Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is designed to achieve several simple but important goals. First, it erects a firewall to ensure that money in the refugee assistance budget will be used for protecting refugees, not for general operating expenses at the State Department, which are adequately funded elsewhere. Second, it avoids a back-door $12-million cut in the refugee assistance budget. We were very proud, in the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, to have been able to hold a few programs level with last year. One of those was child survival. And I am very pleased that the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Exporting Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations has likewise looked to protect this important program. Another was refugee assistance. It was not easy, and I think we all know in these times of deficit reduction, holding anything harmless is very, very hard. But it was done. Third, my amendment would avoid a corresponding $12-million back-door increase in the general operating budget for the State Department for which, again, we have authorized adequate funds. There is no need for the State Department to raid the refugee budget to pay its operating expenses. It already has $2.1 billion in the two largest operating accounts alone. Under current law, the PRM Bureau gets its salaries and expenses from these accounts just like every other bureau in the State Department. The State Department operating accounts have not taken the steep cuts that the operating budgets of USIA or AID and other agencies have taken. Finally, the refugees really do need the money more than the bureaucrats. Let me cite three examples. In the current fiscal year at the height of the Rwanda refugee crisis, UNHCR found it necessary to reduce food rations in the camps that were holding Rwandan refugees. This was because the World Food Program had run out of food. The UNHCR said it had no money to pay for the food program, in large part because the State Department said there was not enough money in the refugee account to make a contribution for this purpose. Surely an extra $12 million, perhaps even a smaller amount, would have made it unnecessary to cut those rations. In Thailand, the State Department decided to shut down an English- language school for the Hmong refugees in order to save money. This will make it more difficult for these refugees to assimilate in the U.S., if they are resettled here. Shutting down the language school may also have had the effect of encouraging the Thai Government in its belief that the United States is not serious about accepting those people. Finally, in the refugee centers in Croatia that hold victims of ethnic cleansing from Bosnia, the facilities are inadequate and the screening process is slow and it is erratic. Thousands of people have been in these centers for years. The United States claims it cannot find more than a handful of refugees who are eligible for resettlement. Refugee advocates point out that if you cannot find genuine refugees in Bosnia, we will never be able to find them anywhere else in the world. Many of these people can never go home. Their villages have been destroyed. Their families have been massacred. We have been unable or unwilling to commit the resources to do the job right. Mr. Chairman, we all know we cannot solve all of the world's problems. There are over 40 million refugees and displaced persons in the world. We cannot accept more than a tiny number of them here in the United States, but we can at least keep our priorities right. In this case, those priorities are so obvious that my amendment has been endorsed by human rights organizations as diverse as the U.S. Committee for Refugees, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish Federations, the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council. [[Page H 6766]] The refugee budget has already absorbed real cuts this year, Mr. Chairman, both from inflation and from the dramatic decrease in the value of the dollar against European currencies. The money they are spending this year will buy 15 percent to 20 percent less overseas, less protection, less food, less water, fewer sanitary facilities than the same amount that we spent last year. We could not afford to raise the refugee budget not even to keep our own spending power even with last year. My amendment, let me remind everyone, does not add a penny to the budget. It simply prohibits a back door transfer that would fund $12 million of spending here in Washington, DC. I hope Members will vote ``yes'' on this pro-refugee, pro-fiscal responsibility amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letter: U.S. Committee for Refugees, Washington, DC, June 21, 1995. Hon. Chris Smith, Chairman, House International Relations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the abuse of human rights by the People's Republic of China includes the thousands of people who languish in the gulag system and logai system which Harry Wu has so faithfully, as well as so courageously, exposed throughout the years, but the human rights abuses, as we all know, are legion in the People's Republic of China. Now they include again a U.S. citizen. On June 19 of this year, just a couple of days ago, Harry Wu was arrested as he entered China. Harry Wu is well known to many of us in Washington. He is a former political prisoner. He was a prisoner in the logai system for 19 years. Harry has tirelessly worked to expose Chinese human rights abuses. The extensive prison labor system, the backbone of China's export industry, the trafficking of body parts of prisoners for transplant and research, and he has also uncovered the numerous products manufactured in the slave labor camps which are being sold in the United States. Knowing that each time he returned to China to investigate human rights abuses that he put himself in danger, Harry Wu continued to go back, remembering those millions who like he suffered, or like his brother, who died at the hands of the Chinese Government and military. Mr. Chairman, on April 3 we had the privilege in the International Operations and Human Rights Committee to hear testimony from six survivors of the logai system. They gave extensive testimony, a Buddhist monk, a priest, and others who had been held by the Chinese, and, of course, I think the most riveting testimony was given by Harry Wu. When talking about this, he said, ``I really want to forget the nightmares of that past period, buy, you know, some things simply will not go away. So, like a bad dream, they refuse to disappear.'' But he also said, ``I am a survivor. I think I have a responsibility to those inmates who are still there. Finally, I have got a chance to tell the truth to the world.'' Today again, sadly, Mr. Speaker, Harry Wu is not free. His whereabouts is not known. The U.S. Embassy for its part was informed of the arrest and tried, and tried very hard, to find out where he is, and has been stonewalled. Nine days have past since Harry Wu, a U.S. citizen, was arrested. How much longer do we have to wait to find out where he is and exactly what kind of shape he is in? Harry Wu indeed has been a voice for those crying out for truth and for justice. I am [[Page H 6647]] very glad in a bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, that we today will go on record calling on the People's Republic of China, working with the administration on this one, to try to get the freedom of this United States citizen, who has been unjustly and cruelly taken by the People's Republic of China.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, less than 1 month has passed since the President extended most-favored-nation trading status once again to the People's Republic of China. Ignoring the tragic human rights record of China, the huge trade imbalance, the on-going pirating of intellectual properties, the forced abortion policy and the exporting of nuclear technology to rogue nations, Mr. Clinton rewarded the Chinese leaders while turning his back on the millions of Chinese who are imprisoned, tortured, persecuted, forced into slavery, and have their voices silenced, some even before they are born. Mr. Clinton believes that granting MFN to China will encourage the Chinese leadership to improve their human rights record. It didn't work last year. And it's not going to work this year, either. Case in point: On June 19, 1995, Harry Wu, a United States citizen, was arrested as he entered China. Harry Wu is well known to many of us here in Washington. A former political prisoner in China for 19 years, Harry has tirelessly worked to expose China's human rights abuses--the extensive prison labor system, the backbone of China's export industry; the trafficking of body parts of prisoners for transplants and research--uncovering the numerous products manufactured in the slave labor camps which are being sold in the United States. Knowing that each time he returned to China to investigate human rights abuses he put himself in danger, Harry continued to go back remembering those millions who, like he, suffered, or like his brother, died at the hands of the Chinese Government and military. Harry has been a stellar, informative, persuasive witness at several congressional committee hearings. Once, when asked about why he placed his life at risk to expose the horrors of China's prison labor system he responded: ``I really want to forget the nightmares of the past period, but, you know, some things simply didn't go away. So, like a bad dream, they refuse to disappear. ``Finally, I got a chance to tell the truth to the world. ``I am a survivor. I think I have a responsibility to those inmates who are still there.'' Today Harry Wu is not free. His whereabouts are unknown. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing was not informed of his arrest until June 23--4 days after the arrest. A U.S. Embassy spokesperson claims that the delay in notification was the result of poor communications. Another spokesperson said that the Embassy and Chinese officials were discussing sending a representative to visit Harry. Ten days have passed since Harry Wu, a United States citizen, was arrested in China. How much longer will he have to wait for the U.S. Government to respond? How long will the discussions take? And in the meantime, what will happen to Harry Wu? Mr. Speaker, I have sat with Harry Wu in my own office many times hearing of the unspeakable conditions under which the Chinese people live while their leaders are rewarded year after year after year. It distresses me greatly to think that Harry is not free, may be tortured, and that the administration is moving so slowly to respond to his need. Mr. Speaker, I call on the Clinton administration to move swiftly to make contact with Harry Wu and to obtain his release. I urge my colleagues to do the same. The administration may at this point be accustomed to turning its back on the people of China. We cannot allow them to become accustomed to ignoring innocent Americans in foreign prisons. I also urge my colleagues to sign the letter to Jiang Zemin calling for the release of Harry Wu. Soon the House will take up the disapproval of MFN for China. Some of us might be tempted to put trade, money, over human rights and dignity. Some of us might believe that criticizing China for human rights abuses is interfering with the internal matters of a foreign government. I do not. Today an innocent United States citizen is being detained in China. What more needs to happen? We cannot ignore this. It should offend every Member of this body that while the administration rewards the Chinese Government, that government responds by arresting a United States citizen. Harry Wu has been a voice for the voiceless crying out for truth and justice. Now his voice has been silenced, and I pray that silence is only temporary. We must raise our voices loudly and clearly to the Chinese Government. Harry Wu must be released and the Chinese Government must be held accountable for this affront against the United States.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. These are AID's own figures. In 1984, $264 million; in 1986, it was $295 million; by 1992, it had jumped to $325; by 1993, it was up to $447 million. On a graph this would show a steady growth. And, again, this was under the Mexico City policy. So again it is a red herring that my good friends are floating here today that we want to kill family planning. We want to separate abortion from family planning.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, that was not an answer. IPPF has said to its own affiliates, action outside of the law and even in violation is part of the process of stimulating change. They are telling their people to violate the law. Again, my amendment simply says, we do not want to contribute to an organization that gets involved in that kind of law breaking.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The United States remained. like it or not, during the 1980's and into the 1990's, the No. 1 provider internationally for population assistance, and I remember so well in 1984, if the gentleman would continue yielding, when Members stood up on the floor and said that there is no way that any family planning organization would accept the Mexico City clauses. How wrong they were. One after another said they wanted to do family planning, and they got out of the abortion business, and that wall of separation was intact. That is what this is all about.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind Members, too, the International Planned Parenthood Federation out of London, not only supports abortion globally, but considers it their goal to lobby to bring down pro-life statutes throughout the world. But this is from the Chinese news agency: Dr. Halfdan Mahler, a top official of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, today praised China as a model for all countries, particularly developing countries in family planning. ``China has set a good example for developing countries to follow in controlling the population growth,'' he said. The date of that quote is August 27, 1994. These are the kind of organizations that, if they decide to put up that wall of separation, yes, we will provide money to them, as we have in the past. Again, that money has gone up during the Reagan-Bush years under the Mexico City policy. But that kind of statement about the Chinese policy is contemptible, where women are being exploited, where forced abortion is the rule, not the exception, and where now we see such egregious practices as infanticide, where children are killed right at birth, primarily because they are girls, and where just recently, as Members know, a nationwide policy went into effect that is absolutely reminiscent of the Nazis: a eugenics policy where if even the one child is found to be defective in some way, that woman is forcibly aborted because they want to have a master race. That is absolutely sick. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the Meyers amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying Smith amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is absolutely not mean-spirited in its attempt. This is to build that wall between abortion and family planning because I happen to believe, and I believe the majority of Americans believe, that the killing of an unborn child is a very, very serious act. We do not want to provide money to those groups that do it.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. To get an accurate picture of how population funds are used one has to know they come from a variety of spigots, including the African fund, including some ESF funds, including the actual population account, and only a reading which says, ``You're looking at all these accounts, what is the aggregate'' can tell you whether or not that funding is going up or down. Since 1984 that figure has gone up dramatically, and I cite those figures for the record. They were produced by the Agency for International Development.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we are actually debating the underlying amendment and the Meyers amendment. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] would cut two-thirds of the amendment out of the underlying amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. For some Members there will be no time after the vote on the Meyers amendment where my underlying amendment will be debated. So all the debate has to be now, while both amendments are pending.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It leaves that alone, but it goes after the Mexico City policy and the lobbying policy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to bring to the attention of the Members that one of the provisions that my good friend from Kansas strikes reads as follows: Funds would not be provided to any private, nongovernmental, multilateral organization until that organization certifies that it does not and will not, during the period for which the funds are made available, violate the laws of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated or prohibited. I am astounded that my good friend would offer an amendment that tries to protect U.S. taxpayers from providing funds to an organization that would willfully and knowingly violate laws in a sovereign nation vis-a-vis its abortion policy. There was a working group, a report on the working group that was put out by the IPPF federation, based in London, that had language that went like this in one of their recommendations: Family planning associations and other nongovernmental organizations should not use the absence of law or the existence of an unfavorable law as an excuse for inaction. Action outside of the law, and even in violation of the law, is part of that, is the process for stimulating change. In other words, IPPF has admonished its affiliates to break the law. The Smith language that would be gutted by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] said that if we give money to those organizations that violate the sovereign laws of nations, let me also remind Members, 95 to 100 countries around the world, including the overwhelming majority in our hemisphere, protect the lives of their unborn children from the violence of abortion. All of Central America, virtually, South America have laws or constitutional amendments on the books that protect their unborn children. IPPF says violate those laws. It is right here in black and white as a recommendation from the IPPF based out of London. Mrs. Meyers would cut that. I would like to ask the distinguished gentlewoman, why does she want to cut language that says, let us not violate the law of other nations?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just let me remind Members that Dr. Sadik and UNFPA has spent over $150 million. They have people and personnel on the ground. As part of this terrible program they have said, and I quote, ``China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries.'' Just what we need, a world of one child per couple where forced abortion and forced sterilization is the rule rather than the exception. Mr. Chairman, let me also point out that the amendment contains a provision that would essentially reinstate what was known as the Mexico City policy, and that, too, was rescinded by President Clinton in 1993. This policy, and the amendment, would prevent foreign aid from going to nongovernmental organizations unless the organizations certify that it does not and will not during the term for which funds are made available perform abortions as a method of family planning or undermine the laws of other countries with respect to abortion. It clarifies that this does not apply to the treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions or to assistance provided directly to governments. Moreover, the amendment contains a limited exception for attempting to establish universally recognized standards such as opposing forced abortion. Mr. Chairman, this policy worked for almost a decade, it worked well for the American taxpayer, for unborn children, and for responsible family planning organizations. Most recipients of U.S. aid during the two previous administrations accepted the policy and said, ``We will, indeed drive that wall between abortion and family planning and just do family planning and not take the lives of innocent, unborn children by way of abortion.'' Mr. Chairman, I hope Members will accept this amendment. They did so just about a month ago. I hope when Mrs. Meyers offers the amendment on behalf of the abortion rights people, that that will be defeated by this body. I suspect we will get to that momentarily.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is both pro-life and anticoercion. It is essentially identical to the one that the House adopted to the American Overseas Interests Act, H.R. 1561, last month. The amendment would do nothing more and nothing less than reinstate the ``wall of separation'' between family planning and abortion, and particularly coercive abortion, which was torn down 2 years ago by the Clinton administration. The prochild, provoluntarism policy that my amendment would reinstate was the law of the land for a decade. It was repeatedly upheld by the Federal courts against a wide range of both statutory and constitutional challenges brought by the abortion industry. Recent experience suggests that this policy is needed now, more than ever before. Mr. Chairman, the government of the People's Republic of China, as I think more and more Members are realizing, routinely compels women to abort their, quote, unauthorized children. The usual method is intense persuasion, using all of the economic, social, and psychological tools a totalitarian state has at its disposal. When these methods fail, the women are taken physically to abortion mills, often in handcuffs, and coerced to have abortions. Sometimes this happens very late in the pregnancy: the baby's skull is crushed with forceps, or lethal chemical shots are administered into the soft part of the skull. Mr. Chairman, forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crime tribunals, and again it is being used pervasively throughout the People's Republic of China. Population control organizations, with the United Nations Population Fund at the helm, are promoting population control in China and have had a hand-in-glove relationship with the hardliners in the PRC. As a matter of fact, I would remind Members that during the Reagan and Bush years we did not provide funding to those organizations because of that kind of complicity in these heinous crimes against women. It is not just that the child is being killed. It is also that the woman is being exploited in this very cruel manner. I would ask all of my colleagues to take a look at the report by Amnesty International, released just yesterday. It is under the heading ``Human Rights Violations Resulting from Enforced Birth Control.'' They point out that birth control has been compulsory in China since 1979. Women must have official permission to bear children. Mr. Chairman, the report in its entirety is as follows: Women in China--A Preliminary Report From Amnesty International, June 1995 human rights violations resulting from enforced birth control Birth control has been compulsory in China since 1979. . . . Government demographers set a target for the stabilization of the population by the year 2000. The target currently stands at 1.3 billion, which they claim can only be achieved through ``strict measures''. The policy involves the strict control of the age of marriage and the timing and number of children for each couple. Women must have official permission to bear children. Birth control is enforced through quotas allocated to each work or social unit (such as school, factory or village). The quotas fix the number of children that may be born annually in each unit. Local party officials (cadres) have always monitored the system, but since 1991 they have been held directly responsible for its implementation through ``target management responsibility contracts''. A cadre's performance is now evaluated not just on the region's economic performance but also on its implementation of the birth control policy. Cadres may lose bonuses or face penalties if they fail to keep within quotas. The policy has become known as the ``one-child'' policy. In fact, it is more complex than that and is applied differently in various areas. While the authorities issue ideological directives, targets and guidelines, at present the detailed regulations, sanctions and incentives are left almost entirely to the county level administration, who determine them ``according to the local situation''. In most regions, urban couples may have only one child unless their child is disabled, while rural couples may have a second if the first is a girl. A third child is ``prohibited'' in most available regulations. Regulations covering migrant women indicate that abortion is mandatory if the woman does not return to her home region. Abortion is also mandated for unmarried women. The authorities in Beijing initially insisted that ethnic groups with populations of less than 10 million were exempt from the one child policy or even from family planning entirely. It is clear, however, that controls have been applied to these groups for many years, including more stringent sanctions for urban residents and ``prohibitions'' on a third child. There have also been reports since 1988 of controls extending to enforcement of one-child families, in particular for state employees. Currently, as with the rest of the population, specific regulations and their implementation are decided by ``Autonomous Regions and Provinces where the minorities reside''. Couples who have a child ``above the quota'' are subject to sanctions, including heavy fines. In rural areas, there have been reports of the demolition of the houses of people who failed to pay fines. Peer pressure is also used as work units may be denied bonuses if the child quota is exceeded. State employees may be dismissed or demoted. Psychological intimidation and harassment is also commonly used to ``persuade'' pregnant woman to have an abortion. Groups of family planning officials may visit them in the middle of the night to this end. In the face of such pressure, women facing unwanted abortions or sterilization are likely to feel they have no option but to comply. amnesty international's concerns Amnesty International takes no position on the official birth control policy in China, but it is concerned about the human rights violations which result from it, many of which affect women in particular. It is concerned at reports that forced abortion and sterilization have been carried out by or at the instigation of people acting in an official capacity, such as family planning officials, against women who are detained, restricted or forcibly taken from their homes to have the operation. Amnesty International considers that in these circumstances such actions amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees or restricted persons by government officials. The use of forcible measures is indicated in official family planning reports and regulations, and in Chinese press coverage. Amnesty International also has testimony from former family planning officials as well as individuals who were themselves subjected to such cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Details of county level regulations are difficult to obtain. Most available documents are ambiguous and full of euphemisms such as the ``combined method'' (abortion and sterilization) or ``remedial measures'' (abortion). Despite this, some insight can be gained into the use of coercion from provincial, as well as county reports. For example, in 1993 family planning officials in Jiangxi Province stated: ``Women who should be subjected to contraception and sterilization measures will have to comply''. Regulations published in January 1991 for Gonghe county in Qinghai (which has a substantial Tibetan population) state ``the birth prevention operation will be carried out before the end of 1991 or in any case within the year 1992 and no excuses or pretexts will be entertained''. In a 1993 interview with Amnesty International, a former family planning official described the threat of violence used to implement the policy: ``Several times I have witnessed how women who were five to seven months pregnant were protected by their neighbors and relatives, some of whom used tools against us. Mostly the police only had to show their weapons to scare them off. Sometimes they had to shoot in the air. In only one case did I see them shoot at hands and feet. Sometimes we had to use handcuffs.'' Several family planning officials who worked in Liaoning and Fujian Provinces from the mid-1980's to the mid-1990's are now in exile and have given testimony. They say they detained women who were pregnant with ``out of plan children'' in storerooms or offices for as long as they resisted being ``persuaded'' to have an abortion. This could last several days. One official reported being able to transfer such women to the local detention centre for up to two months if they remained intransigent. Once a woman relented, the official would escort her to the local hospital and wait until the doctor performing the abortion had signed a statement that the abortion had been carried out. Unless the woman was considered too weak, it was normal for her to be sterilized straight after the abortion. A refugee from Guangdong Province described how he and his wife had suffered under the birth-control policy. The couple had their first child in 1982 and were subsequently denied permission to have another. In 1987 the authorities discovered that his wife was pregnant and forced her to have an abortion. In 1991 she became pregnant again and to conceal it, the couple moved to live with relatives in another village. In September that year local militia and family planning officials from the city of Foshan surrounded the village in the middle of the night and searched all the Houses. They forced all the pregnant women into trucks and drove them to hospital. The refugee's wife gave birth on the journey and a doctor at the hospital reportedly killed the baby with an injection. The other women had forced abortions. The implementation of the birth-control policy has also resulted in the detention and ill-treatment of relatives of those attempting to avoid abortion or sterilization. Significantly, the Supreme People's Court felt the need to specifically outlaw the taking of hostages by government officials in a directive in 1990. However, the practice continues, as shown by a series of reports since late 1992 from Hebei Province. Journalists from Hong Kong visited Zhao county, Hebei province, in November 1992 while a birth-control campaign was in progress. They saw villagers detained outside the county government offices in freezing temperatures who were under arrest for non-payment of fines for illegal birth. Villagers reported that those who could not pay the heavy annual fine had their property confiscated or that their relatives were held hostage until the money was paid. In January 1994 an official Chinese newspaper published a letter from Xiping county, Hebei Province, complaining that the reputation of the People's Emergency Militia (minbing ying ji fendui) was being ruined because cadres were misusing them to enforce unpopular family planning policies. In April 1994 the annual review of family planning work in Hebei Province mentioned the use of ``law enforcement contingents'' and admitted that some cadres believed that any method was acceptable in pursuit of the family planning policy. Such cadres had ``resorted to oversimplified and rigid measures and even violated laws . . . thus affecting the party-populace and cadre-populace relations''. It is not clear what, if any, action was taken against these abuses, and violations have persisted in the province since then. For example, villagers in Fengjiazhuang and Longtiangou in Lingzhou country, Hebei Province, alleged they were targeted in a birth-control campaign initiated in early 1994 under the slogan ``better to have more graves than more than one child''. Ninety per cent of resident in the villages are Catholic and many have been fined in the past for having more children than permitted because they reject on religious grounds abortion and sterilization. An unmarried woman was one of those targeted. One of her brothers had fled the village with his wife fearing sterilization as they had four children. The sister had adopted one of their children and was detained several times, including once in early November 1994 when she was held for seven days in an attempt to force her brother and his wife to return and pay more fines. She was taken to the county government office and locked in a basement room with 12 to 13 other women and men. She was blindfolded, stripped naked, with her hands tied behind her back, and beaten with an electric baton. Several of those detained with her were suspended and beaten, and some were detained for several weeks. A report by the Union of Catholic Asian News stated that other villages had been targeted in a similar way. Despite complaints to the county and provincial government and to the people's procurator, the family planning teams ignored the procurator's order to stop their actions, blaming the Catholics for ``causing problems''. The taking and ill-treating of hostages by family planning officials was also reported in Fujian Province, in 1994. An elderly woman who lived near Quanzhou city was detained for three months when her daughter-in-law fled from family planning officials; they had found out she was pregnant with her second child one year earlier than local regulations on both spacing allowed. The elderly woman was reportedly kept in a cell with little ventilation or light, with 70 other people, and was only released when she became ill. Despite assurances from the State Family Planning Commission that ``coercion is not permitted'', Amnesty International has been unable to find any instance of sanctions taken against officials who perpetrated such violations. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of those who assist women to circumvent the policies, or who shelter women from the threat of forced abortion and sterilization. In December 1993 a district court in Guangzhou reportedly sentenced a man to 10 years' imprisonment and three years' deprivation of political rights for his part in a ``save the babies and save the women group'', which had assisted 20 women to give birth in excess of the plan. The court reportedly claimed that by his actions he had entered into rivalry with the party and state, and had therefore committed counter-revolutionary crimes as well as jeopardizing social order. The same month Yu Jian'an, the deputy director of the No. 2 People's Hospital in Anyanbg, Henan Province, was sentenced to death for collecting bribes of 190,000 yuan for issuing bogus sterilization papers. The hospital affairs director, Sun Chansheng, was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve, and four others were given sentences of five years' to life imprisonment in connection with the offense. In the light of the information available about serious human rights violations resulting from the enforcement of the birth control policy and the lack of explicit and unequivocal prohibition in published regulations of coercive methods which result in such violations, Amnesty International calls on the Chinese Government to include such provisions in relevant regulations. It also calls on the authorities to take effective measures to ensure that officials who perpetrate, encourage or condone such human rights violations during birth control enforcement are brought to justice. Let me just remind Members we are talking about a country where children are declared illegal simply because they do not fit into a certain quota that has been articulated and promulgated by the government. Couples who have a child above the quota are subject to sanctions, Amnesty International writes, including heavy fines. They talk about psychological and physical pressure. They talk about degrading treatment, the use of handcuffs, detentions. They also get into the fact that not only are they just focusing on the women and their husbands, they also go after other relatives who try to shield and protect some kind of safe haven for their sisters or daughters who are the object of a forced abortion, and throw them into jail as well. This report from Amnesty International, which takes no position on the right-to-life issue, the defense of the unborn, is another nail in the coffin of the PRC's heinous practice of forced abortion and forced sterilization. As my colleagues know, they also point out there is a movement under way in some of the provinces where they say--and this is a slogan used by the government--``Better to have more graves than one more child.'' Children are treated very cruelly in China, not by their parents, but by the government, and they are the subject of forced abortion. Let me also remind Members, too, there is a growing disproportionate number of baby boys vis-a-vis baby girls and young people because of this. When you've only allowed one child, what happens is that many of the families, when they are told that they can only have one, have a sonogram. If a baby girl is detected, that baby girl is killed, and now there are tens of millions of missing girls in the People's Republic of China. Where are the feminists on this? Why are they not speaking out against this cruel practice of targeting baby girls for extinction in the People's Republic of China? They have been abysmally silent in this regard. Let me also point out, there were some people that were recently, as the Amnesty report points out, thrown into prison for, quote, initiating a save-the-babies and save-the-women's group. The man got 10 years in prison because he tried to defend some of the women in China against this terrible practice. Please read this. The United Nations Population Fund meanwhile applauds the Chinese programs against all of this evidence, and let me remind Members that it is indeed overwhelming evidence.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the Meyers amendment is about promoting abortion. It is not about family planning. Members have said over and over again on the other side, and I do not know how they can say this with a straight face, that we want to kill family planning with this amendment. That same argument was made in the mid-1980's, and during the 1980's and into the 1990's population control funding doubled. Just look at the numbers that are provided by AID. I will make them a part of the record. It doubled under the Mexico City policy. As a matter of fact, in 1980, for example, over 350 family planning organizations signed the Mexico City clauses, including 57 international Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates. The problem that this gentleman has, and that I think the American people have, is that groups like IPPF based in London have in their vision statements--even though most of the countries in the world protect their unborn children--they have as their objectives 1, 2, and 4, to increase the right of access to abortion, and to remove barriers, political, legal, and administrative. So, Mr. Chairman, the point is by providing money to these organizations, we are effectively empowering this lobby organization with U.S. funds to go out there and bring down these very important protective statutes that provide basic protections for unborn children. Mr. Chairman, let me also ask the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], my good friend, if she might respond to this. That working paper that I talked about earlier by IPPF has this point: The right of everyone to have full access to fertility regulation services applies equally to young people, including those in the adolescent group, age 10 to 19. As we all know, the World Health Organization defines fertility regulation in four ways, one of which includes abortion. This was a big issue in Cairo. When people realized that is what it meant, they wanted that word taken out. But here we have, under the rubric of the rights of young people, IPPF promoting abortion on demand as a matter of birth control for 10-year-olds. How would the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] respond to that in terms of IPPF?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of all the rhetoric, the question boils down to whether or not the flag and the American ideals it symbolizes should be protected by our constitution. To me the flag is about freedom; about liberty and equality in a nation made up of various cultures; about the American veterans who braved the foreign warlords to preserve our freedoms and to ensure that future generations of Americans can live in the security of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Mr. Speaker, here in Washington we are constantly reminded of the dedicated men and women who died in battle, in lands far away, for the preservation of our country and the ideas for which it stands. The flag, now as then, serves as remembrance for the gift of freedom given to us by those fallen heroes. Should they have died knowing that future generations would permit the desecration of the very symbol for which they lay buried in foreign cemeteries? Thanks to those veterans who fought and died for our freedom, and promulgated on the idea of the ``melting pot'', the United States represents a community where heterogeneity is championed and individualism, regardless of race, creed, sex or color, is revered. Hence, we, as Americans, have a unique opportunity available to us. Where Alexander the Great failed to keep his holdings together, and diversity crippled the Roman Empire, our unity under one flag affords us the unique opportunity to maintain a harmonious multicultural superpower. Being the first successful community of its kind in history, maintenance does not come easily. Mr. Speaker, what bonds our seemingly different people into one nation, one soul? Values, ideas, hopes, dreams, all symbolized in our common denominator, the flag. The unity inherent in the flag is beyond measure. What does a person from New Jersey have in common with person living in Wyoming but born in Nepal? They are both Americans, and they both possess an allegiance to our country and the recognition that such allegiance manifests itself in an allegiance to the flag. Without a doubt, the flag remains the best symbol of solidarity for our country. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the flag embodies all that Americans treasure. The vast imagery the flag evokes points to that very fact. Who hasn't seen paintings of Betsy Ross sewing a garment that would consolidate a collection of English colonists in defiance of a King who refused to give them representation. A new and improved system of government is why Betsy Ross created the flag; democracy is what we got. Who can say they haven't seen the statue of the Marines storming the island of Iwo Jima to raise Old Glory high above the fray. Freedom is why those soldiers raised the flag; liberty is what we--what the world--got. Who hasn't heard the story of Francis Scott Key as he sat aboard a British frigate and watched our flag continue to flutter above the devastation in Fort McHenry. Sheer amazement is why Mr. Key wrote down what he saw; an understanding of the transcendently unifying nature of our flag is what we got. Burning or desecrating the flag is a destructive act, Mr. Speaker. It is not free speech. And it is only a small fringe group who even care to mutilate, desecrate or burn the flag. In fact, the vast majority of Americans support a constitutional amendment to protect this symbol of freedom. Indeed, it is time the Congress of the United States act to protect our flag.