Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the underlying Istook language that was approved by the full Committee on Appropriations and in opposition to the Kolbe strike. The current language, which this amendment would delete, is a noble attempt to protect the powers of the States and the rights of taxpayers who do not wish to pay for abortions. The current language also protects the constitutional prerogative of Congress as the only branch of the Federal Government with the authority to make laws. It does this by repealing the Clinton administration's strained and unfaithful interpretation of the Hyde amendment. The Istook language guarantees that in cases where the demand for an abortion rises from rape or incest, States may resolve this very difficult dilemma in the manner most consistent with values of their own citizens expressed through their State representatives. The amendment before us would strike the Istook language. It would thereby save the Clinton rules and force all States to fund abortion in these situations. Supporters of the Kolbe strike claim that they are preserving the Hyde amendment. In fact, the Clinton rules [[Page H 8373]] which they are seeking to reinforce effectively undermine the Hyde amendment. The Kolbe amendments, under the pretext of preserving it, would defeat it. On the Hyde amendment language, let me remind Members when it was offered by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, was permissive, not mandatory. It allows States, it allows them, does not force them to add Medicaid funds for abortions resulting from rape or incest, but it respects the State law when that State law is more protective of those children in that very difficult situation. It took the Clinton administration to urge that the Kolbe strike amendment be defeated.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me say very closely that the DeLay amendment does not force the accreditation council to change its accreditation standards, but it does say that in determining who can receive Federal benefits, the Federal Government will not be guided by an organization that discriminates against institutions which do not offer, quote, experience with induced abortion as a standard part of their medical training. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would deny doctors the right to choose not to do abortions. This is a very heavy-handed push by the abortion industry because fewer and fewer residents and members of the medical profession are going into the abortion industry. This is a heavy-handed effort to use the power of the Federal purse to coercion, to force, to pressure. Yes, there is some opt out language, but this would mainstream the killing of unborn children on demand for any reason whatsoever, and to coerce these individual residents and their residency programs to be a part of that. This is a part of the abortion industry's push. I hope that this amendment gets rejected.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Livingston-Smith compromise which makes needed reforms in the Nation's family planning effort. This vote, Mr. Chairman, is not about ending Federal family planning assistance. It is about defunding the abortion industry, restoring State and local control, and redirecting funds to organizations which recognize that the worst problems of teenage children cannot be solved by shutting their parents out of the process. Make no mistake about it, the Livingston-Smith compromise does not end Federal family planning assistance. Instead, it redirects to the States a little over 25 percent of what the Federal Government spends on family planning programs--that's the $193 million we spend on title X--through block grants them and lets States decide how and where to best use these needed funds. As many of my colleagues know, the Federal Government will spend in excess of $745 million on family planning programs this year alone. The lion's share of the Federal spending on family planning is through Medicaid--the Nation's program for the poor--which is expected to spend in excess of $525 million on family planning for poor women in fiscal year 1995. The Livingston compromise leaves this money and this program as is--untouched. The argument that the Federal Government is abandoning family planning support for poor women is simply not true. It's a red herring. The truth is that under Chairman Livingston's proposal, the Federal funds now used for title X are redirected on a dollar-for-dollar basis to the Maternal and Child Health block grant, as well as the Consolidated Health Centers program. Each of these programs already provides primary health services and preventive services, including family planning, to low-income people. Under the Livingston-Smith compromise the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program will receive an infusion of more than $116 million which they can target to family planning programs while the Consolidated Health Center program will receive an additional $77 million that can be targeted for family planning initiatives across the country. Federal family planning assistance is not eliminated. But duplication of effort and administrative costs are. Right off the bat, the Livingston-Smith amendment will free up $3 million from overhead costs and allow that money to go to direct services. And as this Congress has searched for ways to bring the Federal budget under control, programs that are unauthorized have naturally been subject to particular scrutiny. The title X program hasn't been authorized in 10 years. The Livingston-Smith compromise will provide greater power to the States to administer their own family planning programs. As we have seen with many other areas of Government spending, the State governments are closer to the problem and can more effectively channel funds so that the greatest number of persons--in each State--are served in the most efficient and most effective way possible. Who is more capable of delivering services to the people, the States or the Federal Government? Part of the answer to this question includes a long, hard look at the title X program, its pet recipients and its record of controversy and failure. Most of us agree that the purpose of Federal involvement in family planning efforts is to reduce the number of children born outside of wedlock, particularly to teenagers. Yet, since 1972, teen pregnancy has skyrocketed from about 50 pregnancies per 1,000 teenage girls to about 100 pregnancies per 1,000 girls in 1990. This is a staggering increase of 100 percent--in a time span of less than two decades. As with many other social problems, we are slowly making the realization that throwing more money at the problem is not the answer. The problem with title X is not the amount of money, but who spends it and how. The largest single recipient of title X funds is a private organization--the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. And its no coincidence that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States today. Planned Parenthood organizations perform or refer for over 215,000 abortions each year. This is an organization that believes in giving out contraceptives to children, and performing abortions on them, without their parents being informed. Planned Parenthood proudly boasts of lobbying to overturn State laws that require informed consent before women undergo abortions, and which require parents to be notified before minors have abortions. The ideology of Planned Parenthood is one that undermines parental authority. Unbelievably, title X regulations actually prohibit grantees from informing parents about treatment of and drugs that are given to teens, if the teenager in question requests that the parents be left in the dark. This bizarre requirement in the title X program has actually prevented some States from receiving title X funds because they have laws on the books which require parents to be informed about medical treatment given to their children. For example, the State of Utah was denied title X funds in the past because of the State's parental notification requirements. And here's another coincidence. The Office of Population Affairs, which overseas the title X program, is headed by an abortionist from California who performed abortions for Planned Parenthood for over 20 years. This is the Clinton administration's idea of a family planning expert. Mr. Chairman, I hope no one will be fooled by the language on abortion that is contained in the Greenwood amendment. The intent of the amendment is to nullify the Livingston compromise and take the $116 million in new moneys from the Community Health Centers in order to re- fund title X, Planned Parenthood, and the abortion industry. The Greenwood amendment sounds like it has restrictions on funding of abortion, but it doesn't. It merely restates current law and policy with respect to title X recipients and abortion funding, counseling, and lobbying with Federal funds. The Greenwood amendment provides no further protections than current law. Everyone on both sides of the abortion debate knows that the current restrictions on abortion funding do not really restrict. The proabortion side knows that they don't work and that's why the proabortion side supports the Greenwood amendment. The pro-life side knows the current restrictions don't work and that's why we oppose the Greenwood amendment. Money is fungible, and when more than $34 million in title X funds goes to the Nation's leading provider of abortions, we are subsidizing the abortion industry. Consider this: Planned Parenthood's records show that it is an organization which favors abortion over childbirth. In 1993, for example, Planned Parenthood clinics directly provided 134,277 abortions, but only provided prenatal care to 9,943 women--a staggering 13.5 to 1 ratio of planned abortions to planned births. With this record it cannot be denied that whenever tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood they prop up the abortion industry. Supporters of the Greenwood amendment will say it prohibits title X funds from being used to pay for abortions. But abortion funding is already prohibited under the Hyde amendment. And yet, title X funds regularly go to support organizations and clinics which perform abortions as a method of birth control. And they will argue that the Greenwood amendment says that title X funds cannot be used for lobbying for or against candidates or legislation. But this too is already in current law. And it has never stopped title X recipients from lobbying for abortion on demand and continued title X funding. Just this month, a pro-life Member got hold of an ``Action Alert'' from Planned Parenthood of Central Florida--which receives title X funding--opposing the Livingston compromise. The alert urges PP supporters to write and call the Member and ``express your outrage.'' It also encourages people to go to town hall meetings and ``to clap or boo even if you don't want to speak.'' It concludes: ``We need to let him know we are watching him . . .'' We should not be surprised that the Planned Parenthood Federation is opposed to the changes proposed to title X by Chairman Livingston. It is not often that a private organization can ride the gravy train and receive tens of millions of dollars in public funding each year, all from a program that is administered by one of its own. Finally Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that under the Livingston/Smith amendment, Planned Parenthood can and presumably will apply to receive funding from the States, which would receive the title X funds that are redirected to the Maternal and Child Health block grant, and the Community and Migrant Health Centers program. But there will be no more sweetheart deals from the Federal Government. Planned Parenthood will have to compete on a level field with other service providers, many of whom are less ideological, less controversial, and more effective at providing family planning services other than abortions. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to consider what we would gain by restoring funding for the title X program. Billions more dollars for an unauthorized program which has a solid record of failure in reducing teen pregnancy? more funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood which undermine parental authority and perform or arrange hundreds of thousands of abortions every year? is that what the American taxpayers really want? Our choice today is not about whether we should continue to support family planning. It is about whether we should continue supporting a failed and controversial Federal program, or give the money to the States, and let them experiment with different approaches to solve these persistent and tenacious problems. I urge my colleagues to support the compromise worked out by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Livingston.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, exactly 20 years ago today President Gerald Ford and other leaders of the 33 European countries and Canada gathered in Helsinki, Finland, for the solemn signing of the Helsinki Final Act of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. In two decades since this historic gathering, the Helsinki Accords have helped guide relations between the participating states from the dark days of the cold war to the dawning of democracy in the countries of East Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. Mr. Chairman, the commemoration of today's anniversary is overshadowed by the dark ongoing tragedy in Bosnia-Herzegovina, one of the newest members to join the OSCE. It is fitting that the House consider S. 21 legislation to lift the arms embargo in Bosnia today. At no point over these past 20 years, Mr. Chairman, have the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act been under greater attack than in the ongoing war of aggression and genocide in Bosnia. Over the course of the past 3 years, virtually each and every one of these principles have been violated by the Serb militants in Bosnia and neighboring Croat, with devastating consequences for the people of these two countries. Tens of thousands of women and girls raped, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in cold blood, millions driven from their homes through a policy of ethnic cleansing; concentration camps, wanton aggression, and genocide in the heart of Europe 50 years after the victory over Nazi Germany. Promises of never again ring curiously hollow in the face of genocidal practices and policy pursued by those bent on the destruction of the multiethnic state in Bosnia. The crisis in Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, has unmasked a crisis of leadership at the White House and in the West in general, characterized by confusion, contradiction, and ultimately, acquiescence. While no one wants to be blamed for the bleeding of Bosnia, Mr. Speaker, no one is willing to intervene in order to stop it. For 3 years the international community has pursued a diplomatic process which has consumed considerable time and effort, even as Bosnia and her people have been consumed by armed aggression and genocide. Left unchecked, Mr. Chairman, this crisis of leadership will only further erode institutions, vital institutions like the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and the OSCE, with direct political and economic consequences for the United States. Mr. Chairman, the international community has stood by as well-armed Serb militants, under the leadership of indicted war criminals Karadzic and Mladic have pursued their genocide policies, bent on the destruction of Bosnia and the creation of a greater Serbia. At the same time the government of the sovereign, independent, and recognized state of Bosnia has been prevented from attaining the means to defend itself and its people through its continued imposition of an arms embargo which virtually guarantees a victory to the Serb militants. At this point, further negotiations with war criminals like Mladic and the others can only yield results at the further expense of Bosnia. Appeasement by the West has only raised the stakes for a final settlement, even as the Serb militants pursue their aims on the ground. Herding Moslems and Croats into shrinking numbers of ethnic ghettoes is not the answer. If the international community has been unwilling to provide for the collective defense of Bosnia within its internationally recognized borders, on what basis can we be expected to defend even a truncated Bosnia, as recently suggested by Charles Krauthammer in his op-ed? Let me just quote this: ``While the administration goes back and forth, more lives are being lost and the situation grows more desperate by the day.'' These words are not mine, Mr. Chairman, but an observation made by then candidate Bill Clinton in October 1992, in the early months of a war which has now stretched for over 3 years. For 30 months President Clinton has vacillated as even more lives have been lost and the situation has grown even more desperate on the ground. The United States has backed a diplomatic process which has led to a dead end. We have to be honest and face that. No amount of tinkering is going to resuscitate the failed U.N. mission in Bosnia. The so-called rapid reaction force agreed to nearly 2 months ago was supposed to be the last great hope for UNPROFOR. So much for rapid reaction, Mr. Chairman. The force has turned into a farce as militant Serb forces moved against the enclaves in Srebrenica and Zepa, two U.N. protected areas, and they have done so with impunity. The fate of another enclave, Bihac, is very much in doubt as Serbs from Croatia have joined their Bosnian Serbian brethren in a military assault which continues, despite the promises to repel Croatian Serbs and to pull back from the area. A spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping battalion in the Bihac pocket says there were no signs of a general withdrawal, and Serb military tanks and artillery that power the advances were going ahead. Mr. Chairman, just let me conclude very, very briefly. Prime minister Silajdzic has said over and over again, ``We do not need American troops there, but what we do need is the ability to defend ourselves.'' That is what they need the ability to do. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of S. 21, legislation passed in the Senate which would lift the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina upon a request from the Bosnian Government to the United States requesting a lift and a request from Bosnia to the United Nations requesting the withdrawal of UNPROFOR. An actual lift would take place, under this bill, 12 weeks from the date of the request to the United Nations. It also includes a provision extending that time frame in the event that such a withdrawal would require more time to complete. Mr. Chairman, exactly 20 years ago today President Gerald Ford and the leaders of 33 European countries and Canada gathered in Helsinki, Finland for the solemn signing of the Helsinki Final Act of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. As a member, and now as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have witnessed first hand, the positive impact of the OSCE in helping to shape developments in Europe. In the two decades since this historic gathering, the Helsinki Accords have helped guide relations between the participating states from the dark days of the cold war through the dawning of democracy in the countries of East Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. Mr. Chairman, the commemoration of today's anniversary is overshadowed by the ongoing tragedy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of the newer members to join the OSCE. It is fitting that the House consider S. 21, legislation to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia today, Mr. Chairman, for at no point over these past 20 years have the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act been under greater attack than in the ongoing war of aggression and genocide in Bosnia. Over the course of the past 3 years, virtually each and every one of these principles has been violated by Serb militants in Bosnia and neighboring Croatia with devastating consequences for the people of these two countries. Tens of thousands of women and girls raped. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in cold blood. Millions driven from their homes through a policy of ethnic cleansing. Wanton aggression and genocide in the heart of Europe 50 years after the victory over Nazi Germany. Promises of never again ringing curiously hollow in the face of genocidal practices and policies pursued by those bent on the destruction of the multiethnic state of Bosnia. The crisis in Bosnia has unmasked a crisis of leadership in the West characterized by confusion, contradiction, and ultimately acquiescence. While no one wants to be blamed for the bleeding of Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, no one is willing to intervene in order to stop it. For 3 years, the international community has pursued a diplomatic process which has consumed considerable time and effort even as Bosnia and her people have been consumed by armed aggression and genocide. Whenever a new crisis has arisen, the response of the international community has been to convene yet another conference, issue another statement, or adopt a new resolution. So many words, so little action. Pursuit of policies largely intended to preserve the status quo have led to a dead end. With the passage of time, the policy options in Bosnia have been reduced. In fact, there are no easy options to pursue. This stark reality has only exacerbated the crisis in leadership over Bosnia. Left unchecked, Mr. Chairman, this crisis of leadership will only further erode vital institutions like the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, and the OSCE with direct political and economic consequences for the United States. Mr. Chairman, the international community has stood by as well-armed Serb militants, under the leadership of indicted war criminals Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, have pursued their genocidal policies bent on the destruction of Bosnia as a multiethnic state and the creation of a greater Serbia. At the same time, the government of the sovereign, independent, and recognized state of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been prevented from obtaining the means to defend itself and its people through the continued imposition of an arms embargo which has virtually guaranteed victory by the Serbs given their superiority in heavy weapons. The message is clear--might makes right. There is nothing to suggest that the militant Serbs, who have been allowed to wage their war of aggression and genocide in Bosnia with impunity, will be satisfied with anything less than the complete annihilation of that country. Their appetites whetted, what is to prevent them from moving against Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, or others in the region? If the militant Serbs were interested in striking a deal, they would have signed onto the contact group proposal presented over a year ago, accepted by Sarajevo, and repeatedly rejected by Pale. At this point, further negotiations with war criminals like Karadzic and Mladic or their benefactor in Belgrade, Slobodan Milosevic, can only yield results at the further expense of Bosnia. Appeasement by the West has only raised the stakes for a final settlement even as the militant Serbs pursue their aims on the ground. Herding Moslems and Croats into a shrinking number of ethnic ghettos is not the answer. If the international community has been unwilling to provide for the collective defense of Bosnia and Herzegovina within its internationally recognized borders, on what basis can it be expected to defend even a truncated Bosnia as suggested in a recent opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer. ``While the administration goes back and forth, more lives are being lost and the situation grows more desperate by the day.'' These words are not mine, Mr. Chairman, but an observation made by then-candidate Bill Clinton in October 1992 in the early months of a war which has now stretched over 3 years. For 30 months now President Bill Clinton has vacillated as even more lives have been lost and the situation has grown even more desperate. The United States has backed a diplomatic process which has led to a dead end. Mr. Chairman, no amount of tinkering is going to resuscitate the failed U.N. mission in Bosnia. Time and time again the administration has asserted that it was backing the one last chance to sustain the U.N. effort in Bosnia. It was the contact group proposal--that's been gathering dust on the table for over a year as the Bosnian Serbs have continued to wage their war of aggression and genocide on innocent civilians in so-called safe havens and elsewhere in Bosnia. The so-called rapid reaction force agreed to nearly 2 months ago was suppose to be the last great hope for UNPROFOR. Well so much for rapid reaction. Mr. Chairman, the force has turned into more of a farce as militant Serb forces moved against the enclaves Srebrenica and Zepa two U.N. protected areas with impunity. The fate of another enclave, Bihac, is very much in doubt as Serbs from Croatia have joined forces with their Bosnian brethren in a military assault which continues despite promises by rebel Croatian Serbs to pull back from the area. A spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping battalion in the Bihac pocket said there were no signs of a general withdrawal and Serb artillery and tanks that powered advances almost to the heart of the pocket had not budged. So much for promises. At the end of last week, President Clinton, referring to NATO plans for aggressive bombing of Serb positions if they move on Gorazde or if other safe havens are imperiled, said, ``This is the last chance for UNPROFOR to survive.'' Well the robust bombing many, including myself, had hoped for has yet to materialize despite the latest attacks on Bihac. A spokesman in Brussels said last Thursday that NATO officials were ready to meet at a moment's notice to discuss plans for Bihac and Sarajevo. Mr. Chairman, attempts to fix UNPROFOR will only consume more precious time as the militant Serbs continue, with impunity, their campaign of aggression and genocide. Mr. Chairman, time and time again we are told that plans are being worked out and that it will take a couple of more planning sessions before everything is in place. By the time most of this planning has been completed, the plans have been overtaken by events on the ground. And the cycle goes on and on and on. President Clinton said the other day that he has decided ``we're either going to do what we said we're going to do with the U.N. or we're going to do something else.'' Mr. Chairman, this pretty much sums up the Clinton administration's failed Bosnia policy if it has one to begin with. Faced with the worst humanitarian crisis to strike Europe since the end of World War II, the Clinton administration has vacillated and equivocated time and time again. A crisis of leadership in a country which, until recently, was viewed, with pride, as the leader of the free world. Mr. Chairman, as the prime sponsor of H.R. 1172, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote, as they did in overwhelming numbers and on a bipartisan basis on June 8, to lift the illegal, immoral, and inhuman embargo imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the past, the Congress has sent mixed messages to the administration over policy toward Bosnia. I believe it is imperative that the Congress--House and Senate--speak with a single voice in support of Bosnia's inherent and sovereign right to self-defense. The June 8 House vote of 318 to 99 confirmed that there is growing support on both sides of the aisle for ending this embargo once and for all. In the 7 weeks since the House vote the situation on the ground in Bosnia has gone from bad to worse. The safe havens of Srebrenica and Zepa have fallen. Militant Serbs continue their savage armed attacks on Bihac. Sarajevo is subjected to sporadic shelling. These and other developments underscore the urgency of lifting the arms embargo without further delay. Time is of the essence. While I would have preferred an immediate lifting of the embargo as envisioned in my bill, I am convinced that the Congress reach a consensus on the embargo sooner rather than later. The bill before us represents that consensus. Mr. Chairman, through inaction the United States and the international community have, in fact, become accomplices to genocide. I urge my colleagues to heed the message contained in the letter of resignation of the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the former Yugoslavia, former Polish Prime Minister Maziowieski, dated July 27, 1995: ``We are dealing with the struggle of a state, a member of the United Nations, for its survival and multi-ethnic character, and with the endeavor to protect principles on international order. One cannot speak about the protection of human rights with credibility when one is confronted with the lack of consistency and courage displayed by the international community and its leaders. The reality of the human rights situation today is illustrated by the tragedy of the people of Srebrenica and Zepa.'' He continues: ``The very stability of international order and the principle of civilization is at stake over the question of Bosnia. I am not convinced that the turning point hoped for will happen and cannot continue to participate in the pretense of the protection of human rights.'' Mr. Chairman, it is time to stand by our principles. Mr. Chairman, the Bosnians have asked us for one thing--the right to defend themselves and their country. Enough is enough. Mr. Chairman, it is time to put an end to the equivocation and vacillation which have characterized United States policy toward Bosnia. I urge my colleagues to uphold Bosnia's fundamental right to self-defense by voting to lift the arms embargo.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was given the opportunity to speak in this debate about why I felt so strongly we need to lift the arms embargo. I think it is immoral. It continues to be unethical. People are being killed and slaughtered. Under the right of one's country, a sovereign right, to defend themselves, it is my strongly held view, and thanks to the majority of this Chamber, both sides of the aisle, that we ought to lift the arms embargo. It was improperly imposed. It ought to be lifted immediately so the Bosnians can defend themselves. But I would like to take just a moment or two to read a letter that was sent on July 31 to myself and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], who has been a real strong advocate and a leader on this lifting of the arms embargo. It is from Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic, a man who has appeared before the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] used to chair, is now ranking Democrat on that Commission, and time and time again he has made an impassioned plea over the years for lifting the arms embargo as a way of this country, this important country, to defend itself, but also so that the diplomacy would work. Absent a credible counterweight to the armed aggression by the Serbs, the Bosnian Serbs, the diplomacy will not work, and I would like to read the letter from Dr. Silajdzic, the Prime Minister, to Mr. Hoyer and me: Republika Bosna I Hercegovina, Office of the Prime Minister, July 31, 1995. Hon. Christopher Smith, Hon. Steny Hoyer, U.S. House of Representatives. Dear Congressmen: As you are aware, the people of my country have been under the most brutal assault seen in Europe since World War II. Throughout this conflict, we have never asked for American or foreign ground troops to fight for us. We do not need them. We have both the manpower and the will to fight for ourselves. Nor have we asked for training for our soldiers in weaponry or fighting. Our officers are already well trained, and our rank-and-file soldiers have had three years of on-the-job training in addition to their service in the former Yugoslav army. Instead, we have asked only that the arms embargo against our country be ended. In spite of the passage of the Hoyer amendment last month, this embargo remains in place. In the eight weeks since that vote, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has deteriorated dramatically. The countries that created and committed themselves to protect the six United Nations- designated ``safe areas'' have betrayed two of them-- Srebrenica and Zepa--by allowing them to be overrun by Serbian forces. During and after these attacks, hundreds of civilians were raped and tortured. Thousands were massacred. At least seven thousand are unaccounted for. Tens of thousands more were displaced, and, in the absence of any real response from the international community, hundreds of thousands of our citizens throughout Bosnia are now more gravely imperiled than before. Time is of the essence. With their latest pledge to defend Gorazde and interminable deliberations over whether to honor their existing commitments to protect the three other remaining ``safe areas,'' Contact Group and UN-troop contributing nations claim to have drawn a line in the sand. The London Conference countries made their pledge ten days ago, yet still there has been no action. And it increasingly appears that the line was drawn to protect only Gorazde--if that. Why only Gorazde? Why not Zepa? Its 20,000 inhabitants, even as they were still clinging to life and defending the enclave against all odds, were written off in the London conference communique in the name of consultations and consensus. Why not Bihac, which Serbian forces are trying to overrun even now? Why not Sarajevo, where Serbian forces have escalated their criminal strangulation and shelling attacks, and where, last week alone, 45 civilians--including 5 children--were killed, and 184 more wounded. How do you explain to the Bosnian people that the very governments that created and promised to protect these enclaves are now sacrificing them? Serbian forces have crossed every line that the international community has ever drawn. After only a few more summits, commitments, pledges to act, and consultations, there could be no more Bosnians left in Bosnia. Since before the very first attacks on our population more than three years ago, we have been prepared to fight to defend ourselves. Tragically, the arms embargo against our country has ensured that this conflict be a slaughter rather than a war. The arms embargo must be terminated and a balance of power be effected on the ground. Only then will this genocidal spiral end. The recent offer of Croatian Serb forces to retreat from Bihac back into Croatia rather than face approaching Croatian Army units amply demonstrates the Serbs' responsiveness to a credible threat of force rather than empty diplomacy. Our Army and even ordinary citizens are determined to provide that threat and fight for their lives, homes, villages, and country. This is our right. It is one that the American people--and their leaders--would undoubtedly demand for themselves if faced with brutal aggression of the type that Bosnia is enduring. On behalf of our people, I appeal to the American government, the American people, and their elected representatives to untie our hands and to prove, once again, why American is the leader of the democratic world. In the name of morality, lift the arms embargo. Sincerely, Haris Silajdzic, Prime Minister. I urge all Members to vote to endorse the amendment that has been offered to the bill by Mr. Dole, and please lift this arms embargo so people can defend themselves.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I hail the indictments issued this week by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The number of indictments has now grown to 46; more significantly, they now include the infamous names of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, the highest ranking political and military leaders among the Bosnian Serb hierarchy in Pale. With their indictment, Chief Prosecutor Richard Goldstone has proven himself a man of his word. Upon his appointment in July 1994, Goldstone promised to take his prosecution where the evidence leads and to bring the most culpable-- those who order and enable others to commit atrocities--within the reach of the court. In so doing, his indictments bring us one step closer to holding those responsible for the orchestration of the most egregious crimes of the Yugoslav War personally responsible for their actions. To further advance the work of this Court, the United States should take two key measures. First, the United States must ensure that the Tribunal has the financial resources to bring these cases to trial and continue with effective investigations and prosecutions. Although last year, during a period of initial start-up, the United States made a $3 million voluntary contribution to the Tribunal, a subsequent voluntary contribution has not been forthcoming. Failure by the United States to provide adequate financial support to the Tribunal--at the very time the Tribunal's initial investigations are producing meaningful results--would send a regrettable sign of weakening U.S. resolve to see war criminals held truly accountable. If the Administration will not take the lead, Congress should earmark appropriations for the Voluntary Fund for the Tribunal, consistent with the authorization in H.R. 1561. Second, President Clinton should, once and for all, put to rest the notion that amnesty or immunity is a viable option for the architects of ethnic cleansing and those charged with genocide; the continued silence of top U.S. officials on this matter undermines confidence in the U.S. commitment to hold such individuals personally accountable. In addition, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, should publicly state American resolve to use our veto, if necessary, to ensure that sanctions against Serbia remain in place until Belgrade cooperates with the Tribunal by surrendering to the Hague indicted criminals present on Serb-controlled territory. Easing sanctions throughout the past year has only been followed by Serbia's continued support for those responsible for war crimes and violations of humanitarian law, including the fall of Srebrinica and Zepa. Mr. Speaker, there are those who have long sought to minimize the importance of this Tribunal. They have argued that it cannot succeed because we will not gain custody of the indicted--and therefore we need not try. They have argued that it cannot succeed because it lacks resources--and therefore we need not bother to provide it with the means to do the job we have given it. And they have argued that it cannot succeed because war criminals sit as negotiators--and therefore we should merely continue to negotiate with them rather than seek to bring them to justice. But even if those indicted this week are never brought to trial, this Tribunal has already ensured that they will be fugitives for the rest of their lives, subject to international arrest warrants wherever they go. Moreover, by identifying individual perpetrators, this court may pave the way for the innocent among all ethnic groups in this conflict to reconcile the divisions in society that these war criminals exploited for their own personal ends.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2099, the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill. As vice chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am especially pleased that, under this bill, the VA will experience a $159 million increase over fiscal year 1995's levels. The Appropriations Committee is to be commended for asserting that, even in these times of fiscal restraint, our Nation's veterans deserve quality health care and equitable compensation for their service to our country. The VA's medical care account will be increased by over half a billion dollars from last year. The compensation and pension program will see a $23 million increase from fiscal year 1995. Funding for readjustment benefits, which assists former service members in getting acclimated to civilian life, will increase over $50 million. Mr. Speaker, New Jersey's veterans will be greatly assisted by this appropriations bill. Included in the funding for minor construction projects are two programs--a geriatric patient care program at the Lyons VAMC and a low vision center at the East Orange VAMC--which will bring immediate relief to thousands of New Jersey veterans who previously were forced to travel out of State for these types of care. I will be working with Veteran's Affairs Chairman Stump to ensure that report language endorsing these initiatives--along with an outpatient cancer chemotherapy center at the East Orange VAMC--is included in our construction authorization bill to be marked up later this year. I have also been working with the New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs in an attempt to secure funding for a replacement State nursing home located in [[Page H 7836]] Menlo Park, NJ. We have gone through a grueling application process and are encouraged that Menlo Park will be at or near the top of a priority list of deserving applicants. Because the Appropriations Committee funded the Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities Program at last year's equitable level, we can be assured that sufficient funds will be available to fully fund those projects deemed most worthy. I would like to thank Chairman Lewis for all his hard work on this spending bill. It is fair to veterans, while still being mindful of the Nation's fiscal realities. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Turkey's Parliament and Prime Minister Ciller for taking an important step towards strengthening democracy. On Sunday, July 23, Turkey's Parliament approved 16 constitutional amendments which are part of a democratization plan introduced last year. The Parliament also agreed to resume work in September on amending article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law, which is widely used to criminalize anti-government and pro- Kurdish expressions. These reforms are considered prerequisites to Turkey's acceptance into a European Union customs agreement this fall. Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the fact that the amendments were adopted by a vote of 360-32 after weeks of tumultuous debate. These amendments are significant for the cause of democracy in Turkey. Their passage marks the first time the civilian government in Turkey has altered the 1982 constitution promulgated by the military. Prime Minister Ciller and the junior coalition partner, Republican Peoples Party deserve much praise for standing by the legislation despite strong opposition from Islamic and nationalist parties. More specifically, Mr. Speaker, the amendments will broaden political participation by lowering the voting age from 20 to 18; adding 100 seats to the 450 seat Parliament; enabling MPs to switch parties; and allowing trade unions, student associations and other groups to engage in political activities. Language in the constitution praising the 1980 military takeover was also removed. As I have said in the past, Mr. Speaker, it is in our Nation's best interest to maintain close relations with a stable, democratic Turkey. These amendments, and other efforts in the future, will place our bilateral relations on a much more firm footing. While there is more that needs to be done to address free speech issues and the situation of Turkey's Kurdish population, adoption of these amendments by such a wide margin indicates a commitment and willingness in the Parliament to move forward along this path. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has spoken out in the past against actions taken by the Government of Turkey, I believe it is important to give the Turkish Government credit where credit is due. Reaction in the Turkish press to the amendments was resoundingly positive and public opinion is also likely to view the reforms in a positive light. Given this set of circumstances, I strongly encourage the Turkish MPs to immediately seize upon the momentum of this impressive showing and press on for further reforms. Last week, Mr. Speaker, it looked as though partisan politics in Turkey would block the passage of any democratic reforms. Successful adoption of the amendments, though, has breathed new life into the reform debate underway in Turkey. Mr. Speaker, I believe that all who are concerned about human rights and regional stability should express support for the continued efforts of Turkey's Parliament and Government to continue this important process.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores a relatively small amount of funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. I happen to serve as the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee. We have had extensive hearings on this. It is one of the most effective uses of our foreign aid dollars. I think we can all be very proud that Harry Wu and his Laogai Institute have been funded by NED, and it is just one example of many where we have provided scarce resources for an effective pro-democracy building effort around the world. For this program we had authorized, let me remind Members, $34 million in the House-passed bill. The appropriators came in at $28 million. In working with the chairman, we have been able to find a compromise at $30 million. I think that $2 million additional is a very modest amount that will be used very effectively. I also wish to commend Mr. Richardson for his amendment--for which I understand there may not be time this evening--which would have added $500,000 to NED for pro-freedom and pro-democracy programs in Burma. These programs are urgently needed, and NED is just the institution to support them. I urge NED to provide substantial funding for these projects, on at least the scale suggested by the Richardson amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 3 minutes, to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just take a very brief moment to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]. I had intended on offering an amendment to restore funds to the authorized level for the Radio Free Asia. Just a few days ago we voted on the Bereuter amendment, which reaffirmed our collective commitment to Radio Free Asia. The subcommittee looked at this, I know, and came to the conclusion that the money available plus the $5 million that is included in this bill would be sufficient because there is not an expectation that Radio Free Asia will be up and running soon. I hope that is an error, that it gets up and running sooner rather than later. Should Radio Free Asia get off and running as we hope, I would just hope the chairman and ranking member would work with us to insure sufficient money would be available.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I do not have the time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Skaggs amendment and in support of the legislation that I am offering to his amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is aimed at the heart of what is sometimes called surrogate broadcasting. An even better term, Mr. Chairman, is freedom broadcasting sending the message of freedom to people who live in countries where this message is not permitted to be carried on domestic radio and television stations. The amendment of the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Skaggs], would eliminate TV Marti, would deprive millions of Cubans of not only vital information around the world and about the world, but also the hope that comes with knowing that the free world cares. My substitute perfecting amendment guarantees fiscal responsibility without compromising our commitment to freedom. Mr. Chairman, eliminating or crippling freedom broadcasting into Cuba, as the Skaggs amendment would do, would send exactly the wrong message at exactly the wrong time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in opposition.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I hear some people saying we have too many votes on abortion. I frankly do not like a lot of votes and debate on this issue. Let me just say very candidly and clearly that absent the votes and the amendments and the language we will be paying for, in one appropriations bill after another, abortion on demand. This is not a benign process. If there is not explicit language proscribing the use for abortion, we will then be subsidizing abortion on demand. This language that is included by the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, the chairman of the subcommittee, would stop funding abortions in the Bureau of Prisons. Forty or so abortions were done prior to the language going into effect some time ago in the 1980's. The gentleman from California, Bob Dornan, was the author of that language. It seems to me it is worth the inconvenience, it is worth the difficulty, and again, I do not like going through this time and time again, but it is worth it if we can cease the facilitation and the subsidization of the killing of at least one child, and in this case we are talking about dozens of children. It seems to me that again we are talking about Government subsidization of abortion on demand. The pendulum, without question, is swinging in favor of life. People no longer want to subsidize and pay out of their pockets for the chemical poisoning or the literal dismemberment of an unborn child's body. We happen to believe that the women are the victims as well, the co-victim, if you will. We want to see positive, nonviolent solutions to women who have pregnancies that were unintended, not the killing of their unborn babies. Please, do not force me, my wife and my family and all of us, to pay for it. Again, the language the gentleman from Kentucky has put in would do that. Defeat the Norton amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that Trenton was today awarded 1 of 15 Brownfields pilot grants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The Trenton community truly deserves this Federal recognition and financial support for all the hard work we have done to identify and clean up hazardous wastes left over from the city's industrial heyday. Trenton has the spirit, the commitment, and a detailed plan for restoring these sites and making them available for alternative uses. In fact, over the past several years, the city has committed funds and other resources to identify contamination, develop plans for remediation, and redevelop abandoned lots. But our city has lacked the appropriate financial means to make these assets fully effective. The Brownfields Program will provide the city with that funding assistance and propel our initial program to final success. The Brownfields project which Trenton has developed will put the $200,000 Federal grant to good use. The city has enlisted the help of several civic organizations, State government, and community residents to devise their program and intends to call on them to implement it as well. The city will employ a strategy to incorporate the resources of established community urban beautification and environmental justice programs, as well as the expertise of local legal, development, and other professionals. I have worked closely with both the city of Trenton and Mercer County in a bipartisan effort to coordinate Federal, State, and local dollars and resources to improve New Jersey's capital. Together we made Trenton one of the initial pilot sites for the Weed and Seed anti-drug crime program, we helped to rehabilitate abandoned rowhouses, and we have made city gardens and parks cleaner and safer. With its 89,000 residents, we in Trenton are proud to rank with some of the other awardees here today--such as Baltimore, New Orleans, and Detroit--that often receive greater attention from the Federal Government. Trenton--which has the same concerns as these larger cities--will use the money effectively and quickly to clean up sites, eliminating the abandoned areas where drug use, violent crime, and gang-related activities can fester. Trenton has taken the bull by the horns to address all of these problems. This Brownfields project will advance this fight to save Trenton.