rights trip to China midway through the Executive order review period and met with numerous leaders of the dissident community. I met with business leaders. I met with high government officials. And every single Chinese Government official told me and our delegation that human rights would be delinked from trade. It was astonishing. They believed the Clinton order to be bogus. They were totally cynical about it and viewed it as a joke. They thought it was window dressing, appealing to a domestic audience rather than a sincere effort to try to really rein in on the abuses of the People's Republic of China. Unfortunately, the Clinton policy is only the worst example of a much broader policy in which the U.S. Government has brought about an almost total delinking of human rights from other foreign policy concerns around the globe. I think Members will recall that as a candidate, Bill Clinton justly criticized some officials of previous administrations for subordinating human rights to other concerns in China and elsewhere and he called it coddling dictators. I would submit to you this evening that Bill Clinton has coddled as few have coddled before. The important legislation offered by my good friend and colleague from California, Mr. Cox, provides us with a sincere opportunity to seriously reconsider our trading relationship with the People's Republic of China in light of their deplorable human rights record and their ongoing and flagrant empowerment of rogue regimes with weapons of mass destruction. In the coming weeks, the PRC should be put on notice, this Congress is going to insist on scrutinizing China's record as never before. Yes, over the last 18 months my subcommittee held numerous hearings on China's human rights practices. The full committee has held hearings on nuclear proliferation. Others have held hearings on the Senate side. But now, four major committees of the House of Representatives will draw a bead and bring blazing light to bear on these deplorable practices. And I hope, we will leave no stone unturned in our probe. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I held a hearing on the human rights consequences of Mr. Clinton's misguided policy. Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Amnesty International, and Harry Wu--among others--all testified how abuses had actually increased since delinking MFN and human rights. Amnesty International testified, that the Clinton administration's human rights policy towards China is ``confusing and weak''. The administration is ``aggressive only in a trade war with China. Amnesty International is unaware of any human rights war waged by this administration despite the worsening human rights situation in China.'' Amnesty also testified that the human rights conditions in China, had ``worsened since the delinking of human rights and MFN in 1994.'' Mr. COX's legislation gets us back into the ballgame. A bipartisan group of lawmakers will produce legislation, and I do believe that the various committees of Congress, including the one that I serve on, International Relations, will come forward with new policy proposals. Mr. Gilman's bill is a good place to start. In the coming weeks, we will craft legislation--perhaps a hybrid designed to mitigate these egregious abuses. It's time to plan hardball. Let me also point out that Amnesty testified, that so-called economic progress in China has not resulted in observance or respect for human rights. That's really not that surprising. After all the Fascists in Italy made the trains run on time. The Nazis knew how to run a factory. Like those dictatorships, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Chinese dictatorship has been tamed by economic growth. It has only become a glutton for more power and control. As a matter of fact, the evidence suggests that the PRC dictatorship is today stronger, more repressive, and more determined to retain the reins of power. The Clinton policy is empowering a repressive military by feeding it, gorging it, with dual-use-capable items and sophisticated technology. Our businesses are beefing up two PLA's offensive capabilities and making them more effective in controlling the people--and neighboring countries. Amnesty told our committee that despite rapid economic changes in recent years in China, there has been ``no fundamental change in the Government's human rights practices.'' Mr. Speaker, the Cox legislation suggests that with the revocation of MFN no longer a viable option, for this year at least, that other means of registering our utter disgust with the dictatorship's cruel mistreatment of its own citizenry will be forthcoming, and we have a date certain by the end of September to produce those proposals and enact them. We have leverage, I say to my colleagues, we need to use it and use it prudently and wisely. For those, my friends and colleagues who advocate the status quo and no linkage, I have a simply question: Is there anything a government, in this case a cruel dictatorship could do, is there anything so gruesome, so barbaric that the United States should say enough is enough. In light of China's barbaric and cruel treatment to its people can we pretend we just don't see and go on as if it is business as usual? Consider the inhumane practices of the Beijing Government that are ongoing, pervasive, and getting worse by the day. The use of slave labor--or the laogai--the prison camps--where many of our products that find their way on the shelves in our stores are being produced by prisoners of conscience. The statement of the status quo say, no problem, the United States and China signed a memorandum of understanding during the previous administration. The MOU looks splendid on paper. But it's a farce. The Chinese contrive to obstruct and prohibit access to prison camps and have erected so many barriers so to make the MOU meaningless. In the early 1990's Congressman Frank Wolf and I got into one gulag after much persistence and tough negotiations. We discovered that Beijing prison No. 1 contained more than 40 dissidents from the Tiananmen Square crackdown. We were witnesses to the making of girls jelly shoes and socks for export by convict labor. One of the problems with the MOU is that the U.S. side has to give significant advance notice prior to an inspection. The U.S. side has to demonstrate cause for the inspection to occur--another difficult hurdle in a closed society. And then there is a long time period from the request to when our Customs people make a visit--and there have been very few visits. And you know what happens then? U.S. personnel inspect the prison camp and are shown a Potemkin village--sanitized and free of any possible violation of the MOU. Let me also say that my subcommittee had the first hearing in the Congress ever on the laogai or prison camp system in China. We heard from six survivors, including Harry Wu, that great, courageous defender of human rights and former prisoner of conscience. We heard chilling testimony from Katharine Ho and from a Buddhist monk who demonstrated how the Chinese torturers inflict pain on religious and political prisoners with cattle prods. He told us how they used these terrible implements to force compliance and to break a prisoner's will and resolve. Mr. Speaker, civilizations can be judged by how they treat women, children, old people and strangers. Vulnerable people bring out the kindness in every society, but also regrettably the cruelty. Every so often they do become the object of practices so violent they cause people to recoil in horror across the centuries. One such practice is the practice of forced abortion. The Government of China routinely compels women to abort their ``unauthorized'' unborn children. The usual method is intense ``persuasion'' using all of the economic, social and psychological tools a totalitarian State has at its disposal. When these methods fail, the woman is taken physically to the abortion mill. Forced abortions are often performed very late in pregnancy, even in the ninth month. Sometimes the baby's skull is crushed with forceps as the baby emerges from the birth canal. Other times the baby gets an injection of formaldehyde or some other poison into the baby's cranium. Either the woman or her husband is then forcibly sterilized. Forced abortion was properly considered a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. It is employed regularly with chilling effectiveness and unbearable pain upon women in the People's Republic of China. Women in China are required to obtain a birth coupon before conceiving a child. Chinese women are hounded by the population control police and even their menstrual cycles are publicly monitored as one means of ensuring compliance. The New York Times has pointed out in an expose recently that the authorities, when they discover an unauthorized pregnancy, an ``illegal child,'' normally apply a daily dose of threats and browbeating. They wear the women down. Eventually, if the woman does not succumb to the abortion, she is physically forced to submit. The central government also issued a law on eugenics which is now taking effect and which nationalizes discrimination against the handicapped. In a move that is eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Communist Chinese Government is implementing forced abortion against handicapped children and forced sterilization against parents who simply do not measure up in the eyes of the State. Despite all of this, the United Nations Population Fund continues to provide funds, materiel, people on the ground and what no money could buy, the sort of shield of respectability that the PRC program so desperately wants. I would just say parenthetically that the head of the UNFPA, the U.N. Population Fund, time and time again has defended the program in China as totally voluntary. This is unmitigated nonsense and a big lie. Degrading a few men, women and children may be of no great matter for the Chinese Communist regime which has long regarded homicide and torture as among the basic tools of statecraft. The Cox legislation represents hope. I truly believe that this Congress will work hard to fashion legislation designed to mitigate China's egregious abuses. We have a moral obligation to help our suffering friends in the PRC. I urge strong support for the Cox bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first thank Chairman Jerry Lewis for his yeoman's work on this issue of childhood cancer in Toms River, NJ. As I testified before his appropriations subcommittee on May 8, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] is currently working to assist New Jersey in its search for answers to a disturbing, potential cancer cluster among young children. I rise in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 3666 offered by Chairman Lewis of California. Childhood cancer is a tragedy that is of national concern, and with the funding provided in this amendment, ATSDR will be given the resources to examine any possible environmental link between toxic substances and childhood cancer. As some of you know, the Toms River area has two superfund sites-- Ciba Geigy and Reich Farm--that many residents fear could be responsible for abnormally high cancer rates in the area. In August of 1995, the New Jersey Department of Health, responding to anecdotal evidence of increased incidence of cancers among young children, analyzed data in the New Jersey State Cancer Registry and came up with alarming results: a five fold increase in cancer rates for brain and central nervous system cancers among children under age 5. Something is causing these cancers, Mr. Speaker, and with the funds provided in this amendment, the anxious parents of these kids may at last begin to get some answers. And I would note to my colleagues that if ATSDR does find an environmental link, it will have implications far beyond the State of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly indicated to my colleagues that ATSDR's work on environmental health is vitally important, especially because no other agency has environmental health as its chief mission. ATSDR provides critical work in filling the serious data gaps in scientific understanding about the human health effects of hazardous substances released from Superfund sites. It also assists States through cooperative agreements, in conducting Public Health Consultations. With this amendment, ATSDR will have the resources needed to include New Jersey in a seven State national study of brain cancer incidence near national priorities list [NPL] sites. It provides Federal resources through comparative geographic data analysis, providing medical and scientific expertise and education, as well as environmental and biomedical monitoring to examine potential exposure pathways. Cancer is always tragic, Mr. Speaker, but it is especially heartbreaking when it strikes down innocent children. And that is why it is important to keep a careful count of each of the little victims of cancer, so that researchers can have complete and accurate information to work with. As part of its public health response plan, which this amendment will fund, ATSDR will conduct interviews with area families to make sure people do not fall through the cracks. In conclusion, with this amendment, the Republican Congress is sending a clear and powerful message to the American people, as well as to the residents of Ocean County: we care about environmental health. We are committed to finding answers; why are so many of our precious children coming down with cancer? But most importantly, we are willing to back up our commitment with Federal dollars.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note and commend the President for taking the time during his recent trip to Moscow to meet with, and encourage the work of Alexander Ogorodnikov, a former political prisoner and founder of the Christian Mercy Society. Alexander Ogorodnikov established a private shelter for young homeless from all over Russia who find themselves on the streets of Moscow without a roof over their heads. During the Moscow G-7 Nuclear Security Summit in April, President Clinton visited a number of the residents of the shelter. Naturally, Mr. Ogorodnikov's work has been very challenging. After 70 years of communism, the institution of private charity has been slow to make a comeback. Resources are scarce; property rights are unclear. Bureaucrats often seem more determined to stifle than assist private initiative. Criminal structures would prefer that idle hands look in the direction of criminal activity for sustenance and livelihood. Nevertheless, Mr. Ogorodnikov has persisted. His efforts have been reported and applauded by the Moscow press, and Mayor Luzkkov's office has been supportive of his work. Some international organizations are providing a measure of assistance. As Moscow was preparing for the Summit, Mr. Ogorodnikov had invited President Clinton to visit the Christian Mercy Society shelter to observe private charity in action in Russia. This request was forwarded through the Beautiful Hearts charitable organization of Erie, PA, and by many Members of the Congress of both parties. For logistical and security reasons, the President was unable to visit the shelter itself, but Mr. Ogorodnikov and his Beautiful Hearts associates had arranged an exhibit about the shelter at a Moscow hotel where the President had other meetings scheduled. Despite the heavy demands on his schedule, President Clinton graciously visited the exhibit and met with some of the young residents. Mr. Speaker, the G-7 Nuclear Security Summit was about providing nuclear safety in our uneasy world, about governments cooperating with one another to reduce danger to millions of people. Security can also be a function of mutual understanding and having genuine concern--even across borders--for other human beings, one for another. By visiting the young people of the Christian Mercy Society shelter, President Clinton exhibited that concern on behalf of all of us here in the United States, and I appreciate his kind gesture.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, recently the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, held a briefing on political and human rights developments in Banja Luka, the second largest city in Bosnia. Among the participants was the Most Reverend Franjo Komarica, Roman Catholic Bishop of Banja Luka. Bishop Konmarica has steadfastly pursued peace and justice throughout the 4-year-long war of armed aggression and genocide in Bosnia which has left his church in ruins despite the fact that no large-scale fighting occurred in the diocese. Catholics from the region, predominately ethnic Croats, have been, and continue to be subjected to various forms of harassment and violence. An estimated 90 percent of Catholics have fled the diocese, many the victims of ethnic cleansing. Scores of churches have been destroyed while virtually all of those left standing sustained at least some damage. Several members of the clergy and religious were murdered during the course of the war. Meanwhile, Father Tomislav Matanovic, the former director of Caritas Banja Luka, is missing and believed to be held by Bosnian Serb forces of the 43d Brigade. Bishop Komarica, who was under house arrest for much of 1995, has demonstrated his firm commitment to peace and justice for all people of Banja Luka, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. Strengthened by his faith, Bishop Komarica is a leading advocate of reconciliation in a country rent by violence and war. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the text of Bishop Komarica's opening statement be placed in the Record. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--Banja Luka-Ethnic Cleansing Paradigm, or Counterpoint to a Radical Future opening statement by most reverend franjo komarica roman catholic bishop of banja luka--june 11, 1996 Bishop Komarica: (through interpreter). Honorable friends, I greet you today as friends of peace and God-loving people. I thank you for your interest specifically regarding Banja Luka, my home town. I thank you for this opportunity given to me to express my concerns and my hopes for my country. I thank you on behalf of all the citizens of my city, regardless of their national or state orientation. You know that I'm a Catholic bishop and not a political representative of any specific group. I'm not assuming the representation neither of Croatian people specifically, nor Bosnian Muslims or Serb people in this territory. Regretfully, there is no politician available or existing right now to represent the views of my country, of my city, especially to represent the views of the people, of tens of thousands of voiceless people who have no voice. As a leader and a Christian, I have an obligation to help all the people in their effort to be human and to be God- loving people. I would like to help every human being to affirm their human rights and their freedom and to establish their right to existence. It is now six years that hundreds of thousands of people whose basic human rights have been taken away and denied. That is the right to life, the right to professions, the right to possess homes and live, the right to have a country, the right to work and to secure a living, the right to have a social and security support, the right of movement, the right to freedom of religion, the right to raise your own children in your own convictions, the right of freedom of conscience, the right of equality of being free to belong to a political or a different faith group. We cannot talk at all about these rights for thousands of our citizens. The denial of basic human rights has taken place without the presence of any media or any voice to publicly declare this. We had the impression that we are forgotten in our corner of the world. We were strengthened only by our faith in our God, whom we trust that he has the potential to redeem us. And this thing that I once again mention is really the basis, that we try to respect all our neighbors and not do any harm to any one of them. As in other parts of Bosnia there were confrontations, armed confrontations and clashes, in this part of Bosnia there was no war and no open conflict between different groups of different nationalities or faiths. We opted for a different option here. We rather accepted denial of our basic human rights than to hurt our neighbors and to establish conflict. We are talking here about people who have been peaceful and made every single effort to remain people who respect others and try to live together. The only blame that they receive is that they did not belong to a side or a group of people who by all means and by all forces and by brutal approach has tried to establish ethnically cleansed territory. The biggest number, the highest percentage, of the people in this region, be they Serbs or Bosnian Muslims or Croatians, have a desire to remain in peaceful coexistence in this region. The Catholic Croatians in this region have shown by their behavior that they are capable and ready to live together, capable to live together in peace with the other two peoples, which are namely Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. This desire to live in peace is denied by the members of the existing political structure, and despite all our efforts to live the commandment of respect and love for others, to love those who did so much evil to us, we are brutally hurt again and again and punished for no reason, and not just from the side of extreme nationalists, but those by international democrats. We ask all those who still crush our human rights: ``Why are you doing this to us? Are we people for you? Are we human beings for you? We ask for the basic human rights that you enjoy. If we are guilty, we would ask you to provide it to us, and if we are not guilty, then you are doing great injustice to us when you are denying to us basic human rights.'' I am taking this opportunity to tell you and to express to all American peaceloving people, God has given you in this country a generosity of the heart. Your land is almost like a garden, that there are many wonderful plants and beautiful flowers. You are a garden of different people, different cultures, different groups and religions. The common characteristic of all of you is the freedom and love for peace and respect. In this country, it's especially appreciated especially important human rights and human honor and human dignity. These are the precious gifts to our civilization, the gifts emphasizing diverse cultures and multi-faced religion. You are an ideal and an example for us, and you are a leader for so many other people in the world. When we would affirm similar in Banja Luka, we are punished for that. You know that. Will you with clear conscience allow, continue to allow, that the basic human rights are still denied in my city and in my country? And they are being punished just because they would like to be like you--free, human and democratic people. I expect an answer from you, which you have to give unto your conscience first and then to your people and then to the world and then hopefully to us as well. Regardless of how you look at us and for what you think of us, we in Banja Luka are definitely fighting. With enormous efforts, we try to protect and restore civilization. I hope that we will not remain alone in this effort. We hope that we'll find friends who will support us in this effort. We hope to find these supporters in Europe and especially here in the United States. I am quite sure that I will not be disappointed in this expectation. Thank you for listening.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Habitat II conference on sustainable urban development has concluded in Istanbul, Turkey. While most observers will point to the conference's focus on the pressing challenges of urbanization, the repression employed by the host Government of Turkey in response to criticism of its human rights record has cast a pall over the meeting and should be protested at an international level. While Turkey cannot be compared to China in terms of democratic development, Ankara seems to have taken some lessons from Beijing when it comes to stifling dissent. As Habitat was just convening, Turkish police forcibly evacuated the headquarters of 35 NGO's organizing an ``Alternative Habitat.'' These NGO's were protesting the government's destruction of some 3,000 Kurdish villages and the creation of 3 million refugees in southeast Turkey. These groups rightly believe that such policies were incompatible with the spirit and goals of Habitat II. Mr. Speaker, last week, Turkish authorities detained hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, including a Habitat NGO representative, and a handful of TV journalists filming the police actions. The demonstrators were protesting government policies, and the reaction of Turkish security forces was reminiscent of China's action during the UN Beijing Conference on Women. These attacks on free speech and the right of free assembly are cynical attempts by the Government of Turkey to deflect international scrutiny of their policies in southeast Turkey. Yet, Mr. Speaker, these heavy-handed tactics bring even greater scrutiny to the government's repressive, undemocratic activities. Mr. Speaker, I have to imagine that the thousands of NGO's and officials from around the world who attended Habitat II have taken home a distinct impression that Turkish democracy is severely lacking. Mr. Speaker, the Turkish Government tried to prevent its repressive policies in southeast Turkey from coming to light, but a group of mayors from towns and villages in the region did submit a revealing report to the conference. The report linked human rights abuses in the region directly to Habitat issues and the urban ills facing Istanbul and other large cities in Turkey. The mayors believe that crowding, poverty and instability in Istanbul originated in the towns and villages of southeast Turkey, where economic deprivation and the government's war on terrorism had forced millions from their homes to urban centers unequipped to meet their needs. Mr. Speaker, I fear Turkey is headed down a road of increasing instability and upheaval. As long as the government stifles the protests of its own people and refuses even to allow open debate of these problems, there will be scant hope for resolving such tough issues. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record an article from the Turkish Daily News, June 14, 1996, edition, which further spells out the problems faced by those attempting to bring human rights issues before the Habitat II meeting. [From the Turkish Daily News, June 14, 1996] The Olympic Struggle for Human Rights? (By David O'Byrne) Istanbul--``Turkey is dedicated to advancing the cause of human rights despite the presence of malign element- terrorism-pinching the Turkish nation from within and without.'' This rather ungainly quote is taken directly from the introduction to a brochure on human rights published by the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs. One of a package of material prepared for participants in the UN Habitat II conference, this heavily qualified and ungrammatical statement is fairly typical of the document as a whole. For a country like Turkey with a more than dubious record in the human rights department and aspirations to host the 2004 Olympics, this government publication is far from unequivocal acceptance of widely accepted standards. In fact, the tone of the brochure is decidedly defensive. Much of the brochure is concerned with alleged criticisms of the Turkish human rights record by the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) and its supporters. But as a terrorist organization the PKK is certainly not noted for its human rights record, so it's indeed strange that their opinions should carry such weight. Shorter mention is made of other religious and ethnic minorities, again aimed at countering what the Foreign Ministry sees as unwarranted criticism from, apparently, foreign sources. The unfortunate implication is that human rights are something only demanded by ``minority groups'', and then only at the bidding of `outside' forces. Despite giving details of numerous amendments to the Turkish constitution and listing Turkey's many accessions to international treaties, nowhere are human rights referred to as something to which the Turkish population as a whole should be concerned with. At the Habitat NGO forum however, there was no sign of Turkish people ignoring the human rights issue. In fact many of the stalls were occupied with Turkish groups whose sole concern was human rights. Chilling photographs and texts in several languages detail terrible human rights' abuses in several different countries. Turkoman people in Iraq have, not surprisingly perhaps, suffered terribly under the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein. In western China--or eastern Turkistan as it is also referred to--native Turkomens have been remove from positions of authority as the region has been settled by increasing numbers of Han Chinese moved in by the Chinese government. Continued nuclear testing in the region has left many parts uninhabitable and has led to the predictable increases in cancers. Displays showing the results of Russian occupation of Chechenya and the occupation of parts of Azerbaijn by Armenian government forces were equally disturbing. The Turkish speaking minority from Greece were also represented. Greek government policy has long centered around moving the Turkish Muslim community from Western Thrace to areas where it can more easily assimilated. The closure of schools and mosques coupled with continued harassment by the police and civil authorities has forced many to Turkish Greeks leave. Another Foreign Ministry brochure available to people attending Habitat details these and other human rights abuses. Groups concerned with minorities inside Turkey received no such official sanction however. This in spite of the government statement reprinted above. On the contrary, foreigners attending the NGO forum complained constantly about the presence of plain clothes policemen. One utterly innocuous seminar on the ``colorful life of dark people''--ie gypsies--attracted 11 people, two of whom were plain clothes police. While one of the policemen dominated the discussion with loud irrelevant contributions, the other attempted to interview the three Turkish participants and ascertain why they were interested in gypsies. Outside of Habitat too further Turkish interest in human rights issues made itself evident. The Turkish human rights group IHD organized an ``Alternative Habitat'' conference, only to find it closed down practically before it started. Further interest was shown by the friends and relatives of the 400 or so people who, since 1979, are alleged to have ``disappeared'' whilst in police custody. Their silent peaceful protests have been taking place outside Galatasaray school for the past year. Coverage by the press was minimal, with journalists attending dutifully in case of incident. Last Saturday they were rewarded (sic). Although officially banned the demonstration went ahead anyway with predictable results. A larger than usual but none the less peaceful group of people attempted to sit down in Galatasaray Square but were immediately set upon by the legions of waiting police. Journalists, photographers and even delegates from the Habitat conference were arrested, many being severely beaten in the process. Television pictures of the unwarranted brutality were shown all over the world and photographs were published in many of the world's leading journals. A press conference held the following day to protest at the arrests was also broken up by the police with many arrests. There were by this time an estimated 1500 people in custody. As releases began--without charge--groups of people congregated outside police stations to welcome their friends. Prominent human rights lawyer Serpil Kaya emerged from her incarceration to find a group of her friends being harassed by the police. On pointing out that they weren't breaking the law she was immediately rearrested. Judging the reaction of shocked delegates to the Habitat conference was not difficult, they were only too happy to express their anger at what they had witnessed. As a spokesman for the NGOs explained in a press conference, ``We have witnessed that hundreds of individuals have been beaten, arrested and detained while demonstrating peacefully on the city streets. We will not forget what we have seen.'' During the whole length of the Habitat conference another demonstration has been going on, largely unnoticed. Teams of runners have been jogging along the Bosphorus bearing Olympic flags. Turkey's bid for the 2000 Olympics failed to make much impression. The Habitat conference is one of the first major international events to be staged in Turkey. The current bid for the 2004 Olympic games has been making good use of Habitat to show the international community what Turkey is capable of. Those efforts now appear sadly wasted. Until a Turkish government can make a statement regarding human rights that is both unqualified and is seen to be put into practice it is most unlikely that the international community will see fit to trust Turkey with another event of major significance. After the events of the past two weeks the effort required to bring the 2004 games to Istanbul would seem to be more herculean than olympic.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for his cooperation in working on this amendment. We have been working on this for some time now. Mr. Chairman, if you thought taxpayers were outraged and dismayed over the revelation that the Pentagon was shelling out $500 for hammers and $600 for toilet seats, wait until they learn that Uncle Sam is now subsidizing big corporate mergers and acquisitions, which by design, are intended to throw thousands of people out of work. That's right, American taxpayers are footing the bill to merge, downsize, and fire people. This is corporate welfare at it worst. Wait until the public discovers, Mr. Chairman, that thousands of hard-working Americans who have or recently had high paying defense industry jobs, got pink slips not necessarily because of fewer purchase orders, but because the Clinton administration's cynical policy of providing huge subsidies for corporate mergers. In July 1994, the GAO's first and only available report on just one subsidy approved for payment makes clear a connection between payoffs and layoffs: ``The contractor's proposed savings were based entirely on workforce reductions.'' (GAO/NSIAD-96-80) The amendment I am offering today, which is cosponsored by Messrs. Sanders, Duncan, Minge, DeFazio, Klug, and Neumann, puts a stop to this outrageous and largely obscure policy of subsidized downsizing until Congress and the taxpayers receive some reliable data on how much has been spent and what the human and budgetary impact of these subsidies are. Make no mistake: Nobody is trying to interfere with legitimate private business decisions to merge. Of course, the establishment of monopolies is a different story. And nobody denies that leaner defense firms have the potential to save DOD some money on future cost-plus contracts. But when Uncle Sam crosses the line between simply permitting mergers, and actively promoting and partially underwriting them, we have strayed. Mr. Speaker, my amendment will end this fatally flawed policy from inflicting any more damage that has already been done. The Smith-Sanders-Duncan-Minge-DeFazio-Klug-Neumann amendment is based on common sense--because the proponents of the Clinton policy have not proven their case--they have not even performed the duties that they were required by law to do. Amazingly, the report by DoD called for in section 818 of Public Law 103-337 has still not been released, even though it was to be available by November 1995. This report was at the heart of congressional demands for accountability over these merger subsidies. And when the hard data becomes available, it may show that the Clinton policy isn't just antijobs, but a net loss to taxpayers as well. GAO's testimony on this policy said the amount of restructuring costs charged to DoD contracts ``could be substantial, possibly involving several billions of dollars.'' (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-247) Furthermore, GAO added that money spent on merger subsidies was ``likely to place further increased pressure on DoD procurement budgets.'' How can we, as guardians of the public purse, just watch as money goes out the door and nobody knows who's getting what and exactly how much this is costing us? To date, some 32 defense contractors have lined up to receive some of Uncle Sam's corporate largess. Lockheed-Martin is just one of those contractors, but their requests could cost the taxpayers $1.6 billion. Among Lockheed-Martin's approved requests for downsizing costs is a proposal submitted on January 31, 1996, to close down the Astro Space facility in East Windsor, NJ, which puts 3,200 jobs in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, this policy is the direct cause of some 3,200 layoffs in my district alone, and it uses the tax dollars of these every same people to do it. Nor does anybody know what the net impact of these layoffs are likely to be. The premise, behind this policy are fundamentally at odds with America's free-market economy. Firms merge and restructure when they believe it is in their best interest to do so. If Wall Street lacks the confidence to underwrite a merger, why should Uncle Sam come to the rescue, doling out the tax dollars to make it work? The flaws in current law are legion. Current law says DOD can only pay out restructuring costs if they see audited cost savings. That sounds nice, but what about the ripple effects of all these layoffs? What about the lower revenues realized and higher government services needed to assist those thrown out of work? What about the reduction in competition as mergers lead to monopolies? This amendment is supported by a wide variety of organizations and individuals. Charlie Marciante of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO says ``Republican Smith's amendment ensures that Uncle Sam's reimbursement offers do not prompt otherwise unlikely layoffs and it also ensures that taxpayers are not forced to pay for programs that put people out of work.'' Steve Moore of the CATO Institute described the policy as ``an egregious example of unwarranted corporate welfare in our budget.'' Dr. Lawrence Korb, a former Under Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, said, ``By this policy of subsidizing defense mergers and acquisitions, the Clinton administration has already created megacompanies that will stifle competition and wield tremendous political power.'' Defenders of merger subsidies argue that putting taxpayer money up front to pay for restructuring will lead to cost savings on future contracts. My question is: Since when is it the obligation of the Federal Government to inject itself into a firm's decisionmaking process by offering multimillion dollar inducements to merge and downsize? For defense contractors, the only thing that seems to separate a good business deal from a bad business deal is how much money Uncle Sam injects into the process. In fact, the former CEO of Lockheed-Martin, Norman Augustine, stated in congressional testimony: ``specifically, had [DOD] refused to [subsidize or reimburse] Martin Marietta's proposed General Dynamics Space Division acquisition we would not have made the purchase, certainly not because of spite, but simply because it would have been a bad business deal.'' (emphasis added) (HASC 103- 56, page 46). Furthermore, why should taxpayers give a windfall to companies to merge if it can be shown that they would have merged anyway? And the idea that Uncle Sam must share savings on cost-plus contracts in order to give incentives to defense contractors is seriously flawed. The fact of the matter is that when a contractor restructures, they save money for themselves and potentially to DOD. With lower overhead costs distributed throughout the newly merged organization, contractors pick up big savings on both fixed and cost-plus government contracts. So when contractors tell you how much money DOD may or may not save, what they conveniently leave out is how much money they--not us--are going to save on existing fixed-price contracts. In fact, Secretary Deutch actually conceded in congressional testimony that lower overhead costs for contractors will lead to windfalls on existing fixed-price contracts. My colleagues, this issue should be a no-brainer. We need to put a stop to merger subsidy payments until we actually get some hard evidence that this policy even comes close to being what its proponents suggest. I think when all the facts are in, you will agree with me to kill this policy outright. Let's take a breather from government- subsidized ``merger mania'' and assess the damage already been done. Support the Smith-Sanders amendment to H.R. 3610.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, which would prohibit IMET--foreign assistance for military education and training--to the Government of Indonesia. For over 20 years, international human rights advocates have been calling attention to abuses by the Indonesian Government in its occupation of East Timor. There is evidence that United States military assistance has helped to further the atrocities in East Timor. Indonesia's armed forces invaded East Timor in 1975, only weeks after East Timor had attained independence from Portugal. Since then, the Indonesian army has carried out a campaign of what amounts to ethnic cleansing against the Timorese through a program of forced migration. Persecution has been particularly harsh against the Christian majority. More than 200,000 Timorese--out of a total population of 700,000-- have been killed directly or by starvation in forced migrations from their villages since the Indonesian invasion. There are recent reports of a renewed campaign of repression of Catholics in East Timor. These reports include atrocities such as the smashing of statutes of the Virgin Mary. The campaign has also been directed personally against the Catholic Bishop of Dili, Bishop Belo. His phones are tapped, his fax machine is monitored, his visitors are watched, and his freedom of movement is restricted. But Bishop Belo persists in his courageous efforts to defend justice, peace, and the preservation of the dignity of his people. Recently, he has set up a church commission to monitor human rights abuses, and a radio station to disseminate information and news. Mr. Speaker, the people of East Timor comprise a sovereign nation. They differ from most Indonesians in language, religion, ethnicity, history, and culture. They are entitled to independence and freedom. And in the meantime, they are entitled to fundamental human rights including the freedom of religion. Supporters of expanded IMET for Indonesia argue that since one of the purposes of such aid is to educate the military about human rights, we should provide such aid no matter what they do. But this presumes a willingness on the part of the government to change its dismal record. In the absence of such willingness, the only real effect of expanded IMET is to send a signal to the world that our disapproval of the Indonesian military--which we expressed after the 1991 massacre by cutting off all IMET--has softened. This is the wrong signal at the wrong time. We must not put our stamp of approval on a regime that massacres children in churchyards and then remains defiant. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Visclosky-Smith- Bilirakis-Kennedy amendment to the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations appropriations bill. Last year's foreign operations appropriations bill included the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which bans U.S. Government assistance to any country that prohibits or restricts the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid to other countries. The act, which I had the honor of introducing in the House, permits a Presidential waiver of the ban, if he determines that U.S. national security interest demands one. The justification for our amendment today is simple enough. This amendment would not allow the President to use the waiver under the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act to provide economic support funds to countries that impede the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid. The Corridor Act mentioned no country by name, but everyone knew it was aimed at Turkey, which has been blockading Armenia for years. Ankara has stubbornly refused to allow transshipment across Turkish territory to Armenia of United States humanitarian aid, specifically, clothing, food, and medicine for hundreds of thousands of refugees. In refusing to open a land corridor, Ankara points to the occupation by Armenian forces of Azerbaijani territory. But Turkey's close relationship with Azerbaijan or its approach to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict does not justify or excuse blocking the delivery of United States humanitarian aid to Armenia. Turkey's behavior in this respect is simply scandalous. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration has shown its unwillingness to press Ankara to rethink its policy. A couple of weeks ago, the President determined it was in the national security interest of the United States to waive the application of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act to Turkey. In essence, President Clinton continues to reward Ankara even though they have blocked U.S. humanitarian aid from people in need. Also galling is the manner in which the White House exercised its option. The White House did not have the courage or the courtesy of informing Congress of the President's decision to exercise the waiver until the news was broken, post facto, by Turkish Foreign Minister Gonensay, who announced it at a May 21 press conference in Washington. The waiver, it turns out, had been exercised 5 days earlier, on May 16. Why didn't the administration have the courage to inform Congress before May 16, or at the very latest, on May 16. Why did we have to hear about this from Foreign Minister Gonensay. Was the White House hoping nobody would notice. If so, that hope was in vain. Not only did we notice, we are now determined to act, so that the will of Congress, as inscribed in the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, which has strong bipartisan support, will be done. The Visclosky-Smith-Bilirakis-Kennedy amendment, while allowing the President to waive the laws application for genuine national security interests, would remove economic support funds from the waiver. If the President exercised the waiver, the United States could continue to provide military assistance to the country in question. But economic aid would be barred, so long as the country was in violation of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. This amendment is a measured and fair response to the President's waiver of last month. It puts the White House on notice that Congress is serious about its commitment to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need. The amendment also provides further incentive to Ankara to allow United States humanitarian assistance across its territory to refugees in Armenia. Turkey has suffered no consequences for its blockade of Armenia, and evidently has no reason to reconsider its foolish, mean-spirited policy. This amendment aims to supply one, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, we recognize the strategic importance of Turkey and maintain the waiver for assistance other than economic support funds. I would contend that human rights violations, whether committed by enemies or allies, should never be ignored. As my colleagues have noted during debate on the rule, and in conjunction with this amendment, the ongoing human rights violations in Turkey are disturbing. For example, free expression restrictions, widespread torture, and repression in southeastern Turkey continue to pose serious concerns about the health of Turkish democracy and the status of reforms. Although the Turkish Parliament recently amended article 8 of the 1991 anti-terror law that criminalized separatist propaganda and then released more than 100 political prisoners, the amended article 8 has been used to prosecute at least 35 individuals--including Turkey's best known author. According to yesterday's Financial Times, 154 statutes impose restrictions on free speech, and many are to punish peaceful, free expression, including article 7 of the anti-terror law and article 312 of the penal code. Persistent, widespread torture continues to mar Turkey's democratic credentials, although officials have made public statements condemning torture. Human rights observers reported at least 69 torture-related deaths in detention since 1993. Forty-eight police officials involved in the beating death of a journalist last January were arrested (one subsequently alleged torture), yet the 1995 State Department Human Rights Report states, ``The climate of impunity that the relatively small number of convictions creates remains the single largest obstacle to reducing unlawful killing, torture, and other human rights abuses.'' Currently, the Foreign Ministry is orchestrating a campaign to halt the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey's torture rehabilitation efforts. The Turkish military's 12-year-old, $7 billion-a-year campaign against Kurdish militants poses another threat to stability and Turkish democracy. Under the mantle of combating terrorism, the military conducts a violent campaign responsible which has claimed almost 20,000 lives and takes an increasing toll on civil liberties. Turkish forces have destroyed or evacuated more than 2,500 Kurdish villages in southeastern Turkey and have created almost 3,000,000 internal refugees. Death squads connected with security forces and armed Islamic extremists have been responsible for hundreds of unsolved killings and disappearances. Mr. Chairman, I want to say how proud I am that this bipartisan group of Members offering this particular amendment is united in our concern about suffering refugees. We are all concerned about human rights, and we speak out on human rights abuses whenever and wherever they exist; but in this case we have an opportunity to help people with our medicines, our food, our clothing, and all we are asking for is a way, a land route to transship them. Unfortunately, that has been blockaded. This is a very good amendment and deserves the support of my colleagues.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. The Veterans Health Administration is a model of our national commitment to honor our debts. It must be preserved. For that to happen, it must be allowed to change with the rest of the health care industry. One of the most significant changes in our Nation's health care delivery in recent years has been the movement to increased reliance on ambulatory care. For the VHA to keep pace with this welcome change, requires capital improvement. This bill today addresses some of those needs. Specifically the Veterans' Affairs Committee approved a $21.1 million grant for Lyons Medical Center in Lyons, NJ. The grant provides funding for an ambulatory care unit. This is great news for New Jersey vets. The Lyons' ambulatory care unit will take us into the next century as a state-of-the-art health care facility. It's an improvement that is long overdue. In the past, the veterans' hospital would require overnight stays for minor surgery that would have been outpatient surgery elsewhere. The ambulatory care unit will allow veterans to go in and out of the hospital in one day, eliminating the added burden of overnight stays. With the recent merger of Lyons and East Orange VA Medical Centers, this is truly a sign that Lyons is a well-respected and much-needed facility. This grant ensures that Lyons will continue to offer state- of-the-art health care and will keep its important place in the VA health care delivery system of New Jersey. Finally Mr. Speaker, I also rise to congratulate Mr. Montgomery, a true gentleman and leader when it comes to fighting for veterans. It has always been a pleasure to work for veterans as a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Over the years it has always been clear that a unique bipartisan spirit has prevailed there. That spirit has arisen from the shared commitment of the vast majority of the members of the committee to honor our obligations to our veterans first. Mr. Montgomery, by his tireless service to the committee has nurtured that bipartisan spirit. Our success has been largely attributable to his fine service and leadership here and we will miss him.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as an outspoken supporter of NATO expansion, I am pleased to join Chairman Gilman and others in introducing legislation designed to move this important process ahead in a timely manner. Regrettably, the Clinton administration's professed commitment to expansion of NATO has not been adequately matched by concrete deeds. The Partnership for Peace program, meant to deepen and strengthen the links between the Alliance and the emerging democracies of East Central Europe, appears stalled. The legislation we introduce today is designed to move the program forward, making much-needed resources available to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and others, helping them to meet the obligations which NATO membership would entail. The United States must provide the determined leadership necessary to advance NATO enlargement and check those bent on blocking the inclusion of new states in the Alliance. Mr. Speaker, the peoples of East Central Europe have made tremendous strides in working to overcome the legacy of communism. Many of the countries have undertaken significant steps to consolidate democracy, to protect human rights, and to rebuild economies based on market principles. At the same time, my endorsement of an expanded NATO is tempered by a recognition of the fact that progress in the region has not been even. There is room for further improvement in each and every one of the states concerned. I would note that all 27 states which have joined the Partnership for Peace to date 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. As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am convinced of the fundamental role of human rights in advancing genuine security and stability, and, as such, must be an integral aspect of the expansion process. The human rights record of prospective candidates for NATO membership deserves close scrutiny. In fact, I would argue that a country's record should be subjected to more--not less--scrutiny the closer that country comes to being admitted into full membership in NATO. I would emphasize that none of the countries seeking NATO membership, including those considered to be leading contenders, is without problems. The Government of Poland, for example, still has an arcane defamation law that provides criminal penalties against those who allegedly ``slander'' the state, similar to the laws previously used by Communist regimes to silence their opponents. In response to a letter from members of the Helsinki Commission on this issue, authorities in Warsaw have recently indicated their intention to repeal this provision as part of a general overhaul of the penal code. This step will, in my view, remove one of the last remaining vestiges of the Communist system from Poland's generally outstanding human rights record. In the case of Hungary, there is continued concern over the use of excessive force by police, including harassment and physical abuse of Roma, Hungary's largest minority group. Some human rights organizations have suggested that Roma are also kept in pretrial detention more often and for longer periods than non-Roma. The Czech Republic, although a human rights leader in many respects, passed a citizenship law after the dissolution of the Czechoslovak Federation that leaves thousands of people without citizenship. Regrettably, a recently passed amendment to the law failed to resolve this problem. Also, the Czech Republic has used a criminal defamation law to restrict free speech. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tremendous progress which each of these states has made since the revolutions of the late 1980's and early 1990's which toppled the dictators of East Central Europe and the former Soviet Empire. I urge the leaders of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to take concrete steps to address the remaining human rights concerns in a manner consistent with OSCE principles as they pursue their goal of full NATO membership. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has sought to play an active and constructive role in moving the NATO expansion process forward. The NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act, which we introduce today, demonstrates our firm 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 rooted in respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, not long ago I received word of some remarkable work by a very special young man from my district in Trenton, NJ. His efforts were truly commendable and an inspiration to us all. And so I rise today to pay tribute to Sammy Gordon for his efforts to help the victims of last year's bombing in Oklahoma City. Last April, upon hearing of the tragedy in Oklahoma, Sammy, then age 12 and a 7th grader at Holy Cross School in Trenton, decided he wanted to help the victims. And help he did. Enlisting support from friends, parents, and local merchants, but mostly by his own wits and gritty determination, Sammy managed to raise $3,300 selling lemonade. He chose a truly ingenious location--a local drive-by ATM machine--where the customers were both easily accessible and possessed of ready cash. Sammy and his friend's original motivation for the endeavor had been the worthwhile goal of building a clubhouse. However, when Sammy heard of the hardships that the bombing victims were enduring, he decided that it would be better to put the needs of others ahead of his own wants. Sammy's compassion and determination to relieve suffering, stands in marked contrast to the despicable act of wanton cruelty which inspired his efforts in the first place. When a calamity like Oklahoma City is intentionally inflicted, it defies explanation. In the face of such meaningless terror, all of us can be tempted to despair. Responses like Sammy's, however, offer the rays of hope we all need to prevent this despair from setting in. By his act of kindness, Sammy reminds us that this world is far more defined by goodness, than by the evil. The extraordinary success of his endeavor also reminds us that when we take a small step to do good, it can serve as a catalyst and big things can sometimes result. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this young man demonstrated that personal acts of charity are indispensable to the kind of society we all want to live in. In contrast to Sammy's fast action, it took the Government over a year to decide what the appropriate legal response to this tragedy ought to be. Sammy and others like him stepped forward almost immediately, as only individuals can, and began to fill the overwhelming needs of a community which had been so terribly battered. In these respects, the money Sammy raised selling lemonade, and forgoing--temporarily, I hope--the construction of his clubhouse, not only helped those who were directly affected by tragedy, but rather it helps us all. That is no small accomplishment. And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise not only to commend Samuel Gordon, but to thank him as well. I wish Sammy and his friends the best of luck in whatever the future brings them. I believe that if they continue to put the needs of others ahead of their own desires, they will be very happy in their own lives and we will all be richer for it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1462.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the news that President Yeltsin has vowed to go ahead with a trip to Chechnya some time before the Presidential elections in June. As our colleagues are aware, Moscow has tried to reestablish control over the breakaway North Caucasus region by unleashing a brutal war against not only combatants, but also against thousands of noncombatants, Chechen and Russian, alike. Mr. Yeltsin says that he intends to go to Chechnya despite assassination threats. I truly hope there won't be any such attempts, but it must be admitted that the people of Chechnya have reason to be bitter about the fate of their homeland. While Chechen irregulars have committed their share of atrocities, there is emerging from Chechnya a frightening picture of the Russian Army degenerating from an organized military force into a band of barely controlled brigands. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which I am proud to serve as chairman, held congressional hearings on the situation in Chechnya earlier this year. At these hearings, Russian Duma member and prominent human rights advocate Sergei Kovalev described the continuing depredations by the Russian military against civilians. In his words, ``45,000 innocent persons'' killed in the war is ``too high a price to pay for punishing [the late Chechen leader Dzhokar] Dudaev.'' Mr. Speaker, in this connection, I would note that the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe recently received a disturbing report from the well known international humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders, drawing attention to the deteriorating human rights situation in Chechnya. This report, ``Civilians Targeted,'' documented the systematic bombing and killing of civilians by the Russian military in Chechnya, which, according to the report, has actually increased following President Yeltsin's announced peace initiative in March. I would list a few of the activities engaged in by the Russian military, as witnessed by Doctors Without Borders teams. Whole villages, including hospitals, schools and mosques, continue to be targeted, in blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements, to which Russia is a signatory. The Russian military extorts money from Russian civilians in exchange for safe passage out of villages under attack. Newly secured towns and villages are systematically looted and cattle are either killed or stolen. Civilians are systematically denied the right to humanitarian assistance and humanitarian relief organizations are denied access to the areas in greatest need, often long after a military offensive is over. The Russian military has consistently failed to respect the neutrality of hospitals and clinics, both in areas of intense military activity in the center of the country and in the capital Grozny, where the Doctors Without Borders hospital is under regular sniper fire. These are a few of the blatant violations of accepted rules of warfare and humanitarian conduct cited in the report. I think we can safely assume that Mr. Yeltsin's advisors have not provided him with a Russian language copy of the Doctors Without Borders report on his army's actions in Chechnya. There certainly have been indications that the President's advisors and military commanders have not been supplying him with entirely accurate information regarding the state of affairs in that war-torn region. However, I have yet to hear anyone doubt Mr. Yeltsin's personal courage. Perhaps he will leave the secure confines of the Severny airport on the outskirts of Grozny and see what sort of peace his military is promoting in Chechnya. I wish him a safe and instructive trip.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support the passage of House Resolution 165, commemorating the 205th anniversary of Poland's May 3 Constitution. Although only in force for less than 2 years before falling victim to the second partition of Poland by her neighbors, this Constitution stands as an enduring monument to the Polish people's aspiration for democracy. The May 3 Constitution was the first written constitution in Europe, adopted in 1791 and coming only a few years after the American Constitution. In fact, the American and Polish Constitutions have much in common, both in spirit and in purpose: Each sought to create the foundations of deomcracy and, in particular, to establish limits on the previously unfettered powers of sovereign rule. Mr. Speaker, the Polish Constitution of 1791 may have been short- lived as a legislative edict, but it survived nearly two centuries of partition, foreign occupation, Fascist domination and Communist totalitarianism as a symbol of what Poles had once achieved--and would again achieve. Today, the people of Ploland continue their successful efforts to build a free and democratic society, a free-market economy, and a country in which human rights and fundamental freedoms will not only be guaranteed on paper, but ensured in practice. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have been especially heartened by the extraordinary progress Poland has made in this regard, and Poland is rightly lauded as a leader--perhaps the leader--of democratic reform in central and eastern Europe. I was also espedially gratified to learn recently from President Kwasniwski's office that an overhaul of the Polish penal code will probably drop provisions which criminalize defamation of state organs--one of the last remaining vestiges of the old Communist order. I am honored today to join my colleagues in commemorating the Polish Constitution of 1791, which continues to inspire the people of Poland during a period of profound and positive political transformation; I welcome the passage of House Resolution 165.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our full Committee on International Relations of yielding time to me and for expeditiously moving this legislation through our full committee and bringing it to the floor today. House Concurrent Resolution 167 is an important and timely resolution which recognizes the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the worst in recorded history, and supports the closing of the remaining reactors in that plant. Several weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, on April 23, I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing that examined the devastating consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Four experts on the subject of Chernobyl, including the ambassadors of Ukraine and Belarus, the two countries most gravely affected by the disaster, gave sobering accounts of the profound medical, environmental, economic, and political consequences of the disaster. Mr. Speaker, as I think most Members know, in the early morning of April 26, 1986 10 years ago, reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded, releasing massive quantities of radioactive substances into the atmosphere. As a matter of fact, some of the experts who have looked at this carefully have suggested that as much as 200 times the amount of radiation released at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was released as a result of that explosion. The highest level of radioactive fallout was registered in the vicinity immediately surrounding Chernobyl, near the Ukrainian- Belorussian border. This expression of Congress draws attention to the ongoing tragedy. Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, millions of people, including about 1 million children, were exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation. Since then children, in particular, have experienced alarming increases in thyroid cancer and other conditions, including early childhood diabetes, anemia, and illnesses associated with general fatigue. One World Health Organization expert recently forecast that the total number of thyroid cancers among children in the contaminated zones may ultimately reach 10,000. These trends have accelerated since the disaster and are expected to increase well into the future. One of the witnesses at our hearing talked about the fact that many of the people who moved out of the affected areas who used to have farms there have grown impatient and have moved back to farm. Many are not eating the produce and selling some of it in Kiev putting some at risk of contamination. Indeed, stomach cancers are now beginning to manifest themselves among the people in these affected areas. Mr. Speaker, given these devastating consequences, House Concurrent Resolution 167 calls upon the President to support continued and enhanced United States assistance to provide medical relief, humanitarian assistance, social impact planning and hospital development for the Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia and encourages national and international health organizations to expand the scope of research into the public health consequences of Chernobyl. Let me just remind Members as well that there are still scattered throughout Russia some 15 different sites where Chernobyl-type reactors are today in operation. So the prospects and the specter of this kind of thing happening not just on the Chernobyl side itself, where the reactors continued to be used, but also throughout Russia, leading to what I would consider to be a unmitigated disaster should this happen again. So we need, I think, to be encouraging the closure of those as well and upgrading if they need nuclear power, doing it in a way that is environmentally sound and safe. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important components of this resolution is that it does indeed urge the Ukraine to continue its negotiations with the G-7 to implement the December 20, 1995, memorandum of understanding which calls for all nuclear reactors at Chernobyl to be shut down in a safe and expeditious manner by the year 2000. The resolution calls upon the President to support the process of closing Chernobyl, as envisioned by the MOU, recognizing, of course, the tremendous costs involved and its impact on the country that is undergoing a transition from a Communist state to a market oriented economy. They do have energy needs. We need to take that into consideration and assist them in every way we can. Among the most important components of the MOU is the G-7 financial commitment, mostly in loans, as well as some grants, to help Ukrainians impose market discipline on that country's very inefficient energy sector and make it more rational and self-sustaining. Finally, the resolution supports the broadening of Ukraine's regional energy resources, which will reduce its dependence on an individual country. Mr. Speaker, the international community, including the U.S. Government and many nongovernmental organizations, are indeed responding to the consequences of Chernobyl, but more needs to be done, especially as Ukraine and the Belarus, the countries again that bore the brunt of Chernobyl, are undergoing this transitional period. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to support this measure and then, when we get down to appropriate humanitarian aid later on in the year, to support the kind of resources that will help make the mitigation of this crisis a reality.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a welcome step toward focusing our China policy where it ought to be focused. For too many years the United States has ignored and insulted a faithful and freedom-loving ally in order to curry favor with a totalitarian dictatorship. This policy is not only morally problematic, but also self-defeating. The recent Taiwan elections have shown that Chinese people, like people the world over, will choose democracy and freedom when they are given the opportunity. The election also highlights a difficult choice for the people of Taiwan: Whether their government should move gradually toward official independence, or continue to assert its historic status as the Government of the Republic of China. The United States should take no position on this question. We should insist only that the choice be freely made by the people themselves, acting through legitimately elected institutions. We should also recognize that the only real hope for eventual reunification of Taiwan with the Chinese mainland rests in the possibility that freedom and democracy will also come to the mainland. Today, as the Beijing regime tightens its grip on power, this possibility seems remote. But the Taiwan elections should offer both an example and an incentive to Beijing. The message they send is clear: Join us in choosing freedom. We will never go back to slavery. The people of Taiwan will never choose absorption by a Communist government. The model for reunification, if it is ever to happen, is not Hong Kong, where millions of people who had no say in the matter are about to be delivered forcibly into the hands of despotism. Rather, the model is Germany, where people who had thrown off the shackles of communism quickly and freely chose unity with the free and prosperous society that had been built by their countrymen, who were happy to welcome and assist them. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk] on his tireless promotion of democracy and human rights. As the former Ambassador to Romania, Mr. Funderburk fought the good fight against the atrocities of Nicolae Ceausescu and incurred the wrath of our own State Department for his candor and consistency. I have enormous respect for Mr. Funderburk. Thus, it is not surprising to note that he is again in the forefront of this battle for democracy and freedom for the people of Taiwan. I want to thank my good friend from North Carolina, Mr. Funderburk, for sponsoring this important resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed by recent violence in Slovakia that may be part of a larger pattern of politically motivated violence. During the weekend of May 4-5, a device that may have been a handgrenade exploded in front of the home of Bela Bugar. Mr. Bugar is not only a member of the Hungarian minority's opposition coalition, he is also, according to opinion polls, its most popular member. Shortly before that incident, Robert Remias, a former policeman who has been questioned in connection with the kidnaping of President Michal Kovac's son last year, died when his propane-fueled BMW exploded. Although it is not yet certain who is responsible for these acts, it is clear that violence coincides with politics in Slovakia at a suspiciously high rate. I also recall, for example, that Frantisek Miklosko, the opposition leader of the Christian Democratic Movement, was assaulted by unknown attackers near his home last August; Peter Toth, a journalist investigating the Kovac case, has also been assaulted; last April, a bomb went off in the car of Arpad Matejka, a member of the Prime Minister's party. The Helsinki Commission, which I chair, is no stranger to Slovakia. We were a close observer of developments there well before the breakup of the Czechoslovak Federation in 1992 and have issued two major reports on that country. Since last summer, I have been joined twice by Senator Alfonse D'Amato, the Commissions' cochairman, and the Commission's ranking minority members, Representative Steny H. Hoyer and Senator Frank Lautenberg, in sending letters to Slovak Ambassador Lichardus regarding continuing challenges to the democratization process in his country. Although the Commission has raised a number of serious concerns in these letters, we have, remained generally optimistic about developments in Slovakia. Last week, for example, I hosted a conference in New Jersey on business opportunities in Central Europe, where I discussed some of the positive economic changes in Slovakia that are creating new opportunities for Slovak society as a whole. I appreciate the willingness of the Slovak Parliament to consider the views of a number of international interlocutors regarding draft legislation and note the active and constructive role of the President and the Constitutional Court in guiding the passage of legislation consistent with democratic values and human rights norms. I commend Prime Minister Meciar for his decision last week to seek, in his words, a wider democratic discussion of the draft law on the protection of the Republic. Most of all, I have been greatly heartened by the increasing involvement of Slovak citizens in all areas of public life. The message sent by the most recent developments in Slovakia, therefore, is all the more discouraging. And that message is dangerous: take on a high political profile, and you are possibly a more visible-- and more likely--target of violence. I welcome the May 9 statement of the Government of Slovakia condemning acts of violence and promising a thorough investigation of these matters. I believe it is particularly important that the death of Robert Remias be examined in an open and transparent manner, in a manner that makes information available to all those concerned with this case, and in a manner that will foster credibility in its results. Mr. Speaker, the Helsinki Commission will continue to follow closely developments in this case, and I expect to report further to this body as information becomes available.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment regarding the progress of the Czech Republic in its on- going transition from Communist dictatorship to democracy. Overall, the Czech record is quite good. And the Czech Republic has made, possibly, the greatest strides of any countries in the region in its efforts to establishing a functioning free market. But in one particular area, the Czech record has been abysmal. Since the breakup of the Czechoslovak Federation at the end of 1992, the Czech Republic has imposed a citizenship law that discriminates against the Czech Republic's largest minority group, the Roma, and violates international law. The Helsinki Commission, which I now chair, flagged this problem in a report in 1994. More recently, in early April, the Council of Europe and the UNHCR each released reports on the Czech Republic. Although the reports differ in their specific mandate and analysis, their final conclusions are consistent: The current Czech citizenship law, both as drafted and applied, violates international standards. In particular, both reports found that--contrary to the previous assertions of the Czech Government--the Czech law has created both de jure and de facto statelessness. The Council of Europe report used particularly pointed language, noting that while some of the practices associated with the implementation of the law ``might have been lawful under the Czech law of 1967. * * * [they] clearly do not meet European legal standards.'' Moreover, according to the recently released State Department country report, some who are affected by this law have been deported, contrary to the assurances I had previously received from Czech officials. I appreciate that efforts have been made to improve the citizenship law and strengthen its association with international human rights norms. In particular, I understand an amendment to the law was passed on April 26. That amendment, however, fails to address the fundamental shortcomings of the law. For example, it appears that former Czechoslovaks who were long-term residents of the Czech Republic must still make cumbersome applications and pay so-called administrative fees in order to be considered for citizenship in the only homeland they have ever known. In addition, it has been reported that the amended law gives the Ministry of Interior complete discretion to require those applicants to have a clean criminal record. It seems to me that this would be like telling charter 77 dissidents that of course they have a right to free speech--provided they got a waiver from the Ministry of Interior before exercising it. In short, even as amended, the Czech citizenship law still stands in violation of the Czech Republic's international commitments. In a few weeks, Czechs will return to the polls to elect a new parliament. In that context, the significance of the citizenship law is all the more poignant: those wrongly denied citizenship are also wrongly denied the right to vote. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what benefit the Czech Government sees in maintaining provisions of this law that have generated international criticism. Those who have criticized this law, including the Helsinki Commission, are not proposing that the Czech Republic adopt dual citizenship; we are not proposing that former Czechoslovaks who were or are permanent residents in Slovakia be given citizenship; and we are not saying that the Czech Republic does not have a right to protect its borders. Instead, a finite number of people, all of whom are, by definition, permanent residents in the Czech Republic anyway, must have their citizenship restored if the Czech Republic is to bring its law into conformity with the international standards it has adopted.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the recent debate on legislation to ban partial-birth abortion was America's wake-up call on the inherent violence of abortion. Somehow, the euphemisms and attempts to sanitize the killing of unborn kids did not work as well that time as it has in the past. Somehow, the seemingly benign, always self-assured pro-abortion lobby, including the folks at Planned Parenthood and NARAL, did not look so humane or caring as most in the Congress and a huge majority of American public reacted with shock, dismay and disgust when they learned that some abortionists were routinely delivering babies most of the way, only to stab the child in the back of the head with scissors and then suck the brains out of his or her head. Most of us recognize child abuse when we see it, which brings me to the DeLauro amendment. When President Clinton issued an Executive order on January 22, 1993, to turn DOD health care facilities into abortion mills, every military obstetrician, nurse, and anesthesiologist refused to comply. In other words, they refused to destroy unborn babies. That, Mr. Chairman, is moral courage. They, too, recognize child abuse when they see it, because the methods of abortion, the methods of extermination, are not really different from the violence used to kill a child in a partial-birth abortion. In a suction abortion, Mr. Speaker, the so-called doctor cuts and dismembers the unborn baby with a loop shaped knife connected to a high powered suction device which is between 20 to 30 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner. Both the D&C abortion method and a D&E abortion also relies on dismemberment of the child's fragile little body. Limb by limb of an unborn baby, the neck, the torso, are all cut and dismembered--it's shocking and its child abuse. In a saline abortion, a high concentration salt solution is injected into the baby's amniotic sack. The child breathes in that salt solution--the unborn child ``breathes'' amniotic fluid to develop his or her lungs--and the baby swallows it, and about 2 hours later the baby dies from the corrosive and toxic effects of the salt. That is a child abuse, I say to my friends. The DeLauro amendment would facilitate the killing of unborn babies by dismemberment and by chemical poisoning. I urge Members to vote down this misguided amendment, and keep the current law--the Dornan amendment--which allows abortions in military hospitals only in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. On this issue, I question the morality of your position to facilitate the killing of unborn babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly to my friend, the gentlelady from California. Ms. Pelosi's argument is that pro-lifers who assert that abortion is morally wrong are trying to set themselves up as being morally superior. Her argument has surface appeal, and is a very nice ploy and distraction, but it does not carry any weight and misses the mark completely. I believe that our position, not me personally but our position, in favor of defending innocent lives from dismemberment, chemical poisoning and other brutal, violent methods employed by the abortionists is right and moral and I make absolutely no apologies for that. I judge no one. I look at the deed--killing babies--and make judgments about the deed and whether this Congress should facilitate this unethical deed.