Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the D and C, the D and E, which are late-term dismemberment abortion methods, and the saline abortion method are routinely done in abortion mills in this country. There's nothing obscure about that, as suggested by the last speaker. If this language is approved, if the DeLauro amendment is approved, these methods of killing will begin in our military hospitals, turning them into abortion mills. That would be an outrage. Let's not facilitate abortion. Vote `no'' on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to my good friend and colleague from Alaska's amendment to strike the Indian Child Welfare Act reforms from this bill. The dismal numbers on adoption make it clear that our laws have created severe roadblocks for adoption in this country. No one disagrees with that. Roughly 55,000 adoptions are finalized each year in this country-- down from 89,000 in 1970. Yet 500,000 kids languish every year in foster care. Many of them are not special needs kids or at least they were not, before they entered the system. Many of them are children who, at one time, could have easily been placed with the estimated, 2 million couples that are currently waiting to adopt a child. These numbers didn't just happen by accident. It was bad laws that failed these kids. One of the worst examples of this is how the Indian Child Welfare Act has been misused to promote a political theory at the heartbreaking expense of some very real children and families, as well as the entire institution of adoption. It is tragic, unenlightened and unnecessary. Some of you may have read about the Swenson case. Shortly after his birth, Casey Swenson's birth mother, who is not native American, placed Casey for adoption. This woman courageously made the decision to place her child in the care of a couple who, among other things, shared her faith in the LDS Church. Casey's birth father is Oglala Sioux but he has never sought custody of Casey. He has had nothing to do with the boy from day one. He has totally abandoned the child. The tribal counsel, also, never voted to seek custody. A tribal bureaucrat, however, whose job is to administer Indian Child Welfare Act grant money, decided to expand his turf and seek custody of the child for the tribe--in opposition to the birth mother's wishes. He enlisted the help of Idaho Legal Services for the job. Mercifully the Swensons prevailed. But it took 6 years of litigation--all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court--and over $100,000 in legal fees. The Swensons lost their home and farm too; not to mention many cruel, sleepless nights for the child, his sister, the birth mother, and his adoptive parents. Keep in mind one thing which we know from actual case histories. When a birth mother, who falls under the Indian Child Welfare Act, but does not want her child raised by a tribe, hears of these adoption nightmares it sends a very clear message: Adoption may present a long and hard court battle with no ultimate control over the outcome. Abortion or single parenting, on the other hand--her other two options--present total control over the ultimate custodial arrangement. Why this legal disincentive to adopt when it presents such an enriching option for the child? The extraordinary power of the tribes to veto adoptions has reached children with as little as 1/64 Indian blood. A vote for the Young amendment is a vote for a legal incentive to abort or single-parent. It is insane to allow this. Tribes are important cultural and political institutions but not so important that they should trump a mother's interest in who will raise her children in the event that she cannot. Not a single person here would tolerate a law which mandated that, in the event of your own incapacity, you could not place your child in the care of a close friend who shared many of your religious or cultural views on parenting--simply because your ethnicities did not match. The Indian Child Welfare Act now means as much. To say that because you come from, say, Irish descent and your friend is Polish, or African-American, then the Government can exclude them from consideration for custody is obscene. Would any of us tolerate such a law for ourselves? No. So don't vote for this one. This is supposed to be America and the Indian Child Welfare Act was never meant to cover voluntary adoptions. It is the height of hypocrisy to legislate for others what you would not tolerate for yourself. Lets not do it here. Defeat the Young amendment. Keep the Pryce provisions in this bill for the good of all children and parents who may at some point need sensible adoption laws.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I just want to make it very clear that I am urging Members of this Chamber to vote no on the motion to strike and to support the underlying language, the Pryce language, that is included in the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, adoption has long been recognized as a loving arrangement for a woman who conceives a child, but is unable to provide her child the care that she knows that the baby needs and deserves. It seems to me that the last thing that the Federal Government should be doing is to create a situation where a woman faces fewer obstacles if she aborts her son or daughter than if she chooses to place her child in an adoptive fashion. As it is, the consent of the biological father is needed for adoption, but not abortion. But the Indian Child Welfare Act further exacerbates this treatment of the two options. If the baby has even the remotest link to Indian ancestry, the tribe can intervene and disrupt an adoption plan, no matter how little, if any, contact the mother or father has had with the tribe. Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, a mother pursuing adoption is not in control of whether her child is placed with a family of her own faith or background or values, nor is she able to make any other important decisions regarding her child's future. If she wishes to relinquish her parental rights in order to pursue an adoption plan, she may lose control of her child's future, to persons unrelated, and who may not even care about that child. Madam Speaker, I support this very important legislation that is being offered.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to describe the Clinton administration's policy on arms embargo against Bosnia: breathtakingly duplicitous. Duplicitous first in that the White House repeatedly and strenuously rebuffed congressional efforts to lift the illegal and immoral arms embargo in violation of Bosina's legitimate right to self defense. Duplicitous in that the President authorized a policy which effectively sanctioned arms shipments from Iran, of all places, Iran, a terrorist state, to Bosnia via Croatia. This latest fiasco underscores the crisis of leadership we have seen time and time again over the last 3 years. I commend both Chairman Gilman and Chairman Thomas for their leadership in pursuing this matter. The House Committee on International Relations recently held a hearing on United States policy towards Bosnia which delved into charges that the Clinton administration approved or allowed Iran to ship arms to Bosnia. Frankly, that hearing raised more questions than it answered. Mr. Speaker, as a House sponsor of the bipartisan effort to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, I am extremely concerned about the implications and consequences of such a policy should these allegations be substantiated. It is ironic that President Clinton apparently was willing to turn a blind eye toward Iran while blocking a majority of Congress, a bipartisan majority, that called for the United States, not Iran, to take the lead in upholding Bosnia's legitimate and fundamental right to defend itself. In a recent interview, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton agreement, indicated that the situation on the ground in Bosnia had reached such a crisis that the Bosnian Government would not have survived without outside arms shipments. In attempting to justify the Clinton policy on Iranian shipments. Mr. Holbrooke concluded, and I quote, ``We knew that the Iranians would try to use the aid to buy political interest. It was a calculated policy based on the feeling that you had to choose between a lot of bad choices,'' close quote. Bad choices, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, but there had to be a better choice than the one that was embraced by President Clinton. Should the Bosnians been given the means to defend themselves in the face of aggression and genocide? Absolutely. Should those arms have come from Iran? Absolutely not. In the past 2 years, Mr. Speaker, Members from both sides of the aisle have put aside their differences to respond to this senseless slaughter of innocent civilians by well-armed Serb militants in Bosnia. Repeatedly we have raised our voices, calling upon the President to display a determined U.S. leadership in the face of this naked aggression. These calls were repeatedly rebuffed. When we voted in an overwhelming manner in support of lifting the arms embargo on June 8, 1995 and again on August 1, we were told by the White House that such an action was not in the interest of the United States as it would lead to an Americanization of the conflict. It would result in the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops, and undermine the U.N. Security Council. Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, the fundamental issue at stake here, as in so many other instances, is one of leadership and in this case flawed leadership. For nearly 3 years, Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration, like the one before it--and I was equally critical of the previous administration, as my colleagues know on the other side--passed the buck on Bosnia. But the President and then candidate Clinton said that he knew better, and he argued that during the campaign years and during his first few months in office. They said the Europeans should handle this. Now they turn a blind eye to who would provide the arms and allow the Iranians to do it. It is shameful, and unfortunately it has led to the situation that we are in today. Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of this resolution. It is a good one.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2137, sponsored by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, Dick Zimmer, designed to correct a flaw in the 1994 crime bill concerning registration of criminal sex offenders and notification provisions. The weakness of the 1994 omnibus crime bill could and should have been resolved in the original legislation, but it was not. Members may recall, for example, that on July 13, 1994, the House voted on a motion by the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] to instruct the conferees to insist on Senate provisions that call on States to track sexually violent offenders released from jail and allow law enforcement agencies acting in good faith and with immunity from liability laws to notify communities of their presence. The conferees turned a blind eye to that motion. This legislation is an excellent attempt to correct this omission from the 1994 crime bill. Mr. Speaker, as my friend pointed out, in late July 1994, a young 7- year-old girl named Megan Kanka was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered by a twice-convicted sex offender who lived across the street from the Kanka's home in Hamilton Township, which is in my district. The entire community, Mr. Speaker, was absolutely stunned and horrified. Despite the fact that they were overcome with indescribable grief and pain, Megan's heroic parents, Maureen and Richard, mounted a full court press to enact State and Federal legislation to track criminal sex offenders and to inform and notify communities of their whereabouts. In New Jersey, State Senator Pete Inverso and Assemblyman Paul Kramer, with the full backing of Governor Christie Whitman, quickly moved on legislation that became known as Megan's law. Other States followed suit. Still many States lag in enacting laws to inform communities as to the proximity of sex offenders. I still find it tragic beyond words, Mr. Speaker, that no one knew that Megan Kanka's killer lived across the street. No one knew that the murderer was a two-time convicted sex offender who was released from prison in 1988 after spending 6 years of a 10-year sentence. No one knew that he lived with two other men who had previous records of sex crimes against children. No one knew that unspeakable danger and perversion was in the neighborhood and no one knew that 1 day that perversion would lure an innocent child to her death. Megan's courageous parents had an absolute right to know of this danger, and they have been working ever since to protect other parents from going through that terrible agony that they have suffered. All parents, Mr. Speaker, have a clear and compelling need to know if their neighbors prey on kids. This legislation advances that cause.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California pointed out, I had misgivings about the consolidation taken as it was originally passed by the House, but we worked with that. There was a spirit of compromise, a spirit of giving and taking, and we got from a consolidation of three agencies down to one, leaving the option to the President of the United States to decide which agency would go. It is my feeling that USIA would not go. It is made up of many more people than ACDA and ACDA was the most likely, which is a relic of the cold war period. I did not know that for sure, but now I have come to that conclusion after much study and research. So it could be done. We have got to save money.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time. Let me just begin by expressing my very sincere thanks for the great job that Chairman Ben Gilman did in sheparding this legislation through the Congress, through both Houses, through a very difficult markup in full committee, the divisive floor fight that we had. Regrettably it was divisive, and then a very difficult conference, and now we are trying to deal with an override attempt, and hopefully that will succeed. He did a very good job. He was very fair, and this legislation, I think, is a very reasonable piece of legislation that merits the support of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton vetoed H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1996 and 1997, he gave a number of reasons. He said that we were spending too little. He said it was somehow inappropriate for Congress to require the executive branch to consolidate Federal agencies even though the legislation mirrored Secretary Christopher's consolidation proposal. As a matter of fact, it was even less, far less than what actually Secretary Christopher wanted us to do. You might call it ``Christopher light'' in that regard. It would only consolidate and get rid of one agency rather than three. The President said it was inappropriate to prohibit the expansion of our Embassy in Hanoi until the Hanoi regime comes clean on POW's and MIA's. Mr. Speaker, I think the POW-MIA issue is one of the most important issues this Congress, this country could ever face, and not to link those issues with an ongoing effort to resume full diplomatic relations with Hanoi would be a serious mistake. Mr. Speaker, he objected to the provision of H.R. 1561 which states that the Taiwan Relations Act supersedes the joint communiques with the People's Republic of China, even though this is a simple and uncontroversial statement of law and fact. A law enacted by Congress and signed by the President does supersede an agreement entered into only by the executive to the extent that there is any conflict between the two. Then the President provided a laundry list, apparently generated by the State Department bureaucracies, of other provisions that they would prefer not to have been in the bill. By discussing these issues and only these issues, the President's veto message managed to obscure what H.R. 1561 is really all about. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a human rights bill. It is about the United States vigorously pursuing a foreign policy which is internationalist, not isolationist, which is driven by fairness and justice and not by diplomatic convenience. Despite the need to cut spending and consolidate programs, H.R. 1561 as passed by the House and Senate manages to hold harmless or even enhance the most important programs and to enact important policy provisions that will support freedom, building democracy and save lives. Mr. Speaker, even more important than spending levels are the foreign policy provisions themselves. The bill contains a number of important provisions that would require human rights be at the centerpiece of our U.S. foreign policy. For example, the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act, section 1617 of the bill, would limit assistance to countries that restrict the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. I offered this language to the bill, and I was also the prime sponsor of the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act because it is wrong, absolutely wrong for any country receiving American assistance to keep United States humanitarian assistance from reaching another country; yet this is precisely what is being done by Turkey, which has been blockading Armenia for several years. The result? People die, children and mothers and families get sicker because our medicines and our foodstuffs never get to Armenia, and those that do get there get there in much lesser amounts. Then take, for example, the MacBride principles, guaranteeing that U.S. assistance programs in Northern Ireland will only go toward projects that do not engage in religious discrimination, which provide employment opportunities for members of the region's Catholic minority. Here Mr. Clinton has done 180 degrees. He has done a flip-flop. Members might recall that in April 1992, when asked about the MacBride principles, then-candidate Clinton said: I like the principles; I believe in them. He went on to say how strongly he supports them. And yet in a letter that we received from the White House dated April 11, Anthony Lake writes: The President does not believe it would be useful to place conditions on the funding we provide to the International Fund for Ireland. He is now against the MacBride principles. An election is coming up, so expect another flip-flop right before the election on this one. The proof is in the deed. The President vetoed the MacBride principles, Mr. Speaker, and now we have a situation where the discrimination goes on unabated. Mr. Speaker, I have so much to say in so little time. On refugee protection we provided very, very important language in this bill that protects the Vietnamese boat people, people who fought with us side-by- side, who this administration has in the past tried to send back, joining with some in the international community. Mr. Speaker, we would help those people and we also, as the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, pointed out, would help those women who today languish in U.S. prisons. Their only crime? They were victims of forced abortion. These women who appeared before my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights came in in chains, Mr. Speaker. These women were almost 3 years in custody simply because they fled the tyranny of the People's Republic of China. Mr. Speaker, this legislation reinstates the Reagan-Bush policy of a well-founded fear of persecution being sufficient if they can prove that they have or are in fear of getting a forced abortion. Mr. Speaker, we have many, many other important provisions in here dealing with broadcasting, protecting Radio Marti and Radio Free Asia and making sure that those important freedom broadcasts get up and running. This is a good bill. I urge Members to vote to override the President's veto on this important human rights legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record, the following information: refugee protection The refugee provisions of H.R. 1561 would prevent United States tax dollars from being spent to return to Viet Nam and Laos thousands of men and women who served side-by-side with American forces. These provisions would also restore the Reagan-Bush policy of protecting people who can show that they are fleeing forced abortion or forced sterilization, or that they have actually been subjected to such measures--such as the women now being held in Bakersfield, California, most of them victims of forced abortion or forced sterilization, all of them about to be forced back to the People's Republic of China. Mr. Chairman, this urgent humanitarian provision has passed both the House and Senate by wide margins. The Administration recently announced that it supports this provision. And yet, tragically, President Clinton vetoed the bill that would have enacted it. H.R. 1561 would also require periodic reports to Congress on what Fidel Castro is doing to enforce his end of the Clinton-Castro immigration deal of 1994, and on how people are treated who are returned to Cuba pursuant to the second Clinton-Castro immigration deal of May 1995. And it would fill a gap in the law by prohibiting the use of authorized funds to return people to places in which they are in clear danger of being subjected to torture. democracy building and freedom support Despite the need for cuts in international broadcasting and other public diplomacy programs, H.R. 1561 would hold harmless two of our ``freedom broadcasting'' programs: Radio Free Asia and Radio/TV Marti. The bill would also require that when cuts must be made, they must not fall disproportionately on broadcasts to countries such as Iran and Iraq, whose people do not enjoy freedom of information within their own country. The bill also requires that Radio Free Asia commence its broadcasts into China, Viet Nam, North Korea, Burma, and other countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy, within 6 months. And the bill would continue the authority for scholarship and exchange programs for Burmese and Tibetan scholars who have been forced into exile by the dictatorships that currently exercise authority in these countries. Mr. Speaker, even if the President were right to oppose some provisions of H.R. 1561, these human rights provisions were far more important. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Which is more essential to America's role in the world: Preserving the federal bureaucracy in exactly the same structure it happens to have now, or helping to end pervasive discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland? Making the embassy in Hanoi the biggest embassy it can possibly be, or ending blockades against U.S. humanitarian aid to Armenia and other countries? The sensibilities of the dictatorship in Beijing, the soldiers of Beijing, or the internationally recognized human rights of torture victims? The President had a clear choice. He chose to throw the baby out with the bath water. Today we in Congress--all of us, Republicans and Democrats, who are interested in a vigorous American foreign policy based on American values--have a chance to correct the President's mistake. Let us override this veto by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. Governor Clinton on MacBride Principles at Irish Forum, New York in April, 1992 I. QUESTION BY RAY O'HANLON, IRISH ECHO: IN EFFECT: IF ELECTED WOULD HE

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman from Virginia that the foreign aid portion of this legislation was dropped in conference. This is consolidation and State Department reauthorization part C, which was in the original bill, and the gentleman is correct in noting that that was dropped, so the bill that the President vetoed had nothing whatsoever to do with the foreign aid portion of the legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Just let me say that, as my colleague knows, he must find some things in this bill that he agrees with. I mean we worked together on the refugee provisions. There are a lot of things in this bill: the boat people, protections that are in the bill. But let me just say, so the record is very, very clear about this, during markup of this legislation we had five hearings that preceded the markup in my subcommittee because major provisions of this bill went through my subcommittee because we are the committee of jurisdiction on the State Department. I was much aghast and chagrined by the fact that my ranking member walked out. Rather than participate in the markup, he walked out. So we talk about bipartisanship. We sought at every turn to include rather than to exclude.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I should also say that I share some of the frustration of my colleagues. This legislation is the result of a compromise. As with every compromise, there are things in the bill I would have preferred not to have. The bill also omits some provisions I would have liked to see included. On balance, however, Chairman Livingston and our leadership have brought back a victory for the pro-life majority in the House, and a victory for the protection of unborn children. Our most significant victory is that the conference report does not include the Hatfield language, which was included in the Senate bill and would have effectively written a blank check to the international abortion industry. Last year the House voted several times to condition U.S. funding for population control activities on the Mexico City policy--a prohibition of funding for foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion. The House also voted to condition its support for the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] on an end to UNFPA support to the forced abortion policy of the People's Republic of China. The House provisions recognized that money is fungible. The fiction advanced by the other side--that international population control agencies can use bookkeeping devices to spend their money on abortions, and our money on everything else--ignores this reality. United States taxpayers do not want their money going to organizations which support the PRC program that includes forced abortion which themselves perform abortions, or which seek to export abortions to countries that currently protect their unborn children. If population-control organizations insist that they want population money only for family planning activities unrelated to abortion, they could do so under the House provisions by getting out of the abortion business. The Mexico City policy did not and would not lessen the overall U.S. contribution to international family planning. Almost all of the organizations which had received funding agreed to the terms of the policy and continued to receive funding. But the Mexico City policy has prevented these U.S. dollars from being used to enrich the international abortion lobby or to support its self-serving efforts to legalize abortion as a method of birth control. Unfortunately, pro-abortion organizations would not let the foreign aid appropriations bill go forward unless they can get U.S. dollars and continue to pressure other nations to sanction abortion on demand-- pressure which would appear to be endorsed by the United States because these groups receive substantial U.S. financial support. For this reason, the House and Senate reached an impasse in negotiations, even though the House made several concessions in its pro-life language. The issue was finally resolved by compromising not on abortion policy itself, but on the level of funding and the timing of expenditures. We dropped the Mexico City language in favor of a 35 percent cut in funds for international population control, and a provision that only one- fifteenth of the funding could be obligated in each of the 15 months for which fiscal year 96 funds will be available. These provisions were designed to give both sides time--and an incentive--to negotiate further on the abortion issue. But the largest recipients of grants for population programs, and some of their supporters in Congress, instead chose to make wild and unsubstantiated charges against the compromise. Pro-abortion organizations were even accusing pro-life Members of Congress of causing more abortions. They had a simple formula: less money for abortion providers means more abortions, and more money for abortion providers means fewer abortions. Mr. Speaker, the conferees have recognized this assertion for the nonsense that it is, and they have omitted the pro-abortion Senate language. Mr. Speaker, U.S. spending for population control has gone up dramatically in the last 3 years--from $325 million in fiscal year 1992 to about $550 million in fiscal year 1995--even in a time when money has been generally tight and many Federal expenditures have stayed level or declined. Even aside from concerns about the abortion issue, the Clinton administration has been giving disproportionate emphasis to population control as a solution to all problems. Our first foreign aid priorities should be programs that save the lives of children, protect refugees who are fleeing persecution, and create free and self- sustaining economic systems for people in emerging nations. The logic of disproportionate spending on population control seems to be that people will not need help if they are not around. Not only is this policy morally questionable, but it will not work. The reduced funding level for population programs in fiscal year 1996 under the recent compromise will be about $356 million. This is substantially more than the United States spent on all population control programs in fiscal year 1992, or in any other year prior to the dramatic increases of the Clinton era. Finally, and most important, the population-control lobby can eliminate the statutory ceiling imposed by the compromise--simply by agreeing to reasonable restrictions on international abortion-related spending. All we want is to re-erect a wall of separation between abortion and family planning. Mr. Speaker, I also want to call attention to another important provision of the conference report: the Coates-Snowe-DeLay amendment, which is necessary to preserve the accreditation of medical schools that do not require their students to actively perform abortions. At the urging of the pro-abortion movement the ACGME imposed a rule that would have frozen out of the profession those students who would not do abortions. This provision will effectively reverse that coercive, anti- life, power play by the abortion industry. Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to see even more pro-life provisions in the conference report. There are also other important omissions. Mr. Gilman submitted a list of 18 noncontroversial provision from H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. These important provisions included the MacBride principles for justice in Northern Ireland, the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act, the restoration of asylum eligibility for forced abortion victims, and the extension of the Lautenberg amendment which has saved so many Jews and evangelical Christians in the former Soviet Union from persecution. Unfortunately, President Clinton saw fit to veto the bill that contained these important human rights provisions. I believe they should have been included in this conference report, especially because the report includes a waiver of the statutory requirement that there be an authorization for the State Department during fiscal year 1996. But I know the going was tough--the majority of the Senate conferees and the White House were both against us, especially on the pro-life issues--and I congratulate Chairman Livingston and the leadership on their firm stand in favor of human life. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are voting on today represents a sensible, humane path to a balanced budget. This bill preserves vital Federal programs, but also cuts unnecessary Federal spending. The purpose of balancing the budget is not to make accountants sleep easier at night. Holding the line on spending is about getting our priorities straightened out. And it also keeps our commitment to create jobs and increase opportunities. The whole point of cutting the budget deficit is about creating economic opportunity and a better future. It's about lowering interest rates, spurring investment, and securing and creating more, better paying jobs. This bill protects the Federal role and pledge to those who truly need help, and makes sure that their needs will not be ignored. It keeps our commitment to our veterans, $400 million in additional funds for health care; to children in Heathy Start, $93 million; and education programs for the disadvantaged, $7.2 billion; it boosts funding to $738 million for the Ryan White CARE Act to help people suffering from AIDS; and includes $1.34 billion for job and vocational training programs. It also keeps our commitment to seniors, especially older workers in Older Americans Act jobs programs, $373 million. Equally important, this bill pares back spending by $23 billion. It eliminates some 200 separate programs, many of them wasteful or duplicative. In the era of a $5 trillion dollar debt, we simply cannot afford to spend $18.4 million on the Office of Technology Assessment, $12.5 million for cattle tick eradication programs, and $850,000 for historical society calendars for Members of Congress. This bill has shown that even in the absence of a comprehensive agreement over how best to reform Medicare and Medicaid, we can still make progress on the budget. What is not highlighted in the media is that fact that below the surface of these highly visible budget battles, Congress has been able to cut these duplicative and unnecessary Government programs and regulations through the annual appropriations process. Our progress since 1994 has been to cut $43 billion from the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office's latest fiscal year 1996 deficit estimates are lower than expected--down to $144 billion, from a level almost $200 billion in 1994. And that decline is in large measure the result of Republican votes to put our Government on a diet. Through careful and judicious cuts, we have changed the entire debate in Washington. When President Clinton submitted his 1993 budget, taxes were raised retroactively. The question now is not if we should balance the budget, but how and when. Of course, the devil is the details. Raising taxes may be a favorite of the President's, but I am committed to holding the line on spending and taxes, setting firm priorities in spending, and keeping the commitments we made to our constituents. I think it is worth noting here that H.R. 3019 leaves H.R. 2099--the VA/HUD appropriations bill which Mr. Clinton vetoed on December 8, 1995--virtually unchanged. Keep in mind that this is the same congressional budget which the VA Secretary called ``mean spirited''. Now we find that this so-called mean spirited budget--which includes a nearly $400,000,000 increase in VA health spending over fiscal year 1995 levels--was really perfectly acceptable to the President all along. After 7 months of leaving the VA without an appropriation, we find that the President had no major problem with what Congress originally passed. I think, however, that in the end, all sides of the budget debate can hopefully draw some useful lessons from the bill. Here we have a bill that lowers the deficit and puts us ahead of schedule on discretionary spending. And it was done without the Government shutting down, but by rolling up our sleeves and making the tough choices.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House Committee on International Relations held a timely hearing on U.S. policy toward Bosnia which delved into charges that the Clinton administration tacitly allowed Iran to ship arms to Bosnia via Croatia. Unfortunately, there were more serious questions raised during the course of that hearing than were answered by administration representatives. As the House sponsor of a bipartisan effort to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, I am extremely concerned about the implications and consequences of such a policy should these allegations indeed be substantiated. It is ironic that President Clinton apparently was willing to turn a blind eye toward Iran while blocking a majority in the Congress--a bipartisan majority--that called for the United States--not Iran--to take the lead in upholding Bosnia's legitimate and fundamental right to defend itself. Should the Bosnians have been given the means to defend themselves in the face of aggression and genocide? Absolutely. Should those arms have come from Iran? Absolutely not. In the past few years, Members from both sides of the aisle put aside their differences to respond to the senseless slaughter of innocent civilians by well-armed Serb militants in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Repeatedly we raised our voices calling upon the President to display determined U.S. leadership in the face of aggression and genocide. These calls were repeatedly rebuffed. When we voted in overwhelming support to lift the arms embargo, we were told by the White House that such an action was not in the interest of the United States as it would lead to an ``Americanization'' of the conflict, result in the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops, and undermine the U.S. Security Council. Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, the fundamental issue at stake here--as in so many other instances--is one of leadership. For nearly 3 years the Clinton administration, like the one before it, largely passed the buck on Bosnia. The Europeans, for their part, raised the specter of Islamic fundamentalism as an excuse for inaction. Mr. Speaker, it is inexplicable how turning a blind eye toward Iran--a terrorist state--was in the interest of the United States. Regrettably, the international community and the United States refused to undertake meaningful action themselves to end the genocide or to provide the Bosnians with the means to defend themselves. By default at best, and with U.S. acquiescence at worst, Teheran was allowed to fill in the gap resulting from the failure of the Clinton administration to act and to lead. By turning a blind eye in this instance, President Clinton has unwittingly strengthened a small nationalist minority in Bosnia at the expense of those truly committed to the preservation of a multiethnic state; damaged our position in the United Nations; and potentially expose the 20,000 American troops he ordered to Bosnia to even greater danger. Mr. Speaker, I commend the House leadership for pursuing this matter given its implications for U.S. interests in the Balkans and beyond.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution which recognizes the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the worst in recorded history, and supports the closing of the Chernobyl nuclear powerplant. Yesterday, I chaired a Helsinki commission hearing that examined the devastating consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. That hearing, Mr. Speaker, featured the ambassadors of Ukraine and Belarus, the two countries most gravely affected by the disaster. Professor Murray Feshback of Georgetown University and Alexander Kuzma of the Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund also provided sound scientific and medical details about the public health crisis that exists. A decade ago, in the early morning hours of April 26, 1986, reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear powerplant exploded, releasing into the atmosphere massive quantities of radioactive substances. The highest amount of radioactive fallout was registered in the vicinity immediately surrounding Chernobyl, some 60 miles north of Ukraine's capital, Kiev. At that time, the prevailing winds were directed north to northwest, so that Belarus received some 70 percent of the total radioactive fallout. Subsequent shifts of the wind, and rainfall, affected northern Ukraine, southwest Russia and beyond, with excessive levels of radiation recorded in northern Scandinavia, various parts of continental Europe, and even as far away as coastal Alaska. Estimated total radioactivity from the blast was 200 times more radioactivity than was released from the atomic bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, Chernobyl left its indelible mark on the world's consciousness. Given the monumental consequences of Chernobyl and its devastating toll on the environment and on the health of the surrounding population, this disaster must neither be forgotten nor repeated. Indeed, Chernobyl can never be forgotten by those most directly affected. The tragedy is ongoing. And with each passing anniversary, we uncover more and more about its devastating impact and serious radiological, health and socioeconomic consequences, especially on the populations of Ukraine, Belarus, and western Russia. Millions of people--including about 1 million children--in Ukraine, Belarus and western Russian were exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation. Millions continue to live in areas contaminated to one degree or another. Children, in particular, have experienced alarming increases in thyroid cancer and other conditions. These trends have accelerated since the disaster and are expected to increase well into the future. In Belarus Gomel region, for instance, which was one of the hardest hit areas, thyroid cancer among children is at least 200 times that of preaccident. Scientists differ over the extent of Chernobyl- related diseases, but few deny that children have been hardest hit by the radiological aftermath. Given the devastating humanitarian, ecological and economic consequences, the resolution calls upon the President to support continued and enhanced U.S. assistance to provide medical relief, humanitarian assistance, social impact planning, and hospital development for Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and other nations most heavily afflicted. Because this disaster is the only one of its magnitude, there is much about its long-term health consequences we do not yet know. Among the most affected were the so-called ``liquidators'', the hundreds of thousands of people who worked to clean up after the accident. Many received substantial doses of radiation. Estimates vary on how many of them have died or become seriously ill. However, we must learn more about the health of those most affected by the disaster, especially the children who were exposed to substantial doses of radiation. The resolution encourages national and international health organizations to expand the scope of research of the public health consequences of Chernobyl. Such research could help not only those directly affected, but can also ensure that the entire world can benefit from the findings. By supporting assistance and research efforts, we will be doing our part to help overcome the devastating legacy of Chernobyl. Unfortunately, there are still 15 RBMK, Chernobyl-type reactors still being utilized in the former Soviet Union, most of them in Russia. The international community can help Ukraine and Russia improve the safety of their nuclear reactors, especially since Ukraine relies substantially on nuclear power for its energy needs. Mr. Speaker, one very important component of this resolution is that it urges 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. The signatories to the MOU recognize the tremendous costs involved in closing down Chernobyl and its impact on a country undergoing the unbelievably difficult transition from communism to a market-oriented democracy. Ukraine devotes more of its resources to dealing with the Chernobyl aftermath than for its military. According to testimony from the Belarusian Ambassador, Belarus is compelled to spend year in and year out up to 25 percent of its budget to try to cope with the aftermath of Chernobyl. In response, the G-7 has thus far committed some $3 billion in loans and grants to assist with the closure of Chernobyl. Recognizing the country's dire energy situation, equally important is the G-7's broader cooperation with Ukraine to impose market discipline on its inefficient energy sector and make it more rational. Moreover, the MOU recognizes the implications--for the thousands of workers and their families--of closing the Chernobyl plant. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster marks a tragic milestone in the history of Ukraine, Belarus, and the world. This week we commemorate the 10th anniversary of this nuclear explosion, one of the most bitter legacies of Soviet communism. The legacy has had tremendous and mounting human costs. Its environmental, medical, social, political and economic consequences continue to have a profound impact on countries in the region, especially on Ukraine and Belarus and western Russia, which bore the brunt of Chernobyl's radioactive fallout. Mr. Speaker, this resolution which is also being introduced in the Senate is important and timely. I am joined by my colleagues Rep. Ben Gilman, Rep. Frank Wolf, Rep. Ben Cardin, Rep. Ed Markey, Rep. Matt Salmon, Rep. Bob Torricelli, Rep. Sander Levin, Rep. David Bonior, Rep. Richard Durbin, and Rep. Luis Guttierez in introducing this resolution and I urge our colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the Armenian genocide, as we do every year on April 24. This is a time of solemn remembrance, as Armenians everywhere set apart this day to mark the genocide perpetrated against them by the Ottoman empire in 1915 and afterwards. For friends of Armenians, this is an occasion to express condolences and to show solidarity with the worldwide Armenian community. We not only mourn with them the loss of some 1.5 million Armenians but we voice our determination to prevent any such horrors from recurring. Unfortunately, the Armenian genocide was only the first in this bloody century of horrors. Since then, powerful states have singled out and massacred other ethnic, racial or religious minorities, and to judge by the atrocities committed in this decade in Yugoslavia, human cruelty knows no bounds of geography, race or religion. Neverthleless, Armenians--the first victims of genocide this century--have served as models of strength, steadfastness and resistance. The most important target of resistance is amnesia. Armenians have taught us the lesson that some events are too important not to recall--no matter how painful--for the particular nation in question, and for all of us, but equally important is the lesson that a nation's hopes do not flicker out with the loss of so many of its children. Instead of being defeated, the wound can steel the soul and fertilize dreams of freedom and security. Today, an independent Armenian state guarantees the security and future of the nation. Despite all the difficulties and travails of the last few years, Armenia has defended its people and will continue to do so. For our part, we today signal our commitment to foster all efforts to resolve the causes of tension between Armenia and its neighbors. The road to peace and normal relations among the states of Transcaucasia is arduous, but it must be pursued by all the peoples of the region with the decisiveness and strength that Armenians have demonstrated in keeping alive their traditions and striving for freedom.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to section 422 of the conference report on S. 735, which provides for the summary exclusion of persons attempting to enter the United States without proper documentation. It is important that we exclude persons who would abuse our generous immigration laws, and it is important that the process of exclusion be a speedy one. It is also important, however, that the process be fair-- and particularly that it not result in sending genuine refugees back to persecution. Section 422 provides that no person shall be summarily excluded if, in the opinion of an asylum officer at the port of entry, he or she has a credible fear of persecution. Unfortunately, the definitions of asylum officer and of credible fear of persecution are not as clear as they might be. In particular, the definition of asylum officer requires professional training in asylum law, country conditions, and interviewing techniques, but does not state how much training or what kind. I am informed that assurances have been given from the staff members who worked on drafting the conference report that there is absolutely no intention that officers should be put in these positions who are not genuine asylum officers. Mr. Chairman, the INS now has a professionally trained corps of asylum officers, who have had substantial training in handling asylum cases. It should be clear that when we in Congress speak of asylum officers, we mean these professionally trained officers--people who by training and experience think of themselves as adjudicators rather than as enforcement officers--not some other officer who has been given a short course in asylum law and then given this extraordinary power to send people back to dangerous places. Mr. Speaker, I think it should also be clear that our asylum officers will need to be very careful in applying the credible fear standard. In a close case, they must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. There are also some countries--such as Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq--in which persecution is so pervasive that any credible applicant would have a significant chance of success in the asylum process. Asylum applicants should not be returned to these totalitarian regimes without a full hearing. I hope that regulations will be promptly adopted that explicitly provide for these and other safeguards in the summary exclusion process.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, even if President Clinton bows to the pressure of the pro-abortion lobby and vetoes the partial- birth abortion ban, the fact that the Congress, in what will be, as it was previously, a bipartisan vote in support of the ban and the fact that the American people of all political persuasions, men and women of all ages, are beginning, and I mean just beginning, to face the truth and reality about the cruelty of abortion on demand will have made all of this worth the effort. I chair the subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. I also am chairman of the Helsinki Commission. I have been in this body now for some 16 years, Madam Speaker. I have always found when we work on human rights issues, it is never easy, whether it be trying to help a Soviet Jew, whether it be trying to help a persecuted Christian in the People's Republic of China, there are always these so- called unwanted people everywhere. Regrettably, the human rights abuse in this country is that which is directed at the most innocent and the most defenseless of all human beings, unborn children. This is the violation of human rights in the United States of America in 1996, the killing of unborn children, 1\1/2\ million or so per year on demand, and most of them are for birth control reasons, not the hard cases, life of the mother or even rape and incest. They constitute a very small, infinitesimal number of the abortions. Most of the abortions are done on demand. Madam Speaker, I believe very strongly that the 22-year coverup of abortion methods, including chemical poisoning of babies is coming to an end. I think most people are beginning to realize, salt solutions are routinely injected into the baby's body, killing that baby, because of the corrosive impact of the salt. And they are appalled. Another method of abortion, the most commonly procured method, is the dismemberment, D&C suction method, where the baby's body is literally ripped to shreds. We have, because of the leadership of subcommittee Chairman Charles Canady's bill, hopefully, achieved the end of a very gruesome method of abortion, the partial-birth abortion method. This method in recent years has been done increasingly. It is being done in the later terms, in the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th months of the babies' gestational ages. And, hopefully, even though the President may veto this, this will be the beginning of an effort to outlaw this sickening form of child abuse. This picture to my left is truly worth a thousand words. It shows what the doctor does, and I just would like to use the doctor who is one of the pioneers of this gruesome method. I will just very succinctly read his statement as to how this method is done. His name is Dr. Martin Haskell, a doctor who performs partial-birth abortions by the hundreds. He has said, and I quote, The surgeon takes a pair of blunt, curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip curved down along the spine under his middle finger until he feels contact at the base of the skull under the tip of the middle finger. The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon then removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. When the catheter is in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient. What this so-called doctor is describing, Madam Speaker, is infanticide. The baby is partially born, and this so-called doctor then kills the baby in this hideous method. Hopefully, this legislation will get a second shot, not withstanding the President's veto, so we can outlaw this gruesome form of child abuse and banish it from this land.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for more than two decades the multimillion-dollar abortion industry has sanitized abortion methods by aggressively employing the most clever and most benign of euphemisms market research can buy. Until today they succeeded in a massive coverup about the sickening truth about abortion methods, including chemical poisoning of the child by highly concentrated salt water or some other potion, dismemberment of the baby's fragile body by a knife connected to a suction machine that is 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average vacuum cleaner, and now brain extraction, the method at issue today, as if the child's brain were a diseased tooth in need of extraction or a tumor to be excised. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, partial- birth abortion is child abuse. And those who do it today have an unfettered right to kill. We can revoke that license to kill, Mr. Speaker, and we must. If the President vetoes this legislation, then he alone will have empowered the abortionist to kill babies in this way. If he vetoes this bill, he renews this license to kill. He bears the responsibility for the thousands of kids who will die from this hideous method of abortion. Veto this bill, and there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Bill Clinton will go down in history as the abortion President. Mr. Speaker, the abortion lobby lies to women and they lie to society at large, and they usually get away with it. But not this time. On this issue, they have said that partial-birth abortion is used primarily to save the life of the mother, an exception included in the bill, or for the deformity of the child. Leaving aside the inhumane notion that handicapped kids are throw-aways or are to be construed as so much garbage, I thought we took care of that with passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which said that handicapped people have rights and they have inherent value, and we need to respect that. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is then, perhaps most of the partial-birth abortions procured in the United States are elective; in other words, they are abortions on demand. Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist who alone has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, said in a tape recorded interview with the American Medical News that of the procedures he does, from 20 to 24 weeks, 80 percent are, ``purely elective.'' Mr. Speaker, the abortion lobby has also said that anesthesia kills the babies before they are removed from the womb. Even if that excuse were true, even if that rationalization were true, it would still mean that a baby dies. But again it is another lie. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, the ASA, has testified that such an assertion by the abortion lobby has, and I quote, ``absolutely no basis in scientific fact,'' and is, ``misleading and potentially dangerous to pregnant women.'' According to the ASA general anesthesia given to a pregnant woman does not kill nor does it injure an unborn baby or even provide the baby with protection from pain. And Dr. Haskell himself has said that local anesthesia he uses has no effect on the baby. Mr. Speaker, to my left is a chart, one of a series of charts, medically correct, a diagram of what the actual procedure is all about. In a paper given by Dr. Haskell to the National Abortion Federation in 1992, entitled ``Second Trimester Abortion From Every Angle,'' in September Dr. Haskell describes the partial birth abortion this way. Remember, this man, one of the pioneers who is trying to promote the use of this despicable form of child abuse, and he says, and I quote, With the instrument, when the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws and firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity of the child. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument, causing a version of the fetus and pulls the extremity into the vagina. He then goes on to say that, With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders, and then the upper extremities, the skull lodges in the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. At this point, the right- handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and hooks the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers palm down, while maintaining tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand. The surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances its tip curved down along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull. Mr. Speaker, according to Dr. Haskell, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the skull, right into the skull of that baby. And then he introduces a, suction catheter, holds it and excavates the skull contents. Mr. Speaker, one nurse, a registered nurse by the name of Brenda Pratt Schaefer, witnessed several of these partial-birth abortions while working for Dr. Haskell. She said, in describing the process that, The baby's body was moving, his little fingers were clasping together, he was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors, inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck a high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. This is child abuse, Mr. Speaker, let us face reality. And we can stop it. Finally, just let me say, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his courage in bringing this very important human rights legislation to the floor. The other side hates him for it. The abortion, lobby certainly does. They hate many others who fight for unborn kids. But just let me say, protecting children and protecting human rights is always difficult. I serve as the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. For 16 years I have been promoting human rights abroad. This, I would say, and submit to my distinguished colleagues, is a human rights abuse. Children are being slaughtered, some say 500, as if 500 is a small number of executions. That is, I think, a very conservative estimate; it is very likely many, many more than that. And it is being promoted as a method of choice. I would submit that we have the opportunity today to stop this kind of child abuse and to protect little children from this kind of killing. We ought to do it. Support the rule and support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, children, however dependent, are not property and no child is ever a throw-away. A pregnancy is not a disease. Yet partial-birth abortions treat a partially delivered child as a tumor, as a wart, as a disease to be destroyed. Even if you have a doubt, I say to my colleagues concerning the humanity of an unborn child, can you not resolve that doubt in the baby's favor when the infant is half delivered? Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, Democrats and Republicans will send to the President a bill that says ``no'' to the horrific procedure that literally sucks the brains out of a baby's head. This poster to my left is not some kind of fiction. It is the reality of this horrendous child abuse. A registered nurse, Brenda Pratt Shafer, said after seeing some of these partial-birth abortions, and I quote, ``The baby's body was moving, his little fingers were clasping together, he was kicking his feet. All the while, his little head was stuck inside.'' Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened up the scissors. Then he stuck a high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Mr. Speaker, for the first time ever, despite the extraordinary ability of the pro-abortion lobby to obfuscate and confuse, the reality of abortion is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves. By addressing this particular kind of abortion, this legislation compels us to face the dark secret, the cold fact that an unborn baby dies in every abortion. I am astonished that Members can support this kind of abortion. Two decades of cover up are over. I would say to colleagues that the brutal methods, whether it be chemical poisoning or suction, dismemberment of a baby, in this case a partially delivered baby killed with brain suction, this must be brought to the forefront so the people know exactly what is going on. I hope the President says to the bill that he will sign it. I hope he signs it. It is not likely. He will have earned the legacy of being the abortion President. What a tragic, what a pathetic legacy to be the abortion President, especially a man who once in his past used to be pro-life.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material for inclusion in the Record: Partial-Birth Abortions: Behind the Misinformation (By Douglas Johnson, NRLC Federal Legislative Director) Note: The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) has been approved in slightly different versions by the U.S. House of Representatives (Nov. 1, 1995, on a vote of 288-139) and by the U.S. Senate (Dec. 7, 1995, on a vote of 54-44). It is expected that the House will approve the Senate-passed bill on March 27 and send it to President Clinton soon thereafter. President Clinton will veto the bill because ``the President shares the view of many that it would represent an erosion of a woman's right to choose,'' White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said on December 20, 1995. Opponents of the bill have disseminated an extraordinary amount of misinformation regarding the partial-birth abortion procedure and the legislation--much of it starkly contradicted by the past writings and recorded statements of doctors who have performed thousands of partial-birth abortions. Some of this misinformation has been adopted and widely disseminated by some journalists, columnists, editorialists, and lawmakers. This factsheet addresses some of these issues. What is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833)? The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833) would place a national ban on use of the partial-birth abortion procedure, except in cases (if there are any) in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of a mother. The bill specifically defines a ``partial-birth abortion'' as ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' [emphasis added] Abortionists who violate the law would be subject to both criminal and civil penalties, but no penalty could be applied to the woman who obtained such an abortion. The bill is aimed at a procedure that has often been utilized by Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio; by the late Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles; and by others. This procedure is generally used beginning at 20 weeks (4\1/2\ months) into the pregnancy, is ``routinely'' used to 5\1/2\ months, and has often been used even during the final three months of pregnancy. The Los Angeles Times accurately and succinctly described this abortion method in a June 16, 1995 news story: The procedure requires a physician to extract a fetus, feet first, from the womb and through the birth canal until all but its head is exposed. Then the tips of surgical scissors are thrust into the base of the fetus' skull, and a suction catheter is inserted through the opening and the brain is removed. In 1992, Dr. Haskell wrote a paper (``Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion'') that described in detail, step-by-step, how to perform the procedure. Anyone who is seriously seeking the truth behind the conflicting claims regarding partial-birth abortions would do well to start by reading Dr. Haskell's paper, and the transcripts of the explanatory interviews that Dr. Haskell gave in 1993 to the publications American Medical News (the official AMA newspaper) and Cincinnati Medicine. Regarding the procedure, Dr. Haskell wrote, ``Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia.'' (p. 33). Dr. Haskell also wrote that he ``routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP [i.e., from last menstrual period] with certain exceptions'' [i.e., from 4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ months], these ``exceptions'' involving complicating factors such as being more than 20 pounds overweight. Dr. Haskell also wrote that he used the procedure through 26 weeks [six months] ``on selected patients.'' [p.28] Dr. James McMahon used essentially the same procedure to a much later point--even into the ninth month. (Dr. McMahon died of cancer on Oct. 28, 1995.) In a letter to Congressman Charles Canady dated March 19, 1996, Dr. William Rashbaum of New York City wrote that he has performed the procedure ``routinely since 1979. This procedure is performed only in cases of later gestational age.'' does the bill contain an exception for life-of-the-mother cases? As originally passed by the House on November 1, 1995, HR 1833 contained an ``affirmative defense'' provision, which would have shielded an abortionist from civil and criminal liability if he showed that he had ``reasonably believed'' that utilization of the partial-birth abortion procedure was necessary to save the life of a mother. Similar ``affirmative defense'' exceptions are found in literally dozens of federal criminal laws. Nevertheless, after bill opponents distorted this provision, NRLC endorsed and the Senate unanimously adopted the Smith-Dole Amendment, which provides that the ban ``shall not apply to a partial- birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.'' Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), the lead Senate opponent of the HR 1833, immediately endorsed the Smith-Dole Amendment, saying: And now here we have it. Here we have it, an exception now for life of the mother. I think that is progress, because when we started there was no exception. It was an affirmative defense. [Congressional Record, Dec. 5, 1995, p. S 18005] Under the Smith-Dole Amendment, an abortionist could not be convicted of a violation of the law unless the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the abortion was not covered by this exception. (In addition, of course, the government would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the other elements of the offense--that the abortionist ``knowingly'' partly removed a baby from the womb, that the baby was still alive, and that the abortionist then killed the baby.) In a Jan. 31 letter to Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, President Clinton acknowledged that the Senate had added a life-of-mother exception. what further changes does president clinton demand in the bill? In a February 28, 1996 letter to certain Members of Congress, the President insisted that abortionists must be permitted to use the procedure, not only to save a mother's life, but also whenever they assert that the procedure is necessary to prevent unspecified ``serious health consequences.'' The President's letter proposed precisely the language of an amendment offered on the Senate floor by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), which was endorsed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) as a ``pro- choice vote.'' NARAL and other pro-abortion advocacy groups clearly recognized that the Boxer Amendment amounted to a re- statement of the status quo. After the Boxer Amendment was defeated by only a two-vote margin (51 to 47), a spokeswoman for the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute said, ``We were almost able to kill the bill.'' (Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Dec. 9, 1995, page 3738) President Clinton--a Yale Law School graduate who once taught constitutional law--understands very well that with respect to abortion, ``health'' is a legal term of art. In Doe v. Bolton (the companion case to Roe v. Wade), the Supreme Court defined ``health'' (in the abortion context) to include ``all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient.'' Thus, the Boxer Amendment (demanded by President Clinton) would allow abortionists to continue to perform partial-birth abortions, even during the seventh, eighth, and ninth months, for reasons such as ``depression.'' This is not a far-fetched hypothetical, as discussed below under ``For What Reasons Are Partial-Birth Abortions Usually Performed?'' Senator Boxer has added the word ``serious'' before ``health,'' for optical effect, but adding the word does not legally narrow the scope of ``health,'' since the amendment confers on the abortionist himself the unlimited power to define whether the ``depression'' or other ``health'' concern is ``serious.'' No partial-birth abortion would ever be blocked by the law, because the Boxer Amendment confers on the abortionist absolute authority to decide what the law means (``in the medical judgment of the attending physician''). Thus, a ``life'' exception and a ``health'' exception are two vastly different things. For example: Prior to enactment of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, the federal Medicaid program paid for 300,000 ``health'' or ``medically necessary'' abortions a year; the term was construed to cover any physician-performed abortion. The Hyde Amendment limited reimbursement to ``life'' cases, which have been on the order of 100 to 200 annually. In other words, the ratio of ``health'' cases to ``life'' cases, under Medicaid, was more than 1,000 to 1. how many partial-birth abortions are performed? Nobody knows. Pro-abortion groups have claimed that ``only'' 450 such procedures are performed every year. But the combined practices of Dr. Martin Haskell and the late Dr. James McMahon alone would have approximated that figure. In a letter to Congressman Canady dated March 19, 1996, New York doctor William K. Rashbaum wrote that he has performed the procedure that would be banned by HR 1833 ``routinely since 1979. This procedure is performed only in cases of later gestational age.'' Moreover, The New York Times reported in a Nov. 6, 1995 news story about the bill: ``Of course I use it, and I've taught it for the last 10 years,'' said a gynecologist at a New York teaching hospital, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ``So do doctors in other cities.'' It is impossible to know how many other abortionists have adopted the procedure, without choosing to write articles or grant interviews on the subject. Both Haskell and McMahon spent years trying to convince other abortionists of the merits of the procedure. That is why Haskell wrote his 1992 instructional paper. For years, Mr. McMahon was director of abortion instruction at the Cedar Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. There are at least 164,000 abortions a year after the first three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions annually after 4\1/2\ months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (New York Times, July 5 and November 6, 1995), which is an arm of Planned Parenthood. These numbers should be regarded as minimums, since they are based on voluntary reporting to the AGI. For what reasons are partial-birth abortions typically performed? Some opponents of HR 1833, such as NARAL and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), have persistently disseminated claimed that the procedure is employed only in cases involving extraordinary threats to the mother of grave fetal disorders. Regrettably, more than a few reporters, commentators, and members of Congress have uncritically embraced such claims and disseminated them as ``facts.'' For example, PPFA said in a press release that the procedure is ``done only in cases when the woman's life is in danger or in cases of extreme fetal abnormality.'' (Nov. 1, 1995) But (as PPFA well knows), this claim is inconsistent with the writings and recorded statements of doctors who have performed thousands of these procedures, or with documents gathered by the House and Senate judiciary committees. Dayton abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell, who wrote a paper describing step-by-step how to perform the procedure (he's done over 1,000), described it as ``a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia.'' Dr. Haskell wrote that he ``routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks'' (4\1/2\ to 5\1/2\ months) pregnant [emphasis added], except on women who are more than 20 pounds overweight, have twins, or have certain other complicating factors. In 1993, after NRLC's publicizing of Dr. Haskell's paper engendered considerable controversy, the American Medical News--the official newspaper of the AMA--conducted a tape- recorded interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he said: And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range * * * In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective. In testimony in a lawsuit in 1995, Dr. Haskell testified that women come to him for partial-birth abortions with ``a variety of conditions. Some medical, some not so medical'' Among the ``medical'' examples he cited was ``agoraphobia'' (fear of open places). Moreover, in testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17, 1995, ob/gyn Dr. Nancy Romer of Dayton (the city in which Dr. Haskell operates one of his abortion clinics) testified that three of her own patients had gone to Haskell's clinic for abortions ``well beyond'' 4\1/2\ months into pregnancy, and that ``none of these women had any medical illness, and all three had normal fetuses.'' Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse who observed Dr. Haskell use the procedure to abort three babies in 1993, testified that one little boy had Down Syndrome, while the other two babies were completely normal and their mothers were healthy. [Nurse Shafer's testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee, with associated documentation, is available on request to NRLC.] Dr. James McMahon voluntarily submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee a breakdown of a self- selected sample of 175 partial-birth abortions that he performed for what he called ``maternal indications.'' Of these,the largest single category of ``maternal indication''--39 cases, or 22% of the total sample--were for ``depression.'' (Other ``maternal indications'' included ``spousal drug exposure'' and ``substance abuse.'') Dr. McMahon's self-selected sample of ``fetal indications'' cases showed he had performed nine of these procedures for ``cleft plate.'' Even though this data is cited in the official report of the committee, when NARAL President Kate Michelman was asked at a November 7, 1995 press conference about ``arguments . . . that these procedures . . . are given for depression or cleft palate,'' Ms. Michelman responded, ``That is . . . not only a myth, it's a lie.'' Dr. McMahon also wrote: After 26 weeks [six months], those pregnancies that are not flawed are still nonelective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications. [Emphasis added.] [``Pediatric indications'' was Dr. McMahon's terminology for young teenagers.] Dr. Pamela E. Smith, director of Medical Education, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, gave the Senate Judiciary Committee her analysis of Dr. McMahon's sample of 175 cases in which he said he had used the procedure because of maternal health indications. Of this sample, 39 cases (22%) were for maternal ``depression,'' while another 16% were ``for conditions consistent with the birth of a normal child (e.g., sickle cell trait, prolapsed uterus, small pelvis),'' Dr. Smith noted. She added that in one-third of the cases, the conditions listed as ``maternal indications'' by Dr. McMahon really indicated that the procedure itself would be seriously risky. Reporter Karen Tumulty wrote an article about late-term abortions, based in large part on extensive interviews with Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times Magazine (January 7, 1990). She concluded: If there is any other single factor that inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they can. Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, specializes in late- term abortions, including third-trimester abortions. Dr. Tiller's spokeswoman, Peggy Jarman, told the Kansas City Star: About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teenagers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. In 1993, the then-executive director of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) distributed an internal memorandum to the members of that organization which acknowledged that such abortions are performed for ``many reasons'': There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc.'' Likewise, a June 12, 1995, letter from NAF to members of the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are sought by, among others, ``very young teenagers . . . who have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too late,'' and by ``women in poverty, who have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face insurmountable financial barriers.'' It is true, of course, that some partial-birth abortions involve babies who have grave disorders that will result in death soon after birth. But these unfortunate members of the human family deserve compassion and the best comfort-care that medical science can offer--not a scissors in the back of the head. In some such situations there are good medical reasons to deliver such a child early, after which natural death will follow quickly. is a partial-birth abortion ever the only way to preserve a mother's physical health? Dr. Pamela E. Smith, Director of Medical Education, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, testified, ``There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother.'' Dr. Harlan R. Giles, a professor of ``high-risk'' obstetrics and perinatology at the Medical College of Pennsylvania, performs abortions by a variety of procedures up until ``viability.'' In sworn testimony in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Nov. 13, 1995), Prof. Giles said: After 23 weeks I do not think there are any maternal conditions that I'm aware of that mandate ending the pregnancy that also require that the fetus be dead or that the fetal life be terminated. In my experience for 20 years, one can deliver these fetuses either vaginally, or by Caesarean section for that matter, depending on the choice of the parents with informed consent . . . But there's no reason these fetuses cannot be delivered intact vaginally after a miniature labor, if you will, and be at least assessed at birth and given the benefit of the doubt. [transcript, page 240] Opponents of H.R. 1833 have publicized the cases of several women whose babies suffered from severe hydrocephalus (enlargement of the head). But an eminent authority on such matters, Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., professor of ob/gyn (maternal and fetal medicine) at the University of North Carolina, who is co-editor of the Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, wrote to Congressman Canady: Critics of your bill who say that this legislation will prevent doctors from performing certain procedures which are standard of care, such as cephalocentesis (removal of fluid from the enlarged head of a fetus with the most severe form of hydrocephalus) are mistaken. In such a procedure a needle is inserted with ultrasound guidance through the mother's abdomen into the uterus and then into the enlarged ventricle of the brain (the space containing cerebrospinal fluid). Fluid is then withdrawn which results in reduction of the size in the head so that delivery can occur. This procedure is not intended to kill the fetus, and, in fact, is usually associated with the birth of a live infant. is the baby alive when she is pulled feet-first from the womb? Yes, in most cases the baby is alive until the end of the procedure. American Medical News reported in 1993, after conducting interviews with Drs. Haskell and McMahon, that the doctors ``told AM News that the majority of fetuses aborted this way are alive until the end of the procedure.'' On July 11, 1995, American Medical News submitted the transcript of the tape-recorded interview with Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee. The transcript contains the following exchange: American Medical News: Let's talk first about whether or not the fetus is dead beforehand. Dr. Haskell: No it's not. No, it's really not. A percentage are for various numbers of reasons. Some just because of the stress--intrauterine stress during, you know, the two days that the cervix is being dilated [to permit extraction of the fetus]. Sometimes the membranes rupture and it takes a very small superficial infection to kill a fetus in utero when the membranes are broken. And so in my case, I would think probably about a third of those are definitely are [sic] dead before I actually start to remove the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not. In an interview quoted in the Dec. 10, 1989 Dayton News, Dr. Haskell again conveyed that the scissors thrust is usually the lethal act: ``When I do the instrumentation on the skull . . . it destroys the brain tissue sufficiently so that even if it (the Fetus) falls out at that point, it's definitely not alive,'' Dr. Haskell said. Does anesthesia given to the mother kill the baby? Does the baby feel pain during the procedure? In Dr. Haskell's 1992 instructional paper, he lists among the ``advantages'' of the procedure that ``it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia.'' [emphasis added] According to Prof. David H. Chestnut, editor of Obstetric Anesthesia: Principles and Practice, ``Rational use of local anesthetic drugs does not affect the fetus.'' (Testimony to House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, March 21, 1996). Dr. James McMahon utilized general anesthesia, at least in some cases, but anesthesiologists say that these drugs do not harm the fetus/baby unless given in amounts that would kill the mother or place her in grave danger. (See below.) Nevertheless, many critics of the bill have insisted that the unborn babies are killed by anesthesia given to the mother, prior to being ``extracted'' from the womb. For example, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in November that, based on her review of statements by supporters of the bill, ``You wouldn't even know that anesthesia ends the life of such a fetus before it comes down the birth canal.'' The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has been among the most persistent purveyors of this mythology. Another leading proponent of the ``anesthesia myth'' has been Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Act League (NARAL). For example, in an interview on ``Newsmakers,'' KMOX-AM in St. Louis on Nov. 2, 1995, Ms. Michelman explained that she thinks it is wrong to call the procedure a ``partial birth'' because (she claimed) the baby is already dead. Kate Michelman's verbatim statement follows: The other side grossly distorted the procedure. There is no such thing as a `partial birth'. That's, that's a term made up by people like these anti-choice folks that you had on the radio. The fetus-- I mean, it is a termination of the fetal life, there's no question about that. And the fetus, is, before, the procedure begins, the anesthesia that they give the woman already causes the demise of the fetus. That is, it is not true that they're born partially. That is a gross distortion, and it's really a disservice to the public to say this. However, the claim that anesthesia can kill an unborn fetus has been emphatically refuted in congressional testimony by the heads of the leading professional societies of anesthesiologists. These exports have criticized both pro- abortion leaders and certain journalists and commentators, for disseminating these bogus claims, while failing to publicize the authoritative statements of experts that these claims are entirely bogus. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17, 1995, Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the 34,000-member American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), said that such claims have ``absolutely no basis in scientific fact.'' On behalf of the ASA, Dr. Ellison testified that regional anesthesia (used in many partial- birth abortions and most normal deliveries) has virtually no effect on the fetus. General anesthesia has some sedating effect on the fetus, but much less than on the mother; even pain relief for the fetus is doubtful, and certainly anesthesia would not kill the baby, Dr. Ellison testified. (In March 1996, Dr. Ellison said that his testimony had been reported in the medical press and that not one anesthesiologist had contacted ASA to express any disagreement.) In testimony before the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee on March 21, 1996, Dr. David J. Birnbach, president-elect of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, testified, ``I have never witnessed a case of fetal demise that could be attributed to an anesthetic. . . . In order to cause fetal demise, it would be necessary to give the mother dangerous and life-threatening doses of anesthesia.'' Recently, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and NARAL have tried to ``explain'' that they were really just referring to the practice of the late Dr. James McMahon--who, they claimed, used massive doses of narcotic anesthesia. But Dr. Birnbach said, ``Although there is no evidence that this massive dose will cause fetal demise, there is clear evidence that this excessive dose could cause maternal death.'' Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, stood at Haskell's side while he performed three partial- birth abortions in 1993. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee (Nov. 17), Shafer described in detail the first of the three procedures--which involved, she said, a baby boy at 26\1/2\ weeks (over 6 months). According to Mrs. Shafer, the abortionist delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. Since the baby is usually not dead before being removed from the womb, does the baby experience pain? Yes, according to experts such as Professor Robert White, Director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, who testified before the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee: ``The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain.'' After analyzing the partial-birth procedure step-by-step for the subcommittee, Prof. White concluded: ``Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.'' Similar testimony was presented to the subcommittee on March 21, 1996, by Dr. Jean A. Wright, associate professor of pediatrics and anesthesia at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. Recent research shows that by the stage of development that a fetus could be a ``candidate'' for a partial-birth abortion (20 weeks), the fetus ``is more sensitive to pain than a full-term infant would be if subjected to the same procedures,'' Prof. Wright testified. These fetuses have ``the anatomical and functional processes responsible for the perception of pain,'' and have ``a much higher density of Opioid (pain) receptors'' than older humans, she said. is there a more ``objective'' term for the procedure than ``partial- birth abortion''? Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL), the author of H.R. 1833 and the chairman of the subcommittee that conducted hearings on the bill, said on March 23, ``It it time for some in the media to stop editing or denigrating the legal terminology that has been adopted by the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, which is partial-birth abortion.'' (When Congress defined certain firefarms as ``assault weapons,'' that terminology was readily accepted by most journalists and editors--even though manufacturers of such devices utilize other terms.) Some opponents of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 1833) insist that anyone writing about the bill should say that it bans a procedure ``known medically as intact dilation and evacuation.'' But when journalists comply with this demand, they do so at the expense of accuracy. The bill itself makes no reference whatever to ``intact dilation and evacuation'' abortions. More importantly, the term ``intact dilation and evacuation'' is not equivalent to the class of procedures banned by the bill. The bill would make it a criminal offense (except to save a woman's life) to perform a ``partial-birth abortion,'' which the bill would define--as a matter of law--as ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' [emphasis added] In contrast, the term ``intact dilation and evacuation'' was invented by the late Dr. James McMahon, and until recently, was idiosyncratic to him. It appears in no standard medical textbook or database, nor does it appear anywhere in the standard textbook on abortion methods, Abortion Practice by Dr. Warren Hern. Because ``intact dilation and evacuation'' is not a standard, clearly defined medical term, the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee staff (which drafted the bill under Congressman Canady's supervision) rejected it as useless for purposes of defining a criminal offense. Indeed, it is worse than useless--a criminal statute that relied on such a term would be stricken by the federal courts as ``void for vagueness.'' Although there is no clear definition of the term, we know enough to say that it is inaccurate to equate ``intact dilation and evacuation'' abortions with the procedures banned by HR 1833, since in his writings Dr. McMahon clearly used the term so broadly as to cover certain procedures which would not be affected at all by HR 1833 (e.g., removal of babies who are killed entirely in utero, and removal of babies who have died entirely natural deaths in utero). Indeed, some of the specific women highlighted by opponents of HR 1833 had various types of ``intact D&E'' abortion procedures that were not covered by HR 1833's definition of ``partial-birth abortion.'' The term chosen by Congress is in no sense misleading. In sworn testimony in an Ohio lawsuit on Nov. 8, 1995, Dr. Martin Haskell--who has done over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, and who authored the instructional paper that touched off the controversy over the procedure--explained that he first learned of the method when a colleague described very briefly over the phone to me a technique that I later learned came from Dr. McMahon where they internally grab the fetus and rotate it and accomplish--be somewhat equivalent to a breach type of delivery. In short, it is a misguided notion of objectivity for the any journalist to denigrate the term for a criminal offense that has been adopted and explicitly defined by the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, in favor of a undefined term recently manufactured by the very special-interest that would be ``regulated'' by the legislation. [In his 1992 instructional paper, Dr. Haskell referred to the method as ``dilation and extraction'' or ``D&X''--noting that he ``coined the term.'' The term ``dilation and extraction'' does not appear in medical dictionaries or databases.] are the five line drawings of the procedure circulated by NRLC accurate, or are they misleading? American Medical News (July 5, 1993) interviewed Dr. Martin Haskell and reported: Dr. Haskell said the drawings were accurate ``from a technical point of view.'' But he took issue with the implication that the fetuses were ``aware and resisting.'' Moreover, at a June 15, 1995, public hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Dr. J. Courtland Robinson, a self-described ``abortionist'' who testified on behalf of the National Abortion Federation, was questioned about the drawings by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.). Mr. Canady directed Dr. Robinson's attention to the drawings, which were displayed in poster size next to the witness table, and asked Dr. Robinson if they were ``technically correct.'' Dr. Robinson responded: That is exactly probably what is occurring in the hands of the two physicians involved. [Hearing record, page 89.] Professor Watson Bowes of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, co-editor of the Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, wrote in a letter to Congressman Canady: Having read Dr. Haskell's paper, I can assure you that these drawings accurately represent the procedure described therein. . . . Firsthand renditions by a professional medical illustrator, or photographs or a video recording of the procedure would no doubt be more vivid but not necessarily more instructive for a non-medical person who is trying to understand how the procedure is performed. On Nov. 1, 1995, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder and her allies actually tried to prevent Congressman Canady from displaying the line drawings during the debate on HR 1833 on the floor of the House of Representatives. But the House voted by nearly a 4-to-1 margin (332 to 86) to permit the drawings to be used. does the bill contradict u.s. supreme court decisions? The Supreme Court has never said that there is a constitutional right to kill human beings who are mostly born. In its official report on HR 1833, the House Judiciary Committee makes the very plausible argument that HR 1833 could be upheld by the Supreme Court without disturbing Roe. In Roe, the Supreme Court said that ``the word `person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.'' Thus, under the Supreme Court's doctrine, a human being becomes a legal ``person'' upon emerging from the uterus. But a partial-birth abortion does not involve an ``unborn fetus.'' A partial-birth abortion, by the very definition in the bill, kills a human being who is partly born. Indeed, a partial-birth abortion kills a human being who is four-fifths across the `line-of-personhood' established by the Supreme Court. Moreover, in Roe v. Wade itself, the Supreme Court took note of a Texas law that made it a felony to kill a baby ``in a state of being born and before actual birth,'' and the Court did not disturb that law. Thus, the Supreme Court could very well decide that the killing of a mostly born baby, even if done by a physician, is not protected by Roe v. Wade. should congress ever ban specific ``surgical procedures''? Some prominent congressional opponents of the bill to ban partial-birth abortions, including Rep. Schroeder (D-Co.), argue that Congress should not attempt to ban a specific surgical procedure. But Rep. Schroeder is the prime sponsor of HR 941, the ``Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act.'' (The Senate companion bill is S. 1030.) This bill generally would ban anyone (including a licensed physician) from performing the procedure known medically as ``infibulation,'' or ``female circumcision.'' (Some physicians perform the procedure in response to requests from immigrants from certain countries, based on the rationale that those involved otherwise will probably obtain the procedure from persons without medical training.) The bill provides a penalty of up to five years in federal prison. Supporters of this bill argue, persuasively, that subjecting a little girl to infibulation is a form of child abuse. But then, so too is subjecting a baby to the partial-birth abortion procedure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] first and foremost for this fine resolution and for his leadership on these issues. He has been tenacious over the years in raising the issue of the such maligned and troubled Kurds who have suffered so much, and I want to thank him for remembering, through this resolution, that horrible day when some 5,000 people were killed by poison gas. I will never forget the picture of that mother clutching her young child, with the child's mouth gaping open. As a result of the gas, the impact of the gas, there was a look of absolute fright on both mother and baby; just one of the Kurds killed by Saddam Hussein, one of the many. I also want to remind everyone that the regime of Saddam Hussein continues to kill, torture and illegally imprison members of the Kurdish minority in Iraq, as well as anyone else who displeases the regime. Relief workers who have gone in to help the Kurdish refugees have also been the victims of extrajudicial executions as well as disappearances. Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1990's I was part of the Speaker's mission that went to the refugee camps on the border of Turkey and Iraq and met with many of the Kurds who were fleeing the repression. It was right in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, and the Republican Guard were in hot pursuit of this Kurdish minority. It was very compelling and encouraging for me to see how our military carried on ``Operation Provide Comfort.'' They came in, they organized, and they were able to provide the logistical support for medicines and food to be dispersed, and thousands of Kurds were spared because of the humanitarian efforts of the United States military as part of ``Operation Provide Comfort''. After several months, the situation was stabilized, and the baton was passed to the nongovernmental organizations that then carried on the good work of providing this important relief. Mr. Speaker, as my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], pointed out, the Kurds do suffer much in Turkey as well. We have had hearings, on the subject including one just this morning. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] was there, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and other members of our committee and subcommittee, and we focused on one of these areas, the proposed sale of Cobras to Turkey. As the chair of the Subcommittee on International Operations & Human Rights I believe that it would be outrageous to send Cobras to Turkey after the military might of the Turkish regime has been used in an ethnic cleansing effort against the Kurds, again another sad chapter in the kind of cruelty that these people have had to endure. What is pointed out in this resolution, the massacre of the 5,000, is but one rather large and very terrible event in a series of tragedies that have been visited upon the suffering Kurdish minorities. So this is an important resolution, and I urge its passage.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 102. I think it is a very good resolution and I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his leadership on behalf of the Baha'is and on behalf of human rights. Mr. Speaker, the issue of persecution of the Baha'is is unfortunately not a new one in the House. Congress has passed a half-dozen resolutions condemning the vicious persecution of the Baha'is at the hands of the regime in Tehran, but the persecution continues. Mr. Speaker, there is little I can add to the resolution and to the excellent comments that have been made so far. The Baha'is clearly are a peace-loving community, members of a religion that had its origin in Iran but that has adherents all over the world, including here in the United States. The extremist regime in Iran considers the Baha'i religion to be a heresy, a group apostasy, so it persecutes them with even more severity than it does Christians, Jews, or other Muslims. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to call to the Congress' attention the fact that there are at least four members of the Baha'i faith that now are at risk of death in Iran. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] mentioned one whose sentence has been remanded back to a lower court for review, and we hope this resolution sends a clear, unmistakable message that religious intolerance will not be tolerated by civilized countries, and that it will bring more scrutiny and more condemnation on the regime run by Rafsanjani. I think it is very important that we speak, as we have, as Democrats, Republicans, as conservatives, moderates, and liberals, that we believe that the Baha'is have a right not just to exist, but to express themselves, to practice their religion as they see fit. We support the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the religious intolerance acts that have been passed by the United Nations. Every year the Human Rights Convention in Geneva looks at religious persecution and speaks out on it. My hope is that they will say to Tehran, ``No more,'' that cooler heads will prevail, and those who are being persecuted simply because they want to practice their faith as they see fit will no longer find themselves being tortured, incarcerated, and, even worse, put to death. I commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his excellent resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend for yielding time to me and especially thank him for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment, which will help keep the focus where it belongs, on the real danger of illegal immigration, not on orderly legal immigration by close relatives of U.S. citizens. I am particularly troubled by the provision in the current bill that would cut off eligibility for so- called adult children unless they meet a series of new tests, including economic dependency. Ironically, supporters justify these restrictions by suggesting that we somehow protect nuclear families by excluding other relatives. Most Americans I think would be surprised, perhaps shocked comes closer to describe it, to know that if their 21-year-old daughter or son gets a job, he or she is no longer a member of your nuclear family and can never live with you again. The present language in the bill also virtually eliminates the Attorney General's power to use the humanitarian parole to deal with compelling cases at the margins of our immigration laws. Most congressional offices have had to deal with cases in which an American family has adopted an orphan overseas or wishes to sponsor a relative for a sick family, only to run up against a brick wall. Humanitarian parole is gone. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Chrysler amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call attention to the important action of the House in deleting the proposed ``refugee cap'' which would have made dramatic cuts in the number of refugees the United States accepts each year. In particular, the ``refugee cap'' would have necessitated the elimination of the in-country programs for Jews and Evangelical Christians in the former Soviet Union, and for pro-American political prisoners, religious dissidents and other people at risk of persecution by the Communist government of Viet Nam. political and religious dissidents around the world Make no mistake: the proposals for refugee cuts do not reflect a decline in the worldwide level of political, racial, and religious persecution. The dictatorship in Nigeria recently staged a public hanging of eight members of the Ogoni ethnic minority, including highly respected novelist and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. Iran followed up by sentencing a member of its Baha'i religious minority to death for a crime it calls ``national apostasy.'' vietnamese political and religious dissidents Nor is the upsurge in persecution limited to so-called ``pariah'' regimes. A week after Warren Christopher raised the flag on the new United States Embassy in Viet Nam, the government of that country staged two show trials--apparently to disabuse its own people of the idea that economic and diplomatic relations with the West would lead to greater respect for human rights. Six of the nation's top Buddhist leaders were sentenced to long prison terms for persisting in their refusal to join the state church. Nine people were convicted of ``using freedom and democracy to injure the national unity'' because they had requested permission to hold a conference on the subject of democracy. So this is no time to think about shutting down the Orderly Departure Program for people who have suffered for their pro-American, pro- freedom beliefs and associations. Nor is it a time to think about dumping thousands more high-risk political and refugees, currently long-time residents of refugee camps in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia, back to persecution in the Workers' Paradise. Yet this is what the international refugee bureaucracy is about to do. The United States has traditionally stood against this sort of thing, even when our efforts were regarded as unhelpful by the governments of other nations and by officials of international organizations. We must recapture that proud American tradition of resistance to persecution and solace for the persecuted--and not just when it is convenient or popular. persecution of jews The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, of which I have the honor of serving as Chairman, recently heard expert testimony on the persecution of Jews around the world. Our witnesses testified about the continued survival, as we face the turn of the Twenty-First Century and celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the war that ended the Holocaust--of systematic and severe mistreatment of Jews, simply because they are Jews. The recent firebombings in Jerusalem, which killed many innocent people, show that there is literally nowhere in the world where Jews are safe from hatred and violence. But the worst problems appear to be in places that have a history of anti-Semitism combined with an unstable present and an uncertain future. The hearing on persecution of Jews was conducted with the active assistance of a number of organizations that have been instrumental in helping to keep the attention of Congress focussed on this issue, including the World Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, the National Jewish Coalition, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and the Council of Jewish Federations. Our witnesses--including academic experts, a former member of the Russian Duma, and several people who are themselves refugees from persecution-- told us about the situation in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. We also heard accounts of persecution in Iran and Syria. These are certainly among the worst cases, but it is important to remember that anti-Semitism and the violence it brings in its wake are not confined to one or two regions of the world. The evidence is unfortunately all around us: the bombing of a synagogue in Argentina, the ``skinhead'' movement in Western Europe, resurgent ethnic politics in Central and Eastern Europe, even the desecration of a small Jewish cemetery by the dictatorship that rules Burma. The situation of Jews in the former Soviet Union is particularly important, not only because the struggle for the freedom of Soviet Jewry was among the finest hours of the American people, but also because the story could still end badly. There has been a tendency in recent years, even among those of us who fought long and hard for the rescue of Soviet Jews, to feel that now we can relax. Unfortunately, the free world has a long history of relaxing too soon. In the case of Jews living in the former Soviet Union, what we must avoid is slamming the door too soon. It is true that the Twentieth Century totalitarian states based on ideologies that are anti-God and anti-human being, such as Nazism and Communism, may have had a capacity to do evil whose scope and degree was unique in all human history. Evil, however, takes many forms and respects no boundaries. The year in which Zhirinovsky begins his campaign for President is not the year in which we should decide that the coast is clear for ex-Soviet Jews. This hearing also helped us to assess the performance of our government, and of international institutions such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in responding to the pleas of the Jewish communities that are at risk around the world. Our government had to be prodded for years before it made freedom of emigration for persecuted Soviet Jews a foreign policy priority. More recently, our foreign policy establishment was also slow to recognize and react to the persecution of Jews in Iraq. We must remind ourselves, and then we must remind our government, that refugee policy is not just an inconvenient branch of immigration policy. Human rights policy is not just a subset of trade policy. The protection of refugees, the fight for human rights around the world, are about recognizing that good and evil really exist in the world. They are also about recognizing that we are all brothers and sisters. If we recognize these truths, we can build a coalition to preserve and strengthen United States policies designed to protect our witnesses today--and to protect all others who are persecuted because of their religion, race, nationality, or political beliefs--and to restore these policies to the place they deserve as a top priority in American foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, the former Soviet refugee program has already been reduced from 35,000 refugees in fiscal year 1995 to 30,000 in fiscal year 1996. Although the governments of the newly independent states do not endorse the persecution of these groups, in many cases have been unwilling or unable to prevent it. Instability and resurgent ultra- nationalism and anti-Semitism counsel against a premature closing of the door to members of these historically persecuted groups.