Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes, and that it be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the part of the amendment that would delete the phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' from the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund in title II. I would just ask the chairman of the full committee for a clarification. If the amendment passes, can the House be assured that the money in the fund would not be used or available for population assistance? We have such money designated. It has been used in the past. My hope is that this day on point for child survival interventions, immunizations, oral rehydration, and the like, and those things that were expressed on the bottom of page 7 and page 8 of the bill.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for clarifying that.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes to engage in a colloquy with the maker of the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1565, legislation to extend the priority health care program for veterans who were exposed to agent orange or ionizing radiation. As vice chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I would look to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for their unyielding dedication to these veterans who have suffered a wide range of illnesses because of their service to their country. Mr. Speaker, as you know, H.R. 1565 would take into consideration the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, which has done extensive and exhaustive studies on agent orange linkage. This legislation would authorize the VA to continue priority health care treatment for the first three categories identified by NAS. Additionally, it would grandfather those veterans who have been previously treated by the VA for illnesses which now the NAS finds evidence of no linkage to agent orange exposure. So they are protected and they are grandfathered. This bipartisan bill--and the minority side has been very, very helpful and very strong in their views which has helped to craft this important bill--also takes into account the fact that NAS is not the only reputable scientific agency doing research on this matter. An amendment offered by Chairman Hutchinson and supported by the entire committee allows the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to add diseases to the list of covered conditions based on peer reviewed research which provides credible evidence of association between that disease and agent orange exposure. Once more, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to give it unanimous support.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this committee's proposal, and I am especially grateful for the work that Chairman Callahan and Chairman Livingston have done to establish a new child survival account. Since I have been in Congress, since the early 1980's, there has been a bipartisan effort to preserve and fence off money for immunizations and for oral rehydration money, which has literally saved millions of children because of that very modest investment. I have witnessed during the 1980's two mass vaccination days in Central America and saw thousands of kids vaccinated against preventable diseases like diphtheria, tetanus, and other preventable diseases. Yet we find that millions of kids still die. We have still not brought the blessings of the child survival revolution to all those to whom we could bring it, and this account will go very, very far in trying to advance that, especially in times of budget austerity. I would just remind Members that when we consider the authorizing bill, I had offered language that was accepted by the committee to fence off money, to earmark money, that would be used for child survival activities. It passed in a bipartisan way in committee, and a soft earmark has been retained on the floor of the House. Let me just say why I think that is so important. When Brian Atwood testified before our committee 2 days before our markup, he said that a 30 percent cut in USAID's child survival program, and there was no cutting in the program, it was a cut in DA, would [[Page H 6255]] mean that more than 4 million children will likely not be vaccinated, greatly heightening their risk of death from severe illness. He went on to say if there was a cut across the board in DA, development authority, that that would automatically translate into a cut for child survival. It is a matter of who manages the cuts. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to say we do not want to see any of these cuts. But if cuts have to be, children should come first. I again want to salute the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for making sure that children do indeed come first and are protected from cuts. Mr. Chairman, foreign aid has its share of critics, and perhaps more than its share. This fact was reflected in our recently enacted foreign relations bill, which made significant cuts in foreign aid and was nonetheless subject to criticism in some quarters that it did not cut deeply enough. To some extent, the voters' distrust of foreign aid is warranted. In far too many cases, foreign aid has proved to be the ticket to the high life for corrupt bureaucrats in developing nations, while their people remain mired in poverty. But let us be clear about what it is that people object to when they object to foreign aid. Everyone objects to corruption in the system. Many object to spending money on infrastructure projects in developing countries while money is running out for similar projects here at home. And many object to funding abortion and heavy-handed population control tactics. But what virtually no one objects to is the aid that goes directly to saving lives. People are not skeptical about foreign aid because they believe that foreign aid has vaccinated too many children, fed too many starving people, or turned too many swords into plowshares. They are skeptical because they believe that foreign aid has paid for too many unnecessary government offices and limousines, or has been siphoned off by yet another corrupt politician. So the best political solution is also the best policy: accept the reality that resources are limited, cut the limousines, and save the food and medicine. The intent of Congress in preserving child survival funds in an era of budget austerity is emphatically to save the funds for medicine, micronutrients, and vaccine. We intend to keep such funds from being siphoned off, either to luxurious perks, or to forms of foreign aid that lack a measurable positive impact on child morbidity. Even in this age of advanced medical progress, this world still witnesses the preventable deaths of millions of children. We still have: More than a million deaths per year due to measles, according to UNICEF. Still over 100,000 cases per year of polio, despite large strides toward eradicating it, according to Dr. Jong Wook Lee of the World Health Organization. Half of all child deaths are caused by either diarrhea or pneumonia, according to UNICEF. Yet these deaths are highly preventable: by early detection and antibiotics, in the case of pneumonia, and by oral rehydration therapy, in the case of diarrhea. Furthermore, the World Health Organization reports: Over a million child deaths per year from malaria; 17 million cases of river blindness and elephantiasis; 25,000 new cases per year of African sleeping sickness; 10-12 million case worldwide of leprosy, or Hansen's Disease. Unfortunately, when Congress does not speak clearly enough on how the funds it appropriates for child survival are to be spent, they are sometimes spent in ways that do not put child survival first. In a hearing before the International Relations Committee earlier this year, Brian Atwood, Administrator of AID, told us that funds designated for child survival had been drawn down for emergency relief, while population funds had not been similarly touched. The operating assumption seems to be: population means population, but child survival means a general humanitarian fund. Congress must state clearly that child survival means child survival--not population control or anything else. Whatever the proper place of family planning in U.S. foreign aid, it should not operate at the expense of child survival. Family planning implicates fundamental disagreements about morality, family life, and, in the case of abortion, about life itself. But child survival is something that all of us, on both sides of the population and abortion issues, can support. Child survival can and should bring us together, whatever battles we may need to fight over other issues. Unfortunatly, the Clinton administration is conspicuously absent from this broad coalition in favor of putting children first. At a recent hearing, Mr. Atwood explained how he would manage the one-third cut in Development Assistance funding: A 30-percent cut in USAID's child survival program would mean that more than 4 million children will likely not be vaccinated, greatly heightening their risk of death or severe illness from such preventable diseases as measles, whooping cough, and diphtheria. But there is one fact that puts Mr. Atwood's remarks in an alarming light. Our bill does not cut child survival. It cuts foreign aid overall, while attempting to protect child survival. Mr. Atwood, it seems, was not expressing a fear--he was issuing a threat. He was saying, if you cut Development Assistance, we will take that cut out of child survival. Mr. Atwood continued: Oral Rehydration Therapy [ORT] prevents an estimated 1 million deaths a year due to acute diarrhea. Usage rates for ORT in all areas of the world have risen to 40-65 percent. Despite the steady growth in ORT use, 3 million children still die from diarrheal disease annually. A cut of 30 percent in child survival resources would likely mean at least 100,000 children's lives would be lost each year for lack of this cheap and simple treatment. Chilling facts indeed--especially when you consider that such consequences could easily be avoided if USAID were to concentrate its Development Assistance cuts on something other than child survival. This is why Congress must not send up language that gives USAID any leeway on child survival. The Child Survival Account that the Appropriations Committee's bill would establish is a step in the direction of broadly supported humanitarian foreign aid. These funds will go, for instance: Toward oral rehydration therapy, which saves more than a million lives a year; Toward vaccination, so that the effective extinction of polio and measles can be brought about, as has already been done with smallpox; Toward eliminating Vitamin A and iodine deficiencies, thereby preventing blindness, illness, and death for untold numbers of children in the developing world; and To UNICEF, which has a long record of saving children's lives. UNICEF's research shows us how far we have come--and how far we still have to go--in fighting childhood diseases and improving childhood nutrition. Consider the case of polio. Worldwide estimates of polio cases have fallen from 400,000 in 1980 to just over 100,000 in 1993. But at the same time, there are still 68 countries where the polio virus is crippling children. Carrying out a vaccination program in places where outbreaks are still occurring can be expensive. Furthermore, the perception that polio is almost extinct makes it hard to generate the political will to make those expenditures, especially when other diseases seem to pose a much graver threat. Yet if the final extermination of polio is not achieved, the disease could mount a mighty comeback when a generation of unvaccinated children starts to grow up. Funds for UNICEF can help prevent this vicious circle from becoming a reality. Consider measles. Not as terrifying as polio, perhaps--yet UNICEF estimates that it causes 1 to 2 million child deaths each year, and often leaves even its survivors with severe malnutrition. Like polio, measles can be eliminated--provided the funding for vaccination continues even after the disease becomes rare. In 1994, Indonesia held a national immunization day targeted at both polio and measles, but health authorities there had to scale it back to polio alone due to inadequate funds. Indonesia is therefore at greater risk of a resurgence of measles. Consider child nutrition. Vitamin A is increasingly recognized as a low-cost way to reduce child mortality by between a quarter and a third in many developing nations. UNICEF calls vitamin A the most cost- effective of all interventions for children. One study showed that malnourished children with adequate vitamin A were less likely to die than well-nourished children who were deficient in vitamin A. Consequently, UNICEF is undertaking a campaign to promote the fortification of common foods with vitamin A, and to make vitamin capsules available in areas of acute need. I have both high hopes and great fears about UNICEF. High hopes that it will continue as a pathbreaker in child survival projects, as it has done for decades. And great fears that it will veer from its core mission into areas such as family planning, which are dealt with by other U.N. agencies, and which tend to fracture the coalition that supports UNICEF. Over the years, liberals and conservatives alike have bought UNICEF greeting cards, encouraged their children to trick or treat for UNICEF, and even supported larger and larger contributions over the years by the United States. Continuation of this unusual consensus is most unlikely if UNICEF ventures into the most morally landmined field in all of foreign aid. The Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, will be holding oversight hearings on UNICEF. We hope and expect to find through these hearings that UNICEF has remained faithful to its [[Page H 6256]] core mission of fighting child morbidity and promoting child health. In that regard, I welcome the declaration on family planning that UNICEF makes in its 1995 report called The Progress of Nations. That declaration makes clear that under the division of labor that characterizes U.N. agencies, UNICEF's mission of improving the well-being of children and women is different from that of the agencies that promote family planning. The core mission of UNICEF, and other important child survival activities, will be helped greatly by the child survival and disease program fund set up by this bill. This fund is foreign aid as it was meant to be. This Congress is making cuts, but it is not making them blindly or callously. It is cutting waste and extravagance, while preserving the heart of foreign aid. I commend the appropriators for their work, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the foreign operations appropriations bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in the New Testament, the book of Galatians, we read that ``whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.'' How true that is today, and how true it is not only of individuals, but also of societies and governments. In response to the secession attempt by the region of Chechnya, the Russian Government has used massive and indiscriminate force to regain control of the region. At one point, at least half of the population of Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, a city of about 400,000, had been killed or driven from their homes. Entire families have been wiped out. Neighborhoods and livelihoods have been annihilated. Thousands of refugees have been displaced throughout Chechnya, and into neighboring Ingushetia and Dagestan. According to a spokesperson from the respected international relief organization, Doctors Without Borders, Russian military assaults against villages south and southeast of Grozny were accompanied by massive abuses against the civilian population. During the attacks against these villages, the number of women and children killed or seriously wounded was over 50 percent of the total casualties. The shelling of the town of Samashki, for instance, has been compared to the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. And now the killing has come to Russia. According to press reports, about 100 people died when Chechen guerrillas stormed the southern Russian city of Budennovsk last Wednesday and took about 2,000 hostages at a local hospital. Dozens more were killed or wounded Saturday when Russian troops tried to free the hostages by storming the hospital. Ironically, this action takes place when the head of the Mission of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Grozny reports that Russia is trying to reduce civilian casualties in Chechnya and has tightened up discipline in Russian military ranks to avoid the brutality that took place earlier. Moreover, I note also that an official representative of Chechen political leader General Dudaev, speaking in The Hague, has condemned the Chechen raid on Budennovsk and the taking of hostages. Thankfully, the fury in Budennovsk has been settled without further bloodshed. But, Mr. Speaker, the legacy of violence and hatred cannot be easily extinguished. I am informed that the leader of the Chechen guerrilla force that attacked Budennovsk lost most of his family to the Russian onslaught in Chechnya. How many other desperate and vengeful persons has the Chechen War begotten? In a recent message concerning the Budennovsk tragedy, Dr. Elena Bonner writes: The policy of physical destruction of the Chechen people together with attempts to deprive them of any dignity has in a natural way led to the tragedy in Budennovsk. Under [these] circumstances, any solution by means of force will only result in new victims and will become a stimulus for further spreading of the bloodshed over greater territory of Russia. I am certain that all my colleagues in the Congress join me in urging all concerned to end the cycle of violence in Chechnya and Russia. And once again, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I urge the Russian government and the Chechen opposition to work with the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe toward a permanent cease-fire and a just settlement of the conflict.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am glad my good friend from New York brought up the death penalty and pointed out that there is killing involved in the taking of human life in abortion. I am one who has voted against the death penalty. I do not believe in it. I would welcome and invite the gentleman and others who believe as he does to recognize that when chemical poisons and when dismemberment occurs on an unborn child, that is killing. We do not want to facilitate it. That is what this amendment is all about. This facilitates the killing of those babies.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the largely untold story concerning Mr. Clinton's unethical order of January 22, 1993, to turn DOD health care facilities into abortion mills is that military obstetricians, nurses, and anesthesiologists around the world adamantly refused--and continue to refuse--to comply with the death order. In so doing, these men and women in uniform from Europe to the Pacific have demonstrated to use all that they are healers first and always, and that they regard it as inconsistent and schizophrenic with the role of healers to be butchers of innocent children. Because of their deep convictions and reverence for human life, no one will ever say of them, when the injustice of permissive abortion is finally exposed, that they were just following orders. The military doctors' steadfast refusal to inject children with hypodermic needle dripping with poisons or to dismember unborn babies with razor tipped knives hooked up to suction machines, only underscores how seriously these physicians regard the value, dignity, and integrity of each and every human life. These medical people are healers. They are defenders of vulnerable kids who have been put at risk by the abortion culture. They recognize that the highest calling of their profession is to protect, nurture, safeguard all of their patients, including unborn babies. In like manner, under the Dornan language, DOD hospitals and health care facilities, will once again be institutions exclusively dedicated to healing. Unless you construe an unborn child to be a tumor or cyst--and pregnancy itself a disease--abortion on demand as authorized by the DeLauro amendment has no place at these facilities. With each passing day, Mr. Chairman, more Americans are peeling away the myths and euphemisms that cloak and sanitize abortion and are instead recognizing that abortion is child abuse. The coverup of abortion methods is over. Today, hearings began in the Judiciary Committee on outlawing the gruesome partial birth abortion. In this method the abortionist delivers most of the baby's body, however, the skull is cut while still inside the woman, and the brain sucked out. Here's how Dr. Martin Haskell, who boasts of having performed over 700 partial birth abortions, described the procedure at a National Abortion Federation seminar on second trimester abortion: The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the lower extremities. The tranducer is then held in position over the lower extremities. The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon than applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina. By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure. With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and ``hooks'' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way. While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. The coverup of the methods of abortion is over. As included in the bill, Mr. Dornan's language honors these doctors and their profession and above all, safeguards both patients--mother and child--from the exploitation of abortion on demand. By reinstating the Reagan-Bush policy of prohibiting the use of DOD facilities for abortion on demand, this Congress can save precious lives--always a laudable goal. The DeLauro amendment guts the Dornan language and will allow Mr. Clinton to force DOD facilities to get involved in the grisly abortion business. Reject the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the dirty secret of the pro- abortion movement is the method of abortions themselves. More than two decades after Roe the Nation remains woefully uninformed concerning the violent and abusive methods routinely used to kill unborn babies. The abortion industry has cleverly sanitized and marketed abortion with an endless stream of euphemisms. In abortion mills throughout the land abortionists dismember kids with razor blade tipped knives connected to suction machines or inject deadly poisons into the child. Today hearings begin in the Committee on the Judiciary to outlaw what is known as partial birth abortions. Here is how the originator of this terrible method of abortion describes it: [[Page H6026]] After delivering most of the baby he says the surgeon then takes a pair of blunt, curved, Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors and then they suck the brains out of that baby. Mr. Speaker, this is barbaric. This legislation would outlaw this egregiously barbaric procedure. The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the lower extremities. The tranducer is then held in position over the lower extremities. The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina. By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure. With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and ``hooks'' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way. While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that we have 10 additional minutes for this debate. I think it is important that Members who want to speak get an opportunity to speak.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer amendment. Through vacillation, indecision, incoherence, and incompetence, the Clinton administration has allowed the situation in Bosnia to go from bad to worse. And let us not forget that the previous administration was in office when the arms embargo was imposed. During those years I was equally vociferous in my opposition to the imposition of the arms embargo. Beyond the deepening humanitarian disaster, 200,000 civilian killed while half of the population have been forced to become refugees--the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II. There have been over 20,000 rapes. The United Nations and NATO have found themselves very much undermined through this process. But the loss of life obviously is our overriding concern. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I just left a hearing where Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic made a very, very convincing and compelling case to lift the arms embargo. He has done this before with equal eloquence, but some of his comments today should be heard by every Member of this Chamber and every American. He said, ``We face extinction; our people are dying, each and every day,'' while the United Nations and NATO, but especially the United Nations, talks about more talks with people like Milosevic and others who are war criminals, and frankly thugs. Developments on the ground in Bosnia underscore the utter failure of the international community to come to terms with the armed aggression and genocide that has been perpetrated by the Bosnian Serbs against the people of Bosnia. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, we hear over and over again that we do not want to see escalation of the fighting in Bosnia. Nobody wants to see that, but there are an estimated 200,000 Bosnian government forces who want to take up arms, but there is only one rifle for every three soldiers. They cannot defend themselves. Mr. Speaker, everybody should remember and be mindful of the fact that when the breakup of the former Yugoslavia occurred, the military capability and the might of Yugoslavia fell into hands of the Serbs, placing the Bosnians and the Croats at a great disadvantage. When an arms embargo was imposed, one side had all the guns, all the MiG's, all the heavy artillery and the tanks; the other side had nothing but broom handles and sticks. Again, that is why the continued imposition of the arms embargo is so immoral. Dr. Silajdzic said, and I thought it was very well taken, that the arms embargo is illegal, immoral, and after 3 years it is inhumane. The policy of containment has done nothing to stop armed aggression and genocide. The arms embargo has rewarded aggression. And let me make another point that I think is very important. The Prime Minister said again today as he has said before, as President Izetbegovic has stressed, the Bosnians do not want American troops, they do not want British troops, they do not want French troops. They want to exercise their right to defend themselves, as any sovereign nation would want, especially in the face of aggression and genocide. On the U.N. rapid reaction force, he said it is a more robust status quo. The U.N. peacekeepers are not even safe and they have the modest ability to defend themselves, but certainly the civilians who are killed each and every day by sniper fire and shelling are anything but safe. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] mentioned earlier, that he and I have been to that part of the world--we have seen the devastation. We were in Vukovar together. Shortly thereafter, we met with Milosevic, who denied that attacks in the city had resumed. We saw Serb MiG's fly over Vukovar with our own eyes, yet he denied it. We saw the tanks and devastation and that has continued year in and year out, and we have done nothing to stop it. There is bipartisan support for this effort to lift the arms embargo. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and I and others have had hearings, we have looked in the eyes of the women raped as a part of this genocide, and we were absolutely moved to tears. It is unconscionable that we will not allow Bosnia--a sovereign state--to defend itself. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the Hoyer amendment in keeping with Bosnia's inherent right to self defense under the U.N. Charter.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Nebraska. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I object to the unanimous- consent request.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, two significant events marking the tragic human rights record of the People's Republic of China must not be allowed to pass without this body pausing to remember the victims in China who are not allowed to speak out for themselves without fear of persecution, imprisonment, torture, and death. There are even those victims who will never have the opportunity to cry out for their lives. On June 1, the Maternal and Infantile Health Care Law went into effect in the People's Republic of China. This law, though titled a ``health care'' policy, is nothing short of Nazi-style eugenics policy added to an already oppressive, nonvoluntary, coercive one-child-per- couple family planning policy being implemented in China. China's coercive population control policy is already well known and is a crime against women. Xiaorong Li, the vice-chair of Human Rights in China's Executive Committee and a research fellow at the Institute of Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland recently wrote: ``In assessing the population policy, the unfair burdens that women have been made to bear in recent history for mistaken national policies must not be ignored * * * If China faces a population crisis, is it just to make women (and children) primarily bear the cost of reducing birth rates?'' She goes on to note that ``75 percent of urban women would like to have two children, but most settled for having one child to avoid losing subsidies, housing, medical care, retirement benefits, and even their jobs. Rural women seem to suffer more from pressures of all kinds * * * to evade the quotas set by the policy and produce more, preferably male, babies. They alone have to endure abortions in the 7th and 8th months of pregnancy, use IUD's, take the pill, get sterilized, bear the children, and suffer the health consequences of all these things. In most cases, they alone are punished for their extra-quota births, having to escape the harassment of family planning workers, lying about their pregnancies, and eluding the teams sent to take them for abortions and sterilizations.'' The new law goes even further than setting quotas, it is aimed at ensuring that parents can have a perfect child, according to Sun Nianfu, senior obstetrician at Beijing's Capital Hospital. To this end, the law prohibits marriage between people if one of them has a serious hereditary disease, which is medically deemed unsuitable for reproduction unless the couple would agree to take long lasting contraceptive measures or give up childbearing by undergoing tubal ligation. Further, the law indicates that when a woman is determined to be carrying a child that may have serious hereditary diseases or have a serious deformity, the pregnancy should be terminated. What will this mean for the people of China? According to one report ``couples discovered to have a genetic predisposition toward conditions like diabetes, mild retardation, or even rheumatoid arthritis * * * could be forced by the government's medical establishment to abort their child.'' The law, so vague in its definition of serious diseases would allow the government and medical officials to determine in each case which people may get married, which couples may have children, which children may be born. Three days after the eugenics law went into effect, on June 4, the world remembered the brave men and women who filled Tiananmen Square 6 years ago calling for democratic reform and greater freedoms. Tragically, that peaceful protest, watched by millions the world over, turned violent when the government ordered military troops into Tiananmen Square and opened fire on peaceful, unarmed citizens. Hundreds were killed. The Chinese Government has never given an accounting of the exact number. More were rounded up and imprisoned. Many of these peaceful protesters remain in Chinese prison, many of them are imprisoned in labor camps, where they are forced to participate in China's slave labor system, producing items exported to the United States under the administration's tragic trade policy which sacrifices human lives and dignity on the altar of the dollar. On Friday the President once again renewed MFN with China, while paying lip service to the human rights situation in China. While unborn children are being called undesirable, while women are forced to undergo coerced abortions and sterilizations, while hundreds of political dissidents are imprisoned and their voices silenced, the government which inflicts there horrors on the people is rewarded. Mr. Speaker, fortunately there are others who have more integrity. And these people are paying a high price for standing up for human rights. Several appeals, signed by dozens of China's leading intellectuals have been issued calling for a commemoration of the Tiananmen Square victims and the release of those who are still detained for their participation in the peaceful protests. Some of those who have signed the petitions have been arrested, including Wang Dan, the 26-year-old former student leader at Tiananmen Square. Others arrested include Wang Xizhe who was imprisoned for 12 years for his participation in the 1978 Democracy Wall movement, Liu Xiaobo, a professor, Huang Xiang, a poet, and Liu Nianchun. And, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that Wei Jingsheng, the father of China's democracy movement was detained on April 1, 1994 and has vanished without a trace. He had already spent over 14 years in prison. He was released in September 1993 during China's bid to host the Olympics in the year 2000. Once this no longer served their purpose, Wei was picked up by authorities and has not been heard from since. At this point he has not been charged with any crime nor have there been any judicial proceedings against him. Mr. Speaker, today the government of China enjoys most-favored-nation trade status with the United States. Government officials and the military are reaping the rewards of unlimited trade with our Nation while at the same time they trample the rights, dignity, and lives of millions of women and men in the name of population control and stability. These victims of China's human rights abuses must not be forgotten. Today I honor the forgotten women and men of China, who are victims of Nazi-like eugenic policies, who cannot choose the number and spacing of their children, whose bodies are violated, whose voices are silenced, but whose hopes and dreams remain alive.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] for cosponsoring this amendment with me, and for their leadership on the issue of trying to provide a modest amount of funds to the War Crimes Tribunal for the people who has suffered in Rwanda. Mr. Chairman, the outbreak of warfare in Rwanda was accompanied by an outbreak of genocidal violence all too reminiscent of what happened in the former Yugoslavia. Under cover of long-standing tribal rivalries, an effort was launched by leaders of one tribe to bring about the systematic extermination of another. It is important that the international community show that this kind of crime against humanity will be detected, prosecuted and punished. The Rwanda tribunal was created by Security Council Resolution 955 on November 8, 1994. Many Members no doubt remember that date for other reasons, but for Rwandans it was an important sign of hope that the world had not forgotten their sufferings and there would be a prosecution for committing these heinous crimes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I welcome reports that NATO planes struck targets near the Bosnian Serb stronghold of Pale today after militant forces ignored a U.N. ultimatum to surrender heavy weapons they seized from U.N. weapons dumps around Sarajevo earlier this week. According to Reuters, six aircraft, including U.S. warplanes, bombed a Bosnian Serb ammunition depot in response to a request from U.N. peacekeepers. This rare display of muscle to quell attacks against Sarajevo, a U.N.-designated safehaven, is long overdue. Perhaps these airstrikes signal a resolve by the international community to take a firm stand against armed aggression and those responsible for genocide in Bosnia. I applaud the Clinton administration for fully backing the NATO raids which were a response to what Secretary of Defense Perry characterized as reprehensible attacks around the Bosnian capital. Mr. Speaker, it is high time that determined action, such as today's airstrikes, be directed against those who flagrantly defy the will of the international community, as the Bosnian Serbs have repeatedly done.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we are only days away from the 6th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre which was the Chinese Government's violent response to the peaceful prodemocracy demonstrations of students and other Chinese citizens in 1989. As the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement approaches, the Chinese Government now turns its attention to prominent dissidents who have petitioned the Government for greater tolerance of dissent. Wang Dan, one of the leaders of the 1989 movement, is among those who have been detained. The men and women who bravely stand up for human rights, democractic reform, and greater tolerance deserve our support and encouragement. They are the hope for the future of China. However, disturbing trends of abuse of human rights call us to realistic see the Chinese Government for what it is: butchers and despots who have no regard for human life and dignity. In the course of the last 2 years we have watched as human rights have continued to deteriorate in China. New laws which restrict religious activity for both the underground and Government-sponsored Christian were issued in January 1994. Recent reports confirm that the Chinese Government's attack on religious believers is increasing. During the Easter celebration the Public Security Bureau in Linchuan County arrested 40 pro-Vatican Catholics suspected of organizing a Mass attended by nearly 20,000 worshipers. Eleven of these people are still being detained. A Protestant minister, Li Dexian, his wife, and several companions were arrested and detained in April while conducting a worship service. Pastor Li was beaten and kicked during this detention. This was the fourth time he was arrested in 4 months. And citizens of two predominantly Catholic villages in Liangshou County have been forced to flee their homes and go into hiding to escape the brutal torture by the population control officials because they refuse to follow the one-child-per-couple policy. They refuse to bow to the new population slogan of ``Better to have more graves than more than one child.'' The villagers report that they have been subjected to being hanged upside down and having their tongues burned with electric wires. The new law on maternal and infant health care enacted in October 1994 is in actuality a eugenic law, reminiscent of the Nazi eugenic policies of an earlier era. This law prohibits marriage between people if one of them has ``a serious hereditary disease, which is medically deemed unsuitable for reproduction'' unless the couple would agree to take long-lasting contraceptive measures or give up child bearing by undergoing ligation.'' The law further states that when a woman is determined to be carrying a child that may carry ``serious hereditary diseases * * * or have a serious deformity,'' the pregnancy should be terminated. Dr. John Aird, former Chief of the China Branch at the U.S. Census Bureau, said ``Coercion in the Chinese family planning program has in the past 2 years reached its second extreme peak approaching or perhaps exceeding the levels of 1983.'' Couples have no right to determine the number and spacing of their children. Those that choose to violate the one-child-per-couple policy may be hunted down like animals. Women are forced to abort their babies, many are sterilized. Those that do have a second or third child are usually subjected to loss of jobs and property, harassment, and fines that far exceed their income. Another area of concern is the extensive prison labor system which exists in China. No other system like it exists in the world today. It is the most extensive forced-labor system in the world, and this system has destroyed the lives of millions of people, and it continues to do so. When I was in China last year I met with several people who bear the permanent scars of years in Chinese prison labor camps. I heard their stories of beating and torture and saw for myself the broken bodies which these camps create. New, disturbing evidence that prisoners are being executed so their body parts can be sold for transplants is now coming to light. There are even reports that some prisoners are having their kidneys removed before they are dead. Harry Wu, himself a survivor of the prison labor system has documented this body trafficking practice on film. How much more do we need to see before we are convinced that the Chinese Government has no concern for human life whatsoever? Concern for human rights in China has been virtually ignored by the Clinton administration since last year's renewal of MFN. Official after official has traveled to China and human rights has not been on their agenda. Mr. Clinton has an opportunity to lessen the damage done by extending MFN at the cost of human rights when he attends the G-7 meeting in Nova Scotia on June 15. I join my colleagues in urging the President to raise the deterioration of human rights in China at this meeting. But should he forget the dissidents, the prisoners, the tortured, the abused, the murdered, we Members of Congress will not. The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Human Rights, which I chair, has held two hearings on human rights abuses in China. The first on the Laogai prison labor system, the second on the coercive population control policies. These were the first hearings of their kind to be held by a congressional committee. Future hearings will focus on other forms of human rights abuse in China. The Chinese people who value freedom, democracy, and human rights deserve our support.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the code of conduct amendment that is offered by my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney]. The code of conduct will be the first major reform of U.S. arms transfer policy in almost two decades. The code of conduct highlights guiding principles on human rights and democracy which I believe are important to America's leadership role in the post-cold-war era. This amendment would help stem the flow of U.S. weapons to countries that violate human rights of its citizenry and fail to respect international human rights standards. The code of conduct offers an avenue for America to make violators of human rights accountable for their actions if they wish to continue to receive U.S. arms sales. Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of all the foreign military sales went to countries described by the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as human rights violators, with undemocratic governments. The code of conduct is supported by some 275 national organizations who believe that human rights should play a key role in our arms export policy. Mr. Chairman, I will never forget some years back when I made a trip to Croatia when it was under siege. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I got into a place by the name of Vukovar. Vukovar was surrounded by Serb artillery and tanks. We went there to try to bear witness to peace and to try to encourage the people there. We followed it up with meetings with President Milosevic and others. But I remember looking at shell casings and bomb casings that littered the streets, dozens of bomb casings, and they were U.S. made. Now, some people can say ``Oh, big deal. That doesn't really matter. We sell it to them and how they use it is their business.'' But it greatly distressed me to know that people, innocent civilians, were being destroyed by the dropping of these 500-pound bombs. I remember bringing that issue to the attenetion of our National Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft. He surely agreed. He said, ``Yeah, we sold those bombs, and other kinds of military hardware to the former Yugoslavia,'' which had a disgusting human rights record. Now, I think we need to be more serious about who we are willing to sell arms to. This code of conduct may not be perfect. It may be liable to additional change as it makes its way through conference, should it pass. There are reasonable objections by reasonable people about what ought to be a part of this, whether or not the national security exemption is the best and most properly drawn way of proceeding. But I think it makes a clear statement that it will not be business as usual. Arms sales ought to be conditioned and human rights ought to matter. Unfortunately, we have had hearings in the Committee on Human Rights, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights which I chair, two human rights hearings. Amnesty International came forward and told us in this administration, the Clinton administration, human rights is an island, disconnected from policy considerations. We have seen it in a myriad of other issues like the most-favored- nation status for China and other kinds of human rights considerations. There is a disconnect. This tries to, at least in the selling of arms, which kill people, we try to make sure, the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney] tries to make sure that, if we are going to sell arms, that human rights is a significant factor. I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, it does not help this debate one iota for the gentleman to call it softheaded to say that the screening process was influenced. The overwhelming consensus by the human rights groups is that it is flawed. Let me just, again, remind the gentleman, and this is not a conservative human rights organization, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights Refugee Project concluded, and I quote, ``The entire screening process and review procedures remain seriously flawed.'' They went on to state: ``The process remains hostile to genuine refugees, and thousands may have been wrongly rejected.''

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