Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 134, legislation to ensure that veterans, dependents, and survivors will continue to receive their well-earned benefits during this Government shutdown. I would like to recognize the dedicated efforts of Tim Hutchinson, who has been a tireless advocate for veterans and has introduced legislation to ensure that veterans receive the compensation they deserve even when the Government is closed. I would also like to thank Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Montgomery for their tireless work on behalf of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation should never have been necessary. This week, the President had an opportunity to sign the VA-HUD appropriations bill, which would have secured the funding for veterans benefits. Instead, he vetoed it. President Clinton also has the unilateral authority to order the delivery of veterans' benefits during a Government shutdown. But he has not used it. Because of the administration's insistence on playing partisan politics with veterans, the livelihood of 3.3 million veterans, dependents and survivors is in jeopardy. No one in this country has a greater claim to his Nation's Treasury than veterans who have been disabled as a result of service in the Armed Forces and the survivors of those who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in the defense of our Nation. Keeping faith with these heroes, their widows and their orpahns--whatever our Nation's fiscal circumstance--is as important as anything we do in Congress. We must do what we can to guarantee that these brave men and women, who answered the call to duty and were willing to put their lives on the line in defense of their country, will receive what they deserve. This bill does that. Our veterans deserve better than to be sacrificed at the altar of partisan politics. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, which will put veterans ahead of politics.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the work of Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and author, George F. Will. In him, Mr. Speaker I believe we have a national treasure. Time and again by his labors at the keypad Mr. Will has shown himself to be a man of great insight and depth. I believe him to be a among that rarest of rare breeds--an original thinker. The concision and clarity with which he transforms those thoughts to the written word evidences a deep commitment on his part to understand and illuminate the human condition. His will to toil year after year so that others might not be lead astray by intellectual fads or fallacious reasoning is a model to all who would seek to shape the course of public life. Anyone willing to give his work a fair reading will find each week some troubling societal question logically explored, element by element and ultimately reduced to its essence without rancor or sentimentality. I became a fan of George F. Will many years ago when the writer and father in him came together in a gloriously uncompartmentalized way to render an unambiguous rebuke to anyone who might doubt the quality of a life lived at less than physical perfection. With a few deft paragraphs Mr. Will wrote of his own son's enormous capacity to love and be loved. He explained that his ``Oriole fan'', despite whatever limitations Downs Syndrome had placed on him, could experience the joys and tragedies of life in the same way we all do--mostly through things as common as baseball. The boy was fully alive, fully human and perfectly formed in the image of God. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker that no writer in our land of literary greatness could deliver this urgent message with more force and grace than Mr. Will. It is clear that we are truly blessed as a nation to have him. It is also obvious that despite the passing decades Mr. Will has not lost any of the, above-described commitment to his craft. His most recent Newsweek column is another fine example of all that is good and true about his work. And so Mr. Speaker, I enter that essay into the Record so that Mr. Will's own words can testify to the greatness of this decent, courageous and talented American. Fanatics for ``Choice'' (By George F. Will) Americans are beginning to recoil against the fanaticism that has helped to produce this fact: more than a quarter of all American pregnancies are ended by abortions. Abundant media attention has been given to the extremism that has tainted the right-to-life movement. Now events are exposing the extraordinary moral evasions and callousness characteristic of fanaticism, prevalent in the abortion- rights lobby. Begin with ``partial-birth abortions.'' Pro-abortion extremists object to that name, preferring ``intact dilation and evacuation,'' for the same reason the pro-abortion movement prefers to be called ``pro-choice.'' What is ``intact'' is a baby. During the debate that led to House passage of a ban on partial-birth abortions, the right-to- life movement was criticized for the sensationalism of its print advertisements featuring a Dayton nurse's description of such an abortion: ``The mother was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he 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.'' To object to this as sensationalism is to say that discomforting truths should be suppressed. But increasingly the language of pro-abortion people betrays a flinching from facts. In a woman's story about her chemical abortion, published last year in Mother Jones magazine, she quotes her doctor as saying, ``By Sunday you won't see on the monitor what we call the heartbeat.'' ``What we call''? In partial- birth abortions the birth is kept (just barely) partial to preserve the legal fiction that a baby (what some pro- abortion people call ``fetal material'') is not being killed. An abortionist has told The New York Times that some mothers find such abortions comforting because after the killing, the small body can be ``dressed and held'' so the (if pro- abortionists will pardon the expression) mother can ``say goodbye.'' The New York Times reports, ``Most of the doctors interviewed said they saw no moral difference between dismembering the fetus within the uterus and partially delivering it, intact, before killing it.'' Yes. Opponents of a ban on partial-birth abortions say almost all such abortions are medically necessary. However, an abortionist at the Dayton clinic is quoted as saying 80 percent are elective. Opponents of a ban on such abortions assert that the baby is killed before the procedure, by the anesthesia given to the mother. (The baby ``undergoes demise,'' in the mincing words of Kate Michelman of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Does Michelman says herbicides cause the crab grass in her lawn to ``undergo demise''? Such Orwellian language is a sure sign of squeamishness.) However, the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists says this ``misinformation'' has ``absolutely no basis in scientific fact'' and might endanger pregnant women's health by deterring them from receiving treatment that is safe. Opponents of a ban say there are only about 600 such procedures a year. Let us suppose, as not everyone does, the number 600 is accurate concerning the more than 13,000 abortions performed after 21 weeks of gestation. Still, 600 is a lot. Think of two crashes of jumbo airliners. Opponents of the ban darkly warn that it would be the first step toward repeal of all abortion rights. Columnist John Leo of U.S. News & World Report says that is akin to the gun lobby's argument that a ban on assault weapons must lead to repeal of the Second Amendment. In a prophecy born of hope, many pundits have been predicting that the right-to-life ``extremists'' would drastically divide the Republican Party. But 73 House Democrats voted to bar partial-birth abortions; only 15 Republicans opposed the ban. If the ban survives the Senate, President Clinton will probably veto it. The convention that nominated him refused to allow the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, who is pro-life, to speak. Pro- choice speakers addressed the 1992 Republican Convention. The two presidential candidates who hoped that a pro-choice stance would resonate among Republicans--Gov. Pete Wilson, Sen. Arlen Specter--have become the first two candidates to fold their tents. In October in The New Republic, Naomi Wolf, a feminist and pro-choice writer, argued that by resorting to abortion rhetoric that recognizes neither life nor death, pro-choice people ``risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life.'' Other consequences of a ``lexicon of dehumanization'' about the unborn are ``hardness of heart, lying and political failure.'' Wolf said that the ``fetus means nothing'' stance of the pro-choice movement is refuted by common current practices of parents-to-be who have framed sonogram photos and fetal heartbeat stethoscopes in their homes. Young upscale adults of child-bearing age are a solidly pro-choice demographic group. But they enjoy watching their unborn babies on sonograms, responding to outside stimuli, and they read ``The Well Baby Book,'' which says: ``Increasing knowledge is increasing the awe and respect we have for the unborn baby and is causing us to regard the unborn baby as a real person long before birth . . .'' Wolf argued for keeping abortion legal but treating it as a matter of moral gravity because ``grief and respect are the proper tones for all discussions about choosing to endanger or destroy a manifestation of life.'' This temperate judgment drew from Jane Johnson, interim president of Planned Parenthood, a denunciation of the ``view that there are good and bad reasons for abortion.'' So, who now are the fanatics?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1465) to extend au pair programs.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The au pair program, which is reauthorized by S. 1465, is administered by the United States Information Agency, USIA, and it has been an effective means of giving young people from overseas an educational year in the United States and also providing hardworking American families with many hours per week of high-quality child care. The au pair program is a win-win situation, and I believe it deserves to be reauthorized. Several of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, deserve very special credit for their persistent efforts to get this bill before us. I speak especially of the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker], who earlier this year appeared before our Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and gave compelling testimony as to the value of this important program. I would also like to single out other strong proponents, including the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and, of course, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, and the ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], who are also strong proponents of this as well. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has voted three times so far this year to reauthorize the au pair program, in the American Overseas Interests Act, which passed the House in June, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, and the Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Act. Unfortunately, all three of these bills have been held up in the Senate or by the White House because of other issues, critically important issues, to be sure, but issues having nothing whatsoever to do with the au pair program. The solution clearly is to pass a freestanding au pair reauthorization bill. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are about to vote on has already been passed by the other body, and we are presenting this bill instead of an identical House bill so that we can get it to the President's desk immediately. The House bill was marked up Thursday in the Subcommittee on International Operations, and then the full Committee on International Relations took it up with a favorable recommendation later on the same day. The bill has bipartisan support, and I hope it will have unanimous support of this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the Senate has already passed an identical bill. Hundreds of American families have been inconvenienced during the period since September 30 when the authorization for the au pair program inadvertently expired. This is a program we can fix today, and, as I said, the Senate has passed it, and I hope the President will sign it as soon as it crosses his desk. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1465.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, after nearly 4 years of war, the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia have made a tangible commitment to peace. The Dayton peace agreement is, as Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic stated, an unjust peace, but less unjust than the continuation of war. We can be hopeful, though, that the peace can be more just if there is international resolve to keep the signatories to the agreement in line with the commitments they have undertaken, not only in Dayton but, more broadly, in the OSCE and in international law. Most of us recognize that the chief concern in this regard will be the adherence to the agreement on the part of the Serb militants who have engaged in aggression and genocide against non-Serbs, and have undertaken a massive propaganda campaign to garner support from the Bosnian Serb population. However, there is a real cause for concern regarding the recent policies and actions of Croatia, and the Bosnian Croats over whom it exercises control. For example, since retaking last summer territory occupied by Serb militants, Croatian authorities have tolerated and even encouraged the harassment of fleeing Serbs, the looting and burning of their property, and the killing of dozens of Serbs--many elderly--who remained behind, in their homes. I commend my colleague and fellow Helsinki commissioner, Frank Wolf, for taking the lead in raising this issue here in Congress. Croatia held elections in October of this year in an effort to capitalize on military successes. By severely cutting back the representation of the Serb community in the parliament, the electoral process sent departed Serbs the message that they are not welcome back. At the same time, they sought to sway the loyalties of Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina by giving them large representation in parliament. While observers concluded the elections to be free, controls on the media and other subtle manipulations of the electoral process made them less than fair. Croatia states its readiness to cooperate with the International Tribunal in the Hague where alleged war criminals from the former Yugoslavia are to be tried, but in reality the Croatian Government has refused to do so. One indicted Bosnian Croat general, Tihomir Blaskic, was transferred to the Croatian Army rather than surrendered to the court, while Ivica Rajic, a Bosnian Croat commander indicted for his role in the slaughter of civilians at the village of Stupni Do; was just released from custody by Bosnian Croat authorities who were holding him for unrelated reasons. Last Sunday's newspaper reported on the massive burning and destruction of property in Croat-controlled parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina that are to become parts of the Serb entity under the Dayton agreements. These actions, Mr. Speaker, are an outrage. As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, and as a Member of Congress who condemned the Serb aggression to which the international community allowed Croatia to be a victim, I nevertheless find these acts in violation of Helsinki principles to be inexcusable. Tactically, they do more to validate the fears of the average Serb than the most efficient propaganda machine, and damage Croatia's image abroad. Strategically, they feed on a cycle of hate, and ensure that Croats will again someday be the victims of that cycle. Morally--above all, morally--they are reprehensible, and deserve our condemnation. Beyond this expression, we should consider, for the new year, the implications of these policies on our relations with Croatia. If the burning, looting, and killing go on; if the indicted are not surrendered; if intolerance continues to dominate Government policy; then we cannot maintain the good, friendly relations with Croatia that we may nevertheless want. Our State Department may want to consider diplomatic action, such as the recalling of ambassadors, and possible economic actions as well. Let there be no mistake about it, Serb aggression remains the main problem in the former Yugoslavia. That does not mean we can turn a blind eye to the violations of others.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We do work together on a number of other issues, but unfortunately, on this one we have a difference. Let me reiterate, and make this so very clear to everyone who may be listening to this debate, that we will provide family planning funds, as we did during the Reagan and Bush years when we provided in excess of 40 percent of all the subsidies globally for family planning, but we did it in a way that did not promote or perform abortions. That is the key.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Callahan motion, which represents yet another sincere attempt by Chairman Callahan to seek a compromise approach to this issue on which so many of us feel so very strongly. As most of my colleagues know, I have been a very strong supporter of the pro-life Mexico City policy which is designed to protect innocent unborn children around the world by barring United States family planning funds to foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas. The House has voted four times, four times, in favor of that legislation this year. It should be clear by now, Mr. Speaker, that one way or the other pro-lifers will not stand by. We will not allow the abortion industry to get an infusion of literally hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid for the promotion of the killing of unborn children in other lands or by lobbying to bring down their statutes. More than 95, closer to 100, countries of the world have pro-life statutes, and these nongovernmental organizations, some, not all, get into these countries, begin networking, and they have been working aggressively to bring down those pro-life statutes. I do not think the U.S. taxpayer should be making these organizations the dominant force in these capitals around the world. Family planning, yes; abortion promotion, and abortion performance except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, which is what the original language had in it, they are the exception; but family planning, yes; abortion, no. I would also remind Members that I have been a very strong supporter of linking UNFPA funding, U.N. Population Fund, to withdrawal of UNFPA from the program in China where forced abortion is commonplace and prevalent and where the UNFPA has been the dominant cheerleader for the population program in Beijing, in the People's Republica of China. Again, if the Senate or the White House will not budge on this at this time, pro-lifers are not going to cave. We will allow the money, we will push the money for family planning, but will not allow it to be used in any way, shape, or form for the promotion of abortion or for promoting this coercion in the People's Republican of China. The pro-life Members are willing to support this motion which deletes these two provision, but says we have got the wait until the authorizers take it up and then the bill will pass, I believe, and will be signed. Otherwise, we go back. We put the language back into the appropriations bill. That is fine with me. If the Senate will not budge, we stay here until hell freezer over, because unborn children are precious and the women in the People's Republic of China, who have been victimized by the brutality of that program are precious as well. I absolutely and categorically reject those who stand on the floor and say we are stopping all family planning funding. During the many years that the Mexico City program was in effect, 350 plus nongovernmental organizations, more NGO's than we had the money to fund, accepted the Mexico City clauses of no abortion promotion and got their money for family planning in Bangladesh, in Africa, in Central America. Planned Parenthood, Western Hemisphere, got, if I remember correctly, about $10 million when they agreed they would no longer be promoting abortion. The got their money to stay on point, and that is family planning, not abortion. We are insisting on very modest language that says we are not going to be in the business of promoting abortion or performing it except in those very rare cases. We are not going to allow these organizations to be lobbying to bring down these anti-abortion statutes around the globe. The family planning money will then flow. Nobody will object to it, and condoms and some of the other things that are disseminated will go out without any impediment, but we will not be in the business of empowering the abortion industry. Vote for the Callahan motion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Dornan bill which prohibits funding for the deployment of United States armed forces on the ground in the Republic of Bosnia. Tomorrow the Presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia will sign the Dayton peace agreement which assumes the commitment of 60,000 NATO troops to implement its provisions. At least 20,000 of those troops will be American soldiers. Advance troops have already been sent into Bosnia, and the President has said that the troops are committed regardless of whether Congress grants its approval. For 2\1/2\ years President Clinton turned his back on his campaign promises to take decisive action against the aggressors, and his administration further compounded the flawed policy--which had begun in the Bush administration--when it failed to focus, in a meaningful way, on the conflict and the atrocities, and the pleas of the Bosnian Government to permit the means to protect themselves. In fact, I introduced the legislation calling for the unilateral lifting of the embargo against Bosnia. A similar bill, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act of 1995, was overwhelmingly supported in both the House and Senate. The President chose to veto the bill on August 11. The Dayton agreement--with the commitment of troops embedded into its fiber--has become the President's answer to the dilemma in the former Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, the President left no alternatives for the American people and the Congress. The President prematurely made commitments to send U.S. troops to Bosnia, first to enforce the Vance-Owen plan, then the Vance- Stoltenberg plan, then the Contact Group plan, then the evacuation of UNPROFOR, and now the Dayton agreement. The President raised the expectations of our allies as well as those of the parties to the conflict that American ground forces would indeed be deployed in Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to approve the deployment of our ground troops to this mission. The White House asserts that failure to deploy ground troops would have serious consequences for our status as a leading force in the world. Perhaps, but any loss of prestige is a consequence the record shows of the President's hasty promise and eagerness to deploy U.S. ground troops to enforce any plan. The premature withdrawal of troops-- either in response to military losses or simply in compliance with the convenient time frame set by the administration--without completing a realizable mission is damaging to the morale of the American military forces and the credibility of the United States. Questions remain about the agreement the troops are being sent to implement. Details about how and who will train and provide arms to the Bosnians are being provided piecemeal with the latest understanding being provided in a letter from the President. Will there be a clear delineation between the role of the NATO forces and the agreement's assurances of creating a climate conducive to elections, the return of refugees to their homes and reconstruction of the region? The President has prematurely committed our troops without providing the Congress and the American people enough confidence that the military strategy has been thoroughly examined, defined and structured. Therefore, I feel I must vote in favor of H.R. 2707 prohibiting the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Bosnia.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, for his expeditious passage of this legislation in the full committee. I also thank the gentleman for his very strong leadership on human rights, particularly as it relates to the People's Republic of China. I would like to thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos], and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], who has been a real stalwart when it has come to China, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Berman and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], who spoke earlier and, of course, my good friend and colleague with whom I have traveled to China on behalf of human rights, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who has been tenacious in promoting human rights around the globe. Mr. Speaker, today the American people stand united in outrage at the latest assaults on freedom, democracy and decency by the government of the People's Republic of China. The ordeal of Wei Jingsheng began in 1979 when he took the Communist government at its word and wrote articles suggesting political reform. For this they sentenced him to a 15-year jail term. In late 1993, he was unexpectedly released on parole, a few months prior to the end of his sentence. This gesture, I would note parenthetically, was designed to induce the Olympic committee to award Beijing as host of the Olympics 2000. They did not get it, as we all know. During his long and unjust imprisonment, he has been severely beaten and subjected to other forms of physical and psychological abuse. He was in extremely poor health, but he had also become a hero in the meantime, a symbol of courage and even of hope to a beleaguered people. It was my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to visit with Wei Jingsheng in Beijing in January 1994, during his very brief period of freedom. I found him to be extremely articulate, compassionate and principled. He spoke of his quest for democracy and human rights with a very keen understanding. Notwithstanding his horrific ordeal in prison, he never once slandered the leadership of the People's Republic of China. I was amazed at his lack of malice and his lack of rancor toward his jailers. I was deeply impressed by his kindness and his goodness. A few weeks later, after meeting with Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck, he was rearrested. For 19 months the Beijing government would not even admit that they had Wei in its custody. He was cut off from communication with his family, with legal counsel, with his colleagues and admirers in the human rights movement. None of us knew for sure whether or not he was dead or alive. When I visited Beijing in September of this year, I asked to visit Wei in prison. My request was not denied, it was just ignored as if he was persona non grata. Finally on November 21 of this year, the Beijing authorities acknowledged what the world already knew, that Wei was their prisoner. They announced their intention to try him for ``attempting to overthrow the government.'' This charge is clearly false, Mr. Speaker, unless it is just another way of saying that anyone who believes in freedom and democracy and who is not afraid to say so is a threat to the ultimate survival of a totalitarian regime such as the one in Beijing. In a free country, Mr. Speaker, Wei Jingsheng would have a place of high honor in society. In today's China, the only question is whether he will be tried for a crime that is punishable by death or by a very, very long imprisonment. Wei is an innocent man, Mr. Speaker. In a free country, this would matter. In Communist China, it is his very innocence that his jailers hate and fear. Mr. Speaker, there is disagreement among the Members of the United States Congress as to the best way to bring freedom and democracy to the People's Republic of China. Some believe that we must pursue a course of constructive engagement, that if we work closely with the Chinese officials and give them much of what they want from us, we will be in the best position to encourage them to improve their dismal human rights record. Others feel that the last 20 years of U.S. policy towards China amounts to a long and unrequired one-way love affair with a Communist dictatorship. Today, however, we all stand together, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, pro- and anti- MFN advocates, united by one simple truth: This decent and gentle man is not a criminal. The trial of Wei Jingsheng is set to begin in just a few hours and, looking at the clock, probably in just a few minutes. We appeal to President Zemin on his behalf. Release him. Today we pray, we hope and we can tell the truth on the floor of this House about what is happening to Wei Jingsheng. For just this one day, let us let the world know that the United States did not conduct business as usual with a government that brutalizes its own people and dishonors its heroes. Wei Jingsheng deserves to be free. Let us send a clear, unmistakable expression of our support for him as he goes on trial and again in just a couple of minutes in China.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on December 1, DOD's Defense Security Assistance Agency notified the House International Affairs Committee of the sale of 120 Army Tactical Missile Systems [ATACMS] to Turkey. Essentially a massive, guided cluster bomb, each missile is accurate at a range of up to 100 miles and delivers 950 small bombs. Many of the munitions fail to detonate, remain on the ground, and become a mortal threat to noncombatants. I rise today to voice grave concerns about this sale and question the rationale and timing of this deal. I also want to point out possible consequences of this sale and underscore the danger of unconditional military support for an unstable regime which routinely commits massive human rights abuses against its own citizenry. Mr. Speaker, my main concern about this sale is that Turkey's regime could use these missiles against civilians as it pursues its ruthless campaign against Kurdish guerrillas. Tragically, Kurdish terrorists have killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Yet in response, Turkey's military has killed thousands, tortured and maimed countless others, destroyed almost 3,000 Kurdish villages and forced 3 million people from their homes. On November 20, 1995, Human Rights Watch detailed in a 171-page report the Turkish military's widespread use of United States-supplied equipment in campaigns which inflict death and destruction against civilians. The atrocities detailed in this report are appalling. The report cites more than two dozen eyewitness accounts and substantiates a June 1995 State Department report which also concluded that U.S. equipment was used to violate the human rights of civilians. Mr. Speaker, advocates of the missile sale argue that Turkey would not use ATACMS against civilians because of the system's high cost and because such use can be easily detected. Both rationales are preposterous. Over recent years, Turkey has spent an estimated $7 billion per annum fighting its internal war. The supposed deterrence due to United States detection capabilities also rings hollow given that this administration, despite overwhelming evidence that Turkey uses United States-supplied weapons against civilians, refuses to condition Turkey's use of United States equipment. I am particularly disturbed that the State Department's Office on Democracy, Labor and Human Rights has lent its support to this sale when it had opposed the sale of ordinary cluster bombs to Turkey earlier this year. The sale of such weapons appears to indicate that the United States Government is willing to ignore Turkey's ruthless suppression of its Kurdish population because of Turkey's value as a strategic and economic partner. It is worth pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that the prime beneficiary of this $132 million contract will be the LORAL Corp., which manufactures ATACMS in Camden, AR. Mr. Speaker, Turkey is undeniably located in a troubled and unstable region of the world. But Mr. Speaker, extending assistance to a fellow member of NATO does not mean we must shut our eyes to their violations of basic human rights. This administration has prioritized the halt of missile proliferation, and I would further question the introduction of advanced missile technology into this unstable region on these grounds. On October 17 of this year, Mr. Speaker, a New York Times editorial entitled ``America Arms Turkey's Repression'' concluded that ``[A]ny further [military] aid should carry human rights conditions that would promote a political solution to a war that has undermined Turkish democracy, boosted the power of the military, drained the economy and divided Turkey from its European allies. Placing such conditions on assistance would also reduce America's complicity in Turkey's repressive internal war.'' Administration representatives, many of my colleagues, and political leaders around the world are urging the Government of Turkey to pursue nonmilitary solutions to the Kurdish crisis because Turkey's purely military approach has failed to do anything but prolong the bloody, divisive and costly conflict. Mr. Speaker, I would also ask how the transfer of an advanced, destructive weapons system serves long-term United States interests in promoting nonmilitary solutions to Turkey's internal conflict? Mr. Speaker, on December 24, national elections will be held in Turkey which will have far reaching implications for United States- Turkish relations and the course of democracy in Turkey. Most observers believe the Islamic-based Welfare Party is poised to win more votes than any other party and will play an important role in, if not lead, Turkey's post-election government. This anti-Western party has declared its intentions to reevaluate the foundations of Turkey's strategic and economic relationship with the United States. This raises the question of whether United States policy makers have thought about the consequences should Turkish voters bring the fundamentalists to power? If the Turkish military is to remain subordinated to civilian authorities, then should we not think twice about providing sophisticated weaponry to a regime whose leaders have stated their opposition to United States interests in the region? Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my opposition to this sale on the grounds that it is amoral and undermines U.S. security interests. Turkey's leaders have not sought to assuage concerns that such weapons would be used internally, by publicly committing to nonuse of this United States-supplied weapon on its own territory, against its own citizens. Mr. Speaker, I believe the sale of ATACMS to Turkey is a mistake we will come to regret. It is shameful that these implements of civilian death and destruction will be labeled ``Made in the USA.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today is a day of several anniversaries. As Americans we cannot forget that 54 year ago today our nation was invaded and attacked and lives were lost at Pearl Harbor. Today we remember those who lost their lives and honor those who bravely served in our Armed Forces and defended our borders. Today is also the anniversary of another invasion. Twenty years ago today the nation of Indonesia invaded the territory of East Timor and 1 year later forcibly annexed it. Within a matter of hours and days after the invasion entire families were wiped out. And since December 7, 1975, over 200,000 Timorese have been killed--one-third of the entire population. What has happened in East Timor over the last 20 years has been sarcastically called by John Pilger, an Australian journalist, ``one of the world's great secrets.'' Indonesia severely restricts access to East Timor, making it difficult to monitor abuses, while human rights organizations and activists are subject to harassment and threats from the government. Still, well-respected organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch/Asia have been able to report on the continuing human rights problems in East Timor. In addition to the thousands killed over the last 20 years, the Indonesian Government has unleashed a reign of terror over the East Timorese which includes detaining political prisons, torture and rape, and disappearances. According to Roman Catholic Bishop Ximenes Belo, an outspoken defender of human rights in East Timor and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, ``There is always fear. We lack freedom to speak, to walk where we want, to have different opinions. If people talk, they know they will be interrogated. They will be tortured.'' Because of Bishop Belo's strong defense of human rights, the Jakarta Government is actively seeking his replacement as leader of East Timor's Roman Catholic Church. The government's attempt to control the church is an attempt to control even the spiritual life of the East Timorese people. In addition to the campaign against Bishop Belo, Amnesty International reports that church officials are subject to surveillance, including the tapping of phones and interception of letters. Members of the clergy also face harassment and intimidation by security forces and Indonesian troops. In October of this year young people, unable to tolerate the suppression any longer, protested against the Indonesian Government. The response of the military was swift and violent. Over 200 people were injured by gunfire, while 150 others who were attending a meeting at a convent were arrested and detained. Many of those who were detained were reported to have been tortured with electric prods or beaten while in custody. Mr. Speaker, the territory of East Timor has been held in captivity for 20 years by the Indonesian Government and there are few indications that the reign of terror will soon end. On this day, when we remember that our own nation was once invaded by another nation, we must not forget the people of East Timor who have not known freedom and peace since the Indonesian invasion on December 7, 1975. And unlike the attack on Pearl Harbor where we were able to overcome the invaders, the invaders of East Timor have yet to be defeated. We can only imagine what life must be like, denied the right of self-determination and other basic human rights. But the words of one man who has spent the last 20 years of his life under the Indonesian dictatorship might help us understand: ``We the people in East Timor call it the biggest prison island in the world. You must understand that. For us who live here it's hell.''

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleagues from Rhode Island and New York in their efforts to call attention to human rights abuses by Indonesia in its occupation of East Timor, and to prevent the use of United States military assistance to further Indonesia's atrocities in East Timor. Indonesia's Armed Forces invaded East Timor in 1975, only weeks after East Timor had attained independence from Portugal. Since then, the Indonesian army has carried out a campaign of what amounts to ethnic cleansing against the Timorese through a program of forced migration. Persecution has been particularly harsh against the Christian population of East Timor. More than 200,000 Timorese--out of a total population of 700,000-- have been killed directly or by starvation in forced migrations from their villages since the Indonesian invasion. There are recent reports of a renewed campaign of repression of Catholics in East Timor. These reports include atrocities such as the smashing of statues of the Blessed Mother. The campaign has also been directed personally against the Catholic Bishop of Dili [DILLY], Bishop Belo. His phones are tapped, his fax machine is monitored, his visitors are watched, and his freedom of movement is restricted. But Bishop Belo persists in his courageous efforts to defend justice, peace and the preservation of the dignity of his people. Recently, he has set up a church commission to monitor human rights abuses, and a radio station to disseminate information and news. Mr. Speaker, the people of East Timor comprise a sovereign nation. They differ from most Indonesians in language, religion, ethnicity, history, and culture. They are entitled to independence and freedom. And in the meantime, they are entitled to fundamental human rights including the freedom of religion.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to raise the Social Security earnings limit. Under this bill, the annual income senior citizens will be allowed to earn, without penalty, will rise from $11,280 to $30,000 over the next 5 years. In this day and age, I cannot believe that there would be anybody in this Chamber who wants to discourage people from working. Yet the earnings limit does precisely that. It is a foolish policy and one which creates perverse economic incentives. H.R. 2684 represents a solid first step and goes a long way toward lifting the burden placed on those seniors who continue to work and make contributions to America's economic activity. Under current law, seniors under the age of 70 who choose to work lose $1 out of every $3 they earn over some arbitrary and bureaucratic limit--currently set at $11,280 a year. To punish these folks, who have racked up years of experience, wisdom, and institutional knowledge makes no sense whatsoever. By raising the limit to $30,000, we begin to ease the penalty and, I hope, make definite strides to eliminating the earnings test altogether. The elections that swept Republicans into the majority were about rearranging our priorities and keeping our promises. We promised to raise the earnings limit in the Contract With America, and this bill, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor, is symbolic of our efforts to keep our promises and fix a Government which all too often sends hardworking citizens the wrong signals. H.R. 2684, Mr. Speaker, is only a partial fix and only the beginning of corrective action which is long overdue. Last year, I cosponsored legislation--H.R. 300--which would have fully repealed the earnings limit and again this year, I cosponsored legislation--H.R. 201--to fully repeal the earnings test. For years, we have heard people argue that raising the earnings limit or repealing the earnings test would only benefit the wealthy. What these people either forget or ignore is the fact that under current law, income derived from private pensions and investments is not subjected to the limit at all. Therefore the argument that this bill would only benefit the wealthy is completely without merit. In fact, the ultrawealthy can and already do earn as much as they want from their investments, but middle-class hardworking men and women who want to keep a job are penalized for moneys they earn. H.R. 2684 addresses this inequity and restores fairness for those who want to work. For many of our elderly citizens, the additional wages they will be allowed to earn, without penalty, is important. But for many more there is an even greater reward: The dignity of working, earning, and keeping an honest buck. There is a spiritual as well as a health benefit to be derived from keeping active, working and being fairly compensated. Why the Federal Government would punish people for this is beyond me. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2684 also corrects a number of other injustices as well. Like the [[Page H 13970]] fact that under current law, alcoholics and drug abusers can receive Social Security disability cash payments. As I said earlier, Republicans were elected to change our priorities, and here is a clear- cut case of mixed up priorities. Punish seniors who decide to work, but give cash benefits to drug and alcohol abusers? These people need treatment and counseling. Under H.R. 2684, people addicted to alcohol or drugs will no longer be eligible to receive benefits due to disability. Instead, the bill redirects some of that funding to various drug and alcohol treatment programs so that people get the type of help they need. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would reiterate that this bill on the whole is a solid piece of legislation that can and should receive bipartisan support. It is unfortunate that during the years that the Democrats controlled the House this legislation was never brought to the floor for a vote and thus people continued to pay penalties at a very low threshold. Today, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2684, and I look forward to building upon this achievement and eliminating the irrational earnings test altogether.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Catholic War Veterans, Holy Cross Post 417 in Trenton, NJ on the 50th anniversary of their founding. Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1945, shortly after the surrender of Japan, the young men of Holy Cross Parish, like young men all across the country including my dad who was a combat veteran in the South Pacific began returning from the Armed Forces. At a young age they had stood up to aggression and prevailed. Now they were home, and anxious to get on with their lives that had been interrupted by tyranny. Monsignor Francis Kasprowicz, pastor of Holy Cross Parish took a great interest and concern for the young veterans. So he granted permission to have a Catholic War Veterans Post formed in the Parish. This interest in our returning servicemen led to the founding of Catholic War Veterans, Holy Cross Post 417. Over the years, Post 417 has opened membership to all those who served in the Armed Forces during World War II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and beyond. During those years they have been honored for having the largest membership of any post in New Jersey. Others have fallen by the roadside, but Post 417 continues to serve the veterans, not only in Holy Cross Parish, but in all of Mercer County, NJ. That service is found in the Post Catholic Action and Americanism programs which are year round efforts. Post 417's Palm Sunday Breakfast, Wafer Supper, Fifth Sunday Corporate Communions, Memorial Day Mass, Veterans and Pearl Harbor Day Services are annual events. A Christmas party and an Easter egg hunt are also held yearly for the children of members of the Post as well as the children of auxiliary members. The Welfare Program also plays an important role in Holy Cross Post 417. Members give of their time to visit disabled veterans at the VA home in Menlo Park, NJ. Often they will play bingo and provide refreshments during their visits with the veterans. The Post holds an annual Cross of Peace collection and they send cards to sick veterans. The Post organized a Ladies Auxiliary in 1949. They have grown to become not only the largest auxiliary in the State, but also the largest auxiliary in the Nation. The members of Post 417 are well aware that their programs would not be possible without the assistance of their impressive auxiliary. Mr. Speaker, many influential voices on the American scene today are of the opinion that the United States' greatest ailment is not a lack of wealth, or opportunity. Rather, they see a breakdown in the communal bonds that give people a sense of belonging in an otherwise uncertain and often hostile world. Few would argue with these voices that a sense of community is essential to a cohesive society. Obviously the family must provide the primary bulwark--grounding the individual with a sense that they are not alone in the world. But it is difficult for the family alone to enrich life with the kind of meaning and fraternity we all crave. Certainly careers and Government services can not fill the void either. It is precisely organizations such as Catholic War Veteran, Holy Cross Post 417 which best link us all with the larger community that exists beyond our homes and individual lives. Post 417, by their long record of involvement in our community is a model of exactly the type of organization which brings us all together in a stable and free society. The service and fellowship they provide to each other, as well as numerous other veterans of our Nation's armed conflicts, certainly yield countless benefits to us all as members of the human family and residents of central New Jersey. We are all truly blessed for their 50 years of service to, as their motto proclaims, God, Country, and Home. Catholic War Veterans, Holy Cross Post 417, I salute you and all your members both living and deceased on your first half-century of service and wish you the best of success for the many, many years your future surely holds.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. One of the previous speakers said that this language would completely eliminate family planning. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Mexico City language and the UNFPA anticoercion language was in effect for most of the 1980's, since about 1984, and into the 1990's, and during that time, the United States, was still the primary donor nation to family planning, both to countries and to organizations around the world. What we said was that coercion is a terrible and heinous thing, and that we as a nation will not look askance or look the other way when it comes to forcing women to have abortions. All our legislation does today is say that we are again serious about the human rights abuse that occur when women are forcibly aborted and forcibly sterilized. And by our legislation today we say no to those organizations, like the U.N. population fund that whitewashes these crimes and coddles those who commit these crimes and provides substantial money and other kinds of technical supports to programs that sanction these crimes. We are telling the world that we are opposed to that and that we are not going to allow our money to go to those kinds of crimes and the organizations that sanction them. Mr. Speaker, I think that the language that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has crafted is a compromise. It is a middle ground that has given in a number of areas, and the Senate should take it. Let me also point out, Mr. Speaker, again, that anyone who says on the other side that this completely eliminates, and I say this to the press as well, completely eliminate family planning, that that is absolutely unmitigated nonsense. It did not happen before, funding continued under humane rules. Those specious charges were made back in the 1980's on this House floor and one provider of family planning services after another agreed to the Mexico City clauses, signed on the dotted line--Planned Parenthood and others all got their money. However, they did so by having a wall of separation between family planning and the performance of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. Mr. Speaker, let me just say something else. Recently my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights had a hearing and we heard testimony from women who had been forcibly aborted, who are now in this country awaiting to be deported. Right now some of those women are on a hunger strike in California. This administration, which says that it cares for women, is about to send 19 women back to China, women that the INS itself has said were credible, had sufficient documentation and information to lead a reasonable man or woman to believe that they, indeed, were forcibly aborted. Well, these women right now are on a hunger strike because the Clinton administration is trying to kick them out of the country and send them back to China. We heard from those women. They came to our subcommittee. It took over 4 months to get them to come, because the administration threw up every kind of barrier to prevent us from hearing their story. One of those witnesses, Li Bao Yu, told us that when she had an IUD that was forcibly inserted into her body by the cadres, when she had it removed, she got pregnant. So what did the Chinese Government do? It said that that baby that was conceived had to be aborted, and they dragged her in and they forced her to have an abortion. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle heard her testimony. We heard from another woman, Hu Shuye, who at 6 months had her baby ripped out of her body by the cadres, by the family planning cadres in the People's Republic of China, and she said, ``I had no way out, they forced me, they dragged me to have this abortion done.'' Mr. Speaker, are we serious about voluntarism? Are we going to look the other way and allow and subsidize these terrible crimes against women? Mr. Speaker, this administration talks out of both sides of its mouth. It says they want to help women, but instead it is sending those women back; it wants to give money to those organizations that do this kind of thing and assist those countries that do this kind of human rights abuse. We will see, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the rest of the committee will confirm, that there is money in this bill for family planning. We just say that human rights criteria ought to have sway. Coercion? Or voluntarism? When it comes between the two, let us come down on the side of voluntarism and not on the side of coercion. Finally, let me just say that we have made some concessions. The Mexico City policy worked, and it will work again.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my good friend, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], if she is aware that during the course of the Reagan and Bush years when the Mexico City policy was in effect that, yes, money went to foreign governments but it also went in record amounts to foreign nongovernmental organizations, including Planned Parenthood, Western Hemisphere, and other organizations that agreed to the Mexico City clause. So it is untrue that the money will only be funneled through governments. It will also continue to go to nongovernmental organizations as it has in the past.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express by heartfelt relief that fellow American Aliza Marcus was acquitted by a State Security Court in Turkey today. The charges which had been brought against her raised serious questions about Turkish leaders' stated commitments to democracy, and her trial generated substantial interest in the United States and among Members of Congress. Perhaps more than any recent case, the trial of this Rueters journalist from New Jersey heightened awareness about restrictions on free speech in Turkey. Her case was specifically protested in report language on the recently passed foreign operations appropriations bill. Yesterday 9 Senators and 38 of my House colleagues joined me in an urgent appeal to the Turkey's President Demirel on behalf of Aliza Marcus and others charged with or imprisoned for speech crimes. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the acquittal of Ms. Marcus, I am also encouraged by steps Turkey has recently taken to alter article 8 of the antiterror law, which has frequently been used to criminalize free speech. The release, since October 30, of up to 80 persons detained under article 8 is a significant positive development which offers further hope that this restrictive law, and others like it will soon become anachronisms in Turkey, as they have become in other European States. Unfortunately, however, the Government of Turkey continues to routinely charge, convict, and imprison individuals for speech crimes. I would point out that four Kurdish members of Turkey's Parliament remain imprisoned for speech crimes, including Leyla Zana, who today was awarded the European Parliament's Sakharov prize for freedom of thought. It is sadly ironic that 1 day before the State Security Court acquitted Ms. Marcus, charges were brought against eight leaders of one of Turkey's most respected human rights organizations, the Human Rights Foundation. I recently met with the foundation's president, Yavuz Onen, when he was here to accept an award on behalf of the foundation. Mr. Speaker, another troubling issue underscored by Ms. Marcus' case relates to the role of the military-sponsored State Security Courts. These legacies of military law pose serious questions about judicial independence in Turkey and the role of the military in Turkey's political life. These courts continue to be responsible for the imprisonment of Turkish intellectuals, journalists, and others, and are increasingly viewed as a major impediment to Turkish democracy. Mr. Speaker, as long as the Government of Turkey maintains and uses laws to restrict free expression, and as long as hundreds of political prisoners remain in jail, questions about the Government's stated international human rights commitments will remain. Given the high priority Turkish leaders have placed upon Turkey's entry into the European Customs Union, recent reforms seem to reflect more of a commitment to good public relations than to principles of democracy. Mr. Speaker, I have always supported the strategic, economic, and political foundations upon which our vital partnership with Turkey are based and have supported the Turkish Government's right to combat terrorism. Yet if we support these objectives to the detriment of human rights, we are doing a disservice to the people of Turkey and are undermining our own long-term policies in the region.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, every day hundreds of abductions of innocent boys and girls are attempted. A study by the U.S. Justice Department reported that each year there are as many as 114,600 attempted abductions of children by non-family members. There are 4,600 reported abductions by non-family members. Even more horrifying is that 354,000 abductions are by family members. In addition, the Department of Justice also reported that 450,700 children ran away and 127,100 children are thrown away each year. While these numbers are staggering and frightening they are also easy to hide behind, Mr. Speaker, because we do not often put a name or a face to this tragedy. Recently our colleague from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, has enabled all of us to see the human face of this issue. In many of our offices the notice about Jimmy Ryce, missing since he was abducted while walking home from school on September 11, have been hanging--a silent but powerful reminder of how vulnerable our children are. Each Member of this House should be concerned about Jimmy Ryce because each day, in each of our districts, there are others like Jimmy who are walking home from school, playing in parks and recreation centers, at sporting and social events, at great risk of being kidnapped--taken from their homes and families. An abduction of a child is just the beginning of unspeakable horrors that he or she might have to endure. It is often the preamble to a life of slavery and fear which may include physical and emotional abuse, forced prostitution, pornography, labor, and drug use. Earlier this week, I hosted a briefing on the trafficking of children for prostitution and pornography in the United States. At this briefing we heard from activists who have dedicated themselves to intervention programs which attempt to locate children who are missing and are now caught in a cycle from which they cannot escape on their own. These people talked of the horrors that are inflicted on these children--they are raped and beaten and threatened with death, they become dependent on their pimps for every aspect of their existence. Treated as chattel, many of them are branded or tattooed to ensure that others know who ``owns'' them. Many of these children are exposed to sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, AIDS, and other illnesses. They are denied adequate medical treatment and many of them die of these illnesses. The number of children who are forced into this modern-day form of slavery is increasing, it is also a tragic fact that the age of these children is decreasing. We are able to document children as young as 4 years old who are victims of this abuse. Tragically, many of the children who are being abused in this way have been reported missing or kidnapped. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, there are few individuals and even fewer organizations which actively work at documenting these missing and kidnapped children, locating them and assisting them in breaking the cycle of abuse and providing for them safe places where they can grow and develop. Organizations such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, H.I.P.S., the Paul and Lisa Program and Children of the Night offer some spark of hope for children who have been abducted. While they provide assistance to a few hundred children each year, the large numbers of children affected by this abuse is overwhelming. More needs to be done. We must have greater concern for our children. They must not have to live in fear that they will be abducted and removed from all that they know and love, forced into a lives of virtual slavery. We owe a word of gratitude to those who have dedicated their lives to assisting the missing and exploited children of our Nation. But we must also pledge to our children and especially to Jimmy Ryce and the thousands of others who are missing and kidnapped that we will do all we can to find them, protect them and return them to their childhoods and the promise that the future should hold for them.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day for our Nation. The coverup of abortion methods is over. Today, Congress comes to grips with the specifics of what an abortion actually does, and it ain't pretty. From this day forward, we will no longer be able to say we did not know. We now know, and every Member of this Chamber should know, that every abortion takes the life of a child. Whether it be a partial-birth abortion or D&E abortion, where the baby is literally dismembered while in utero, or the suction abortions routinely done, thousands per day, where a high-powered vacuum, 20 to 30 times more powerful than a vacuum cleaner in one's home, literally dismembers the child. All of these methods kill the baby. This is all about human rights for children, and it is about preserving and protecting the right to life of baby girls and baby boys. Somebody said this is anti-woman. Half of those little infants killed are baby girls. Let us not ever forget that. Then again, let's also remember what Dr. Haskel himself has said. I would like to repeat it very briefly. Dr. Haskel said and I quote: ``The surgeon forces the scissors into the base of the skull.'' This is medical practice? And then a high-powered suction catheter is introduced, and the baby's brains are sucked out. This is not medical practice. This is child abuse.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think the record should be very clear that in the past, prior to Roe versus Wade, abortion was illegal and unborn children were protected in most of the States and it was the doctors that were prosecuted, the abortionists, the quacks, who were doing those abortions. So the previous speaker's statement simply is not true. Mr. Speaker, the vote on this rule boils down to one simple question. Will our discussion and our votes today be about the procedure known as partial birth abortion or will the organized pro-abortion forces succeed again in diverting the debate and muddying the waters? The professional abortionists and the paid representatives of the abortion industry desperately want to avoid a congressional debate on what actually happens in this procedure or any other method of abortion for that matter. They already know better than anyone else the gruesome details about every method of abortion. The abortion lobby also knows that most Members of Congress who generally vote on their side of the issue, like most Americans, are really not pro abortion in their heart of hearts. Mr. Speaker, they know that today, if this rule is adopted, the abortion debate will shift from the abstract to the real. They know that the 23 year coverup by the multibillion dollar abortion industry, with the complicity of many in the media, will be over and history will be made. For the first time ever we will directly confront the violence of what the abortionist actually does. For the first time ever we will directly confront the child abuse called legal abortion and say yes or no. If this rule is adopted Members of Congress who have sincere differences about abortion will be faced with one important question and only one: Whether this procedure, which inflicts a death so cruel that it would never be inflicted on a convicted murderer, so cruel that it would surely be a crime to inflict such torture on a dog, is too cruel to be inflicted on a child. Mr. Speaker, the abortion industry knows that it can never win unless it deflects attention away from itself, away from the abortion procedures and on to something else. So this industry and its supporters are particularly infuriated when anyone threatens to describe an abortion procedure in detail. They attack as dangerous, an extremist, anyone who would describe such a procedure either with words or with pictures. So they know if this rule is adopted, if we have a fair and honest and thorough discussion today, not about side issues, but about the partial birth abortion procedure itself, the abortion debate will forever change. Americans will see that the real extremists are not the people who insist on calling attention to the grizzly details of abortion, such as dismemberment of the unborn child, including injections of high concentrated salt solutions and other kinds of poisons that chemically burn and then kill the baby, or this particular method, a brain sucking method of abortion. They will see that the real extremists are those who actually do these heinous procedures and want to keep it a secret. The dangerous person is not the one who shows us the pictures or who describes abortions, the dangerous person, the child abuser, is the one depicted in the picture, the person holding the scissors at the base of the baby's skull. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Martin Haskel, one of the leaders in trying to promote this method who has actually done hundreds of these partial birth abortions, said in a recorded interview that 80 percent of the partial birth abortions are elective abortions, abortions on-demand, not life of the mother abortions, which again this bill would allow. Dr. Haskel describes it this way. These are his words. ``The surgeon 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 those scissors and introduces a suction catheter into the hole and evacuates the skull contents. That is the brain of an unborn baby. Evacuates the skull contents.'' How dehumanizing. Mr. Speaker, let us have a real debate on this issue today. Abortion methods and the coverup that has gone on for so long must end. Abortion is child abuse. This is a particularly heinous form of that child abuse. Why are so many good people on the other side [[Page H 11596]] and on this side, that I know and respect, defending this kind of abuse against children? I urge Members to vote for the Canady bill. Vote for this rule. We need to end this legalized child abuse. These children are precious. We have to look at life and birth really as an event that happens to each and every one of us. In this particular bill we are talking about a baby who is half born. The feet are literally out of the mother's womb. Vote for the Canady amendment and vote for this rule.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, why is the pro-abortion movement even more fiercely opposed to the partial birth abortion bill than other pro-life measures? They insist that this bill would regulate only a small percentage of abortions, yet they are outraged that the bill is on the docket today. I think it is this. Usually when we discuss abortion we talk about everything but abortion itself. According to the rules of the game the abortion controversy is about philosophy or religion or economics, about everything but what actually happens in each and every abortion. By addressing one particular kind of abortion, this legislation forces us for the first time to acknowledge the dark, dirty secret of what actually happens. The baby dies. The 23-year coverup about the brutal methods of abortion, including dismemberment, injections of chemical poisons and now brain-sucking procedures is over. The coverup is over. The gruesome spectacle of partial-birth abortions forces us to admit that what happens is death. It forces us to acknowledge that what dies is a baby, and we see all too clearly that the death inflicted on that baby is unspeakably cruel.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].