Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this week we will have the opportunity to right the wrong done to America's seniors only 2 years ago when President Clinton pushed through Congress--against the vote of every Republican--a tax package raising the tax on Social Security benefits. The Clinton tax hike increased the financial burden on some 9 million middle-income seniors by an estimated $500 per year. And let us not forget that the Clinton tax package hit seniors in other ways as well, including the increased energy tax and increased Medicare premiums. Furthermore, this was all laid on top of already inequitable circumstances such as the ``notch'' disparity and the Social Security earnings test. After years of service to their Nation as workers, soldiers, mothers and fathers, America's seniors hardly deserve this biased treatment in their retirement years. It wasn't until the mid-1980's that the Federal Government began to tax seniors' Social Security benefits. At that time--and against my vote, I might add--Congress applied Federal income taxes to 50 percent of Social Security benefits for seniors earning $25,000 as individuals or $32,000 as couples. President Clinton increased to 85 percent the amount of income subject to taxation for seniors making only $34,000 a year. The only message this conveys is that careful savings and planning for retirement do not pay off. Is this the message we want to send to American workers? Furthermore, the Social Security tax is a clear violation of the pact with America's seniors which the Social Security Program represents. Seniors work hard all their life and have a substantial portion of their income taken from their pay check and placed in holding for their retirement as Social Security benefits. To tax this income when seniors collect it is no less than double taxation. The Social Security tax should be eliminated. I encourage my colleagues to take this first step toward resolution and to support the repeal of the Clinton Social Security tax hike as included in H.R. 1215.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month members of a Parliamentary Human Rights Foundation delegation returned from a fact- finding mission to Turkey. The human rights situation in that country has significantly deteriorated in recent years despite assurances otherwise by Turkey's leaders. At present, internal tensions have reached new heights, threatening to tear apart the multiethnic fabric of Turkish society while destabilizing the entire region. Turkey's campaign against the Kurdish Worker's Party [PKK] has been used to justify the recent invasion of Northern Iraq as well as sweeping restrictions on pro-Kurdish expression and peaceful political activity. And, while the PKK continues to operate and gather support, Turkey's democratic credentials are increasingly questioned. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask that the report of the Parliamentary Human Rights Foundation delegation, which outlines many of the human rights problems in Turkey and offers constructive recommendations on how Turkey's Government might better address such problems be printed in the Record. Report on Human Rights Conditions in Turkey, March 2, 1995 i. summary The Parliamentary Human Rights Foundation (formerly the Congressional Human Rights Foundation) organized a human rights fact-finding mission to Turkey (2/25-3/1/95). The delegation was led by the Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Member of the Board of Directors and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC). The delegation also included David L. Phillips, President of the Foundation. The purpose of the trip was to investigate reported human rights violations committed by the Government of Turkey, particularly the abuses against its citizens of Kurdish origin. The delegation also investigated violations by the PKK, a separatist organization committed to armed struggle. Based on the delegation's findings, a report has been submitted to officials in Geneva, Members of the U.S. Congress, the European Parliament, and National Assemblies in Europe. ii. program The delegation visited Istanbul, Diyarbakir, and Ankara. In order to consider a broad range of views, the delegation spoke with Turkish officials from the Office of the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Emergency Region, and Turkish Army personnel. The delegation also met with representatives of the Turkish Human Rights Association, the Turkish Human Rights Foundation, the Diyarbakir Bar Association, HADEP officials, a DEP Parliamentarian, lawyers representing the DEP MPs, former MPs of Kurdish origin, and Kurdish citizens. Our official request for meetings with Layla Zana and Ahmet Turk, imprisoned parliamentarians and members of the Foundations Interparliamentary Human Rights Network (IPN), was declined. Despite assurances from the Governor of the Emergency Region, our travel to Kurdish villages outside of Diyarbakir was blocked at military checkpoints. The office of the Diayarbakir Human Rights Association was closed and four members were arrested within 24 hours of the delegation's meeting with representatives of the Association. iii. summary of observations Turkish authorities are systematically violating the rights of Turkish citizens, including those of Kurdish origin. The Anti-Terror Act and the State of Emergency provide legal sanction for gross human rights violations, particularly in Southeast Turkey. Turkish authorities state that their objection is to the non-combatants terrorism. However, many civilian non- combatants suffer human rights violations as a result of the struggle between Turkish authorities and the PKK. The PKK is an extremist, militant organization responsible for acts of terrorism in which Turkish military and police personnel are targeted, as are Kurdish civilians. It should be noted, however, that the PKK has recently called for a ``civilian solution'' to the Kurdish question and has recognized Turkey's borders. The Government of Turkey believes all persons who seek political and cultural expression for the Kurds are ``separatists'' and PKK sympathizers. Suspected by Turkish authorities as bases for PKK operations, more than one thousand Kurdish villages have been destroyed. Human rights monitors report instances of arbitrary detention, torture, extrajudicial killing, and restrictions on freedom of expression. In addition, democratically elected parliamentarians of Kurdish origin have been jailed and convicted for disseminating ``separatist'' propaganda and supporting an ``armed band'' while, in reality, they were merely representing the interests of their constituents. There are serious shortfalls in Turkey's administration of justice. iv. summary of findings The Interior Ministry indicates that 1,046 villages in the emergency region have been evacuated; human rights monitors say several thousand villages have been destroyed; homes and their claimed inhabitants have been burned; use of chemical agents and poison gas are reported. The Government acknowledges that 940 combatants have been killed; however, other reports claim that thousands have died. The population of Diyarbakir has doubled to more than 1.2 million as internally displaced persons have sought refuge in the city. The DEP parliamentarians were convicted in proceedings many observers labelled a ``show-trial.'' The Government of Turkey indicates that 8,682 persons have been sentenced under its Anti-Terror Act, which permits arbitrary arrest. Many of those known to be arrested, as well as persons who have disappeared, were just attempting to peacefully exercise freedoms of speech, association, or other internationally recognized human rights. The Turkish Human Rights Association reports instances of extrajudicial killings and torture of persons held in incommunicado for political crimes. There are 250 cases/appeals presently before the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission on Human Rights. The Constitutional Court of Turkey has no right of review for ``decrees with the force of law'' issued under the state of emergency. The Anti-Terror Act, adopted in 1991, restricts many civil liberties, including attorney access to, as well as the rights of, persons in detention. The Anti-Terror Act and state of emergency provisions also restrict freedom of expression. Government agencies harass and imprison human rights minors, journalists, lawyers, and professors. The Act's broad and ambiguous definition of terrorism, particularly Article 8, has led to widespread abuses of innocent civilians. In addition, the Constitutional Court has banned the DEP party, a vehicle for the expression of Kurdish cultural identity and full citizenship rights. In the past two years, 26 DEP and HADEP members have been killed. In the run-up to recent elections, the DEP headquarters was bombed. The press law permits banning of publications with a court order and states that ``responsible editors'' bear responsibility for the content of their publications; 19 journalists have been tried under the Anti-Terror Act. On December 3, 1994, a journal reputed to be pro-PKK, the ``Izgur Ulke'' was bombed. There are no independent Kurdish language newspapers, television, or radio. Regarding cultural expression, the Constitution does not recognize Kurds as a national, racial, or ethnic minority. Two hundred Kurds were arrested during Newroz New Year celebrations in Diyarbakir. It is important to note that the PKK, itself, is responsible for gross human rights violations by targeting village officials, guards, informants, teachers, and young men who refuse to take up arms against the authorities. By the admission of its own representatives, the PKK has recently killed 179 village guards, 66 collaborators, and police officials. The well-being of almost every Kurd is adversely affected by the conflict. As a result of the conflict, Turkey's citizens of Kurdish origin have become bereft of many democratic rights and are denied effective political and cultural expression. The contributing to a worsening security situation throughout the country. An increasing number of Kurds are turning to the pro-Muslim Welfare Party. v. recommendations The international community should promote improvement in human rights conditions in Turkey by encouraging a dialogue between Turkish authorities and legitimate representatives of Kurdish interests. To this end, amnesty should be provided to convicted DEP parliaments so that they can participate in a dialogue concerning the reduction of tensions and the normalization of relations between Turkish authorities and Turkey's citizens of Kurdish origin. Within the competence of the UNHRC, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and Freedom of Expression should investigate human rights conditions in Turkey. The Government of Turkey has ``invited'' the Special Rapporteur on Summary Executions to visit Turkey. A suitable itinerary and near term date should be finalized. Efforts should be made by the U.S. and the E.U. to establish mutual reinforcing restrictions on the sale of military equipment which might be used against civilian populations. The US and EU should also coordinate the extension and/or relaxation of tariff and trade privileges based on Turkey's overall human rights performance. Technical assistance programs in the rule of law should be undertaken among Members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, European Parliament, and U.S. Congress in order to strengthen democratic institutions and assist in constitutional and legislative reform. The Anti-Terror Act should be amended so that the rights of Turkish citizens are safeguarded, as is the right of the state to protect its territorial integrity. Electronic computer networks should be established between the TGNA and parliamentary bodies in other countries. These recommendations are provided so that the international community can become fully seized by the worsening human rights conditions in Turkey. The authors of this report hope for reconciliation through dialogue so that peace, prosperity, and democracy may flourish for all citizens of the Turkish Republic.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as I noted yesterday, Russia has now passed the hundredth day of its armed intervention in Chechnya. The brutality continues. Moscow gives soothing words about a cease- fire, but the shelling and the bombing continue unabated. With this in mind, I would call attention to an open letter that I recently received, courtesy of the American Foreign Policy Council. This letter was written by three of the most prominent scientists currently living in the former Soviet Union. In this letter, A. Belavin, a physicist, and two mathematicians, V. Drinfeld and B. Feigin, characterize Moscow's actions as ``genocide and crimes against humanity'' and say, as I have maintained all along, that ``these actions cannot be considered merely an internal affair of Russia.'' I urge President Clinton and others in his administration to keep in mind the powerful message in this letter, and hope that it would be included in the President's briefing book for his upcoming trip to Moscow. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full text of this letter be inserted in the Record at this time. Dear Friend: We are compelled to write to you from the feeling that terrible crimes committed by Russian authorities and armed forces in Chechnya are not accidental, and that we are all responsible for them. These crimes, according to the testimony of journalists, human rights defenders, and mothers of the soldiers fighting there, include not only the bombing of towns and villages inhabited by civilians, but also the capturing of hostages, robberies, [and] the organization of filtration camps where people, incarcerated on the basis of their race, and cruelly beaten, tortured, maimed and murdered. All these actions should be characterized as GENOCIDE and crimes against humanity. They cannot be considered merely an internal affair of Russia. The Chechen crisis is not accidental. It reveals the criminal essence of the political regime that is being formed in Russia. The most dangerous aspect of the present situation is the absence of a clear appreciation of this fact. Instead, in the public opinion, especially in the West, there still exists the myth that Russia is moving toward democracy and reforms and, unless Yeltsin is supported, fascists of the type of Zhirinovsky will take over. We consider this opinion as deeply erroneous. Supporting democracy and human rights by words, the regime is persecuting them in a cynical and brutal way [sic]. Many facts give evidence for this, such as beatings and killings of honest journalists and human rights defenders who get and publish information dangerous for the regime, the criminal and corrupted methods of privatization, and many other things. Now there is an attempt of annihilation of a whole nation. Acting by fascist methods, the regime uses Zhirinovsky and the threat of fascism for manipulating public opinion. Russia is not moving by the path of democracy and human rights. A new regime, unusual in its cruelty and falsehood, is being born. Whether the criminal regime or democracy with a human face will take over in Russia, will, in the first place, depend on people in Russia, our ability to understand the danger and take responsibility, [and] our courage and will to stand against evil. However, the realization by people in the West of the true state of affairs of Russia and the support of democracy, not Yeltsin, are also crucial. We ask your help in spreading our letter. A. Belavin, V. Drinfeld, B. Feigin.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. Given the issue of why, especially for teenagers, cash assistance is in their best interests, we are hoping to keep our young people in school. One of the costs associated with that goal is baby-sitting. A voucher, as best I can read it, is not going to accommodate that, so I would hope that that issue would be revisited, as well. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn] for his leadership. It is very much appreciated, I think, by everyone who cares deeply, as we all do, about the plight of these teenagers. The gentleman needs to be congratulated.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Just to respond briefly, the gentleman raised the potential for fraud or misusing the vouchers as food stamps are often misused or at times misused. I would submit to you that cash lends itself to misuse to a greater degree than a voucher. The voucher would be harder to sell and to peddle on some kind of black market than the misuse of cash. So we would be more apt to target the money towards the child with the voucher.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time just to strongly urge Members to vote yes on this amendment. Those who would have preferred cash payments, that is not what is in the underlying bill. It is very likely not going to be an option. On a dollar-for-dollar basis, empowering the States with the Flexibility we are saying the voucher is targeted to help assist the child, to help the mother who is the custodian of this voucher to provide the best available care. It is a modest amount of money. I was one of those who led the effort when my Democratic Governor, Jim Florio, led the effort to stop the cash payments in New Jersey, and that is what sensitized me to this voucher to at least provide support to the children.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support the general thrust of welfare reform and I sincerely commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for their efforts in it. Mr. Chairman, some of us, however, opposed the rule this morning because we fear certain provisions of this bill will encourage abortion. But there is at least one other danger, that these provisions will trap children in the very cycle of perpetual poverty that the bill seeks to end. I am concerned that unless amended in some significant ways, H.R. 4 will have some very dire, albeit unintended consequences. I admit that the family cap exclusion has enormous surface appeal. Many Americans are fed up with people being on the dole. Americans want the abuse of the system to end. But I fear that one purported remedy, a cap on assistance for any additional children born to a woman on welfare, will severely hurt the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society, children. No one wants to do that. The two most predictable outcomes of the family cap child exclusion as written are the likely increase in the number of babies aborted by indigent women, many of whom will feel financially trapped and abandoned, and the further impoverishment of children born to women on welfare. Both scenarios are unacceptable. Over the years, numerous studies have shown that money, or more precisely, the lack of it, heavily influences a woman's decision to abort her child. A major study that was done by the Allen Guttmacher Institute, a research organization associated with Planned Parenthood, found that 68 percent of women having abortions said they did so because they ``could not afford to have the child now.'' Among 21 percent of the total sample, this was the most important reason for the abortion. No other factor was cited more frequently as ``most important.'' Demographers have pointed out that ``young, poor and minority women are more likely to have abortions than older more affluent women even though these same groups are more likely to oppose the right to abortion.'' Seven in 10, 70 percent, of women with incomes of less than $25,000 disapprove of abortion compared with 52 percent of the more affluent women. Yet the poorer women account for two-thirds, 67 percent, of the abortions. One expert observed, ``Few would say that an abortion is a good thing, but many women who believe that abortion is wrong found themselves unable to support a child when they became pregnant.'' This information backs up the Goodmacher study as well. The family cap in my view is likely to tip the balance for each poor woman who feels that society has no real interest in the survival of her baby. She will get a powerfully negative message that her child has little or no value, especially from those States like my own where Medicaid is available for abortion on demand. Then one of two things will happen. The woman will have an abortion, or the family will descend further into poverty. Mr. Chairman, the family cap child exclusion might present a close question if one could argue that the incremental payment for a new baby were really so high that it might encourage women and girls to get pregnant to have babies just to get welfare. But this concern simply evaporates when we look at the facts. The facts are that the additional assistance per child varies from State to State. But the median is about $57 per month. Out of this, the mother must pay for the child's clothing, shoes, diapers and other baby supplies, laundry and bus fare for medical checkups. According to statistics compiled by Catholic Charities, the low end cost for these items total about $88.50 per month, so the mother is $31.50 in the hole even before she begins paying for the child's other expenses. We simply mislead ourselves when we assume that this constitutes an incentive to have more babies. Mr. Chairman, there is much about the welfare system that needs changing, much that does serve to trap people in the cycle of poverty and despair. But allowing the States to pay modest per child benefits is not one of those terrible things. On the contrary, it is a true safety net, a safety net against abortion under duress, a safety net against a descent further into poverty. My amendment would allow the States to provide goods and services designed to assist the child, it targets it, and it does so in a way that is practical and is tangible. Mr. Chairman, I do strongly hope that my colleagues will support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Bunn amendment. I congratulate the gentleman from Oregon for his very, very strong sensitivity to the plight of teenagers and those who may find themselves pregnant. His amendment, and I would have hoped that the rule would have made in order the cash payment as well, particularly as it went through, as he would have envisioned, a responsible adult, a guardian, a grandmother, perhaps, or a mother, so that it would act as a magnet to keep that child under the roof of that family and help to keep families together. Regrettably, that is not to be, but this amendment as it is offered will provide tangible assistance to these teenagers, and I think it is a very appropriate amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Well, I would hope then, if this rule goes down, that it would be made in order in an amendment to strike it or, perhaps, to fix it.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I do not relish being put in the position of opposing the rule on welfare reform, but, in conscious and sincere disagreement with leadership, I must. First, Mr. Speaker, let me note that I am grateful that my amendment to reform the so-called family cap by permitting welfare moms to get vouchers in lieu of cash to better provide for the necessities for their babies was made in order. So I say, ``Thank you for that.'' But I am deeply concerned that in an otherwise laudable drive to reduce illegitimacy and dependency we are poised to enact legislation that is likely to reward States that increase the number of abortions performed in that State while also making children more impoverished. Both of these scenarios are unacceptable and are largely preventable. amendments were crafted. Only two were made in order--well, perhaps two and a half. It is my hope that a new rule would give us the opportunity to consider all four amendments, including the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn] and the Stark-Volkmer amendment. Mr. Speaker, this so-called illegitimacy ratio provision in the bill is well meaning, but it is fatally flawed, and the Stark-Volkmer amendment would strike it. The illegitimacy ratio was not part of the Contract With America in its original form. The ratio might well have provided incentives to States to decrease their abortion rates to qualify for the monetary bonus stipulated in the bill. But the version contained in the bill today is likely to reward States that increase the number of abortions from the benchmark year, the year of enactment. Mr. Speaker, the flaw is contained in the formula itself, again, which started out OK but was rewritten when objections were raised by certain proabortion Members. The formula is designed to curb illegitimacy; no problem there. But the means to that end uses the wrong numerator to calculate what is progress. The original language, which I support, said: ``Add the number of out-of-wedlock births and abortions. Then divide the number by the total of births in that State. States that lowered the ratio by 1 percent would get a 5-percent extra block grant. Lower the ratio by 2 percent, and the State gets 10 percent extra.'' This is no perfect formula, but the ratio that would have promoted a decline of both abortion rates and illegitimacy. The new formula, however, steers a far different course. The new formula says: ``Add the number of out-of-wedlock births to the number of additional abortions performed over those performed in the year the bill was enacted, and divide by the total births in that State. As some births in the State are legitimized by adoption or marriage, the numerator, as it relates to illegitimacy, will automatically decrease, leaving ample room for corresponding increases in abortion rates.'' In other words, that State can then achieve a, quote, good mark and get a big reward from Uncle Sam, even though the abortion rates have skyrocketed in that State. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on this rule, however unintended the consequences of the ratio will be to reward States that push abortions for welfare moms, and pay for them under their Medicaid provisions, and then declare victory by showing a good score on a flawed scorecard. Illegitimacy Ratio Test Would Reward States Even if Abortions Increase (By David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.) An ``illegitimacy ratio bonus'' plan for states was added to welfare reform legislation (H.R. 1214--known as the personal Responsibility Act) by the full House Ways and Means Committee. The plan would reward states financially for reducing their ``illegitimacy ratio'' even in circumstances where abortion increased. For this reason, NRLC is opposing the ``illegitimacy ratio bonus'' plan as passed by the House Ways and Means Committee and supports the Stark-Volkmer Amendment to remove the bonus provision. The ``Illegitimacy Ratio Bonus'' Plan The bill provides that federal welfare funds received by a state be increased by 5% in any year in which the states ``illegitimacy ratio'` (as defined below) is one percentage point lower than in the year prior to enactment of the legislation. The state's federal grant would be increased 10% if the ratio was two percentage points lower than the year prior to enactment. The ``illegitimacy ratio'' in the year prior to enactment is defined as the percentage obtained by dividing the number of out-of-wedlock births by the total number of births. In subsequent years it is defined as the percentage obtained by dividing the number of out-of-wedlock births plus any increase in abortion by the total number of births. Incentives for State Action The ``illegitimacy ratio bonus'' plan is intended to be an incentive for a state to adopt programs to discourage out-of- wedlock childbearing. Such a campaign could consist of many components including the denial of state aid to such children, similar to the ``teen mother's child exclusion'' provision of the bill. Whatever programs the state implements, however, there are five possible changes in behavior people could utilize to attempt to avoid an out-of-wedlock birth. They could: (1) Use contraception, (2) abstain from sexual relations, (3) marry before the birth of the child, (4) place the child for adoption (for purposes of the bill's ratio test both marriage and placing the child for adoption is considered to ``legitimize'' the child), or (5) abort the child. Under a comprehensive out-of-wedlock ``anti-childbearing'' campaign, it can be expected that a combination of all five of the above changes in behavior would occur. It is the fifth--aborting children conceived out of wedlock--that NRLC must oppose. Unfortunately, as explained below, the ratio test passed by the House Ways and Means Committee allows abortions to increase significantly and the state to still reap the financial reward of increased federal funds. how the ratio test allows increased abortions For purposes of the ``illegitimacy ratio'' test, changes in behavior in the second or subsequent years are treated mathematically in the following manner. Those who avoid pregnancy (and thus an out-of-wedlock birth) through either contraception or abstention are treated the same: those missing births disappear from both the numerator and the denominator of the new ratio. Those who ``legitimize'' the child either through marriage or adoption are also treated the same: those births disappear from the numerator but remain in the denominator. Changes in behavior that result in increased abortions rather than out-of-wedlock births do not actually affect the numerator since these abortions would reduce the number of births in the numerator but would also be added back in. However, they do reduce the births in the denominator. While this means that an abortion in lieu of an out-of-wedlock birth does actually hurt the state's ratio, this is not sufficient to prevent the state from receiving the bonus while experiencing a substantial increase in abortions, because the effect of the increase in abortions on the ratio can easily be more than offset by the other changes in behavior. The following examples show how a state can receive the bonus while increasing abortion: Example 1: Suppose in the initial year a hypothetical state has 100,000 births, 30,000 of them out-of-wedlock for an ``illegitimacy ratio'' of .30. Then suppose the state implements a rigorous anti out-of-wedlock child bearing program that results in a 10 percent (i.e. 3,000) reduction in out-of-wedlock births. (This is not an unreasonable assumption since the New Jersey ``family cap'' has reportedly resulted in a 13 percent decrease in births among AFDC recipients.) Further, suppose this reduction of 3,000 out-of- wedlock births was the result of 900 who successfully used contraception or abstained, 900 more married or placed the baby for adoption and 1,200 who had abortions. Then, assuming other births and abortions remained constant, the state's new ``illegitimacy ratio'' would be 28,200 (27,000 out-of-wedlock births plus 1,200 abortions) divided by 97,900 reflecting the 900 non-conceptions and 1,200 abortions) which equals .288. Thus, the state would qualify for the 5 percent federal bonus even though abortions accounted for 40 percent of the reduction in out-of-wedlock births. Example 2: In the above example, again assume a 10 percent change in behavior, but spouse the reduction of 3,000 out-of- wedlock births is the result of 1,200 who successfully used contraception or abstained, 1,300 who married or placed for adoption and 500 who had abortions. In this case the new ``illegitimacy ratio'' would equal 27,500 (27,000 out-of- wedlock births plus 500 abortions) divided by 98,300 (reflecting the 1,200 non-conceptions and 500 abortions) which equals .2798 or less than .28. In this case, the state would qualify for the 10 percent bonus in the federal funds, even though abortions accounted for one-sixth of the reduction in out-of-wedlock births. Example 3: As a generalization of Example 1, it can be shown that if out-of-wedlock births initially account for 30 percent of all births and there is a 10 percent reduction in out-of-wedlock births in the second year, with other births and abortions remaining constant, and the reduction is due to equal numbers of non-conceptions and ``legitimized'' babies due to marriage or adoption, then the increase in abortions can be as much as 1.3 percent of all births and the state will still get the federal ``bonus.'' In this case, abortions could equal up to 43% of the reduction in out-of-wedlock births! Example 4: In Example 3, the number of out-of-wedlock births that were avoided through marriage or adoption exceeded those that were avoided by reducing conceptions. For an example where a greater number of out-of-wedlock births are avoided by reducing conceptions, assume again that in the initial year there were 100,000 births with 3,000 of them out-of-wedlock for an ``illegitimacy ratio'' of .3. In the second year, suppose there are 5,000 fewer out of wedlock births due to 2,000 non-conceptions, 1,000 adoptions or marriages and 2,000 abortions, and that other factors remain constant. The new ``illegitimacy'' ratio would be 27,000 divided by 96,000 or about .28. The state would again get the financial bonus despite the increase in abortions.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to the ongoing crisis in Chechnya, which began exactly 100 days ago today, when the Kremlin launched a massive military offensive in the region. In an ironic twist, details of this tragedy have been largely overshadowed by yesterday's announcement that President Clinton will travel to Moscow in early May to meet with President Yeltsin. He is proceeding despite the urgings of Congress and, apparently, officials within his own administration that he stay home. The Clinton administration has mishandled this crisis from the outset and, with yesterday's announcement, has proven that it has lost touch with reality where Yelsin is involved. The administration should have taken advantage of Moscow's strong desire to secure United States participation in ceremonies commemorating the end of World War II, and pressured Moscow to agree to an immediate, unconditional cease-fire, and the deployment of a long- term OSCE mission in Chechnya. Again, the administration acquiesced, after Yeltsin made a concession about the planned military parade. But that parade is in May--Russia is committing atrocities right now. One hundred days ago, Mr. Speaker, our administration characterized this crisis as an internal affair, better left to the Russians to handle. But the crisis, which many in Moscow and in Washington had hoped would go away, has not. About 24,000 individuals have been killed and hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes. Gross human rights violations and atrocities have gone unchecked, as the humanitarian nightmare in Chechnya continues. The Russian campaign in the region constitutes a gross violation OSCE principles. Nearly 2 months after the OSCE Permanent Council's decision of February 3, most of the problems raised at the time--for example, disproportionate use of force, gross human rights violations, unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance, access to detainees-- persist and have not been addressed in a meaningful manner, if at all. During the Helsinki Commission's hearing in January, human rights champion Dr. Elena Bonner implored us, ``[F]rom outside Russia, the stable democratic societies of the West must employ all diplomatic means to pressure Mr. Yeltsin to call off his assault and negotiate with the Chechen leaders.'' As chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have closely followed these troubling developments. I have repeatedly spoken out against Russian actions in Chechyna and the disappointingly muted response by our own leadership. Mr. Speaker, I urge Secretary Christopher to press Foreign Minister Kozyrev to abide by the OSCE decisions, to agree to an unconditional cease-fire, and to accept a long-term OSCE monitoring mission, when they meet later this week in Geneva. The Russians continue to stall on all three points. While they have hinted that they could accept an OSCE million in principle, they appear to be stonewalling. If the Russians finally agree to accept such a mission, painstaking care must be taken in the elaboration of its mandate. Russian good will alone will not be enough. The last thing we need is an OSCE million which can be manipulated into a kind of Potemkin village to lend legitimacy to Russian policies in Chechnya. Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that the President has agreed to go to Moscow while Yeltsin continues his campaign of death and destruction in Chechnya. It is high time that President Clinton stop turning a blind eye toward the Chechen crisis and starts pressing Boris Yeltsin to end the senseless slaughter.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, since the demise of the Soviet Union, and the dissolution of its repressive police state, Russian society now faces the challenge of balancing law and order with protection of individual liberties. We are all aware that Russia is experiencing a dramatic rise in crime and a high rate of violence. Unfortunately, the cure envisioned by the Russian Government for this dilemma may be worse than the disease. According to recent reports, the lower house of the Russian Parliament--the Duma--has voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill proposed by President Yeltsin that would dramatically expand the powers of the domestic intelligence agency of the Russian Federation, known as the Federal Counterintelligence Service, or FSK. FSK agents would be able to enter homes, government offices and businesses without a search warrant from a court or the prosecutors office, as had been the case previously. The FSK would manage its own jails, and could employ undercover personnel working in other government agencies. Bear in mind where the FSK stands philosophically these days. I would call attention to a FSK report published on January 10 of this year in the Moscow newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. In this report, the FSK accuses various foreign policy research centers, nongovernmental organizations, and foundations such as the Soros Foundation and Ford Foundation, of being used by United States secret services to conduct intelligence-gathering and subversive activities on the Russian territory. For instance, the FSK alleges that American specialists have set up a ``network of contacts for information on legal sources'' in Russia that would become a foundation for clandestine sources should United States-Russian relations worsen. Of course, this analysis came from the folks who reportedly did the planning for the Chechnya operation. The Russian population is plagued by crime and corruption and, therefore, I can understand how this bill could be widely popular. The bill was approved in the Duma through the democratic process. But, Mr. Speaker, we all know that even democratically passed laws, especially those passed in the heat of the moment, can be seriously flawed. The key principle is protection of the civil liberties of minorities while carrying out the will of the majority. A Russian journalist quoted in the February 28, 1995, Washington Post said, ``In this country, people don't understand [about civil liberties] until the moment the FSK people come to their flats and knock on their door.'' Mr. Speaker, as I noted, crime and corruption are an overwhelming problem in Russia today, and our colleagues in the Russian parliament are faced with the serious task of developing the proper legislation to combat it. But, as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, an organization vitally concerned with the principle of rule of law in the OSCE signatory states, I would urge the Federal Assembly and President Yeltsin to deliberate very carefully before giving the domestic security service such expansive powers. In legal terms, these proposed powers may even violate the Russian Constitution. In operational terms, there may soon be little to distinguish the FSK from the KGB of the cold-war era.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today a bill which would terminate the United States arms embargo applicable to the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina today is dismal. After three winters of war, there is still no end in sight. The contact group plan of last summer, which had been offered with a 2-week deadline for an unconditional response, has been held open indefinitely to the Bosnian Serbs to accept. The Bosnians, who accepted the plan on time and without condition, have watched the international community subsequently ease sanctions on Serbia, despite the fact that it was Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic that instigated this conflict and sustains the aggressors who rejected the plan. The Bosnians have heard our Secretary of State explain how the contact group formed to respond to the Bosnian conflict is somehow more important than the conflict itself, and that preserving NATO is more important than meeting the challenges Europe faces today. Meanwhile, the Bosnians feel the human suffering and the injustice of continuing conflict. That is their reward for working with the international community, human suffering, and injustice. The problem we now confront in Bosnia-Herzegovina is quite straightforward. The Serb militants occupy over 70 percent of Bosnia- Herzegovina, while the contact group settlement grants the Serbs 49 percent of the country. Mr. Speaker, the international community has absolutely no plan for getting the Serbs to relinquish control of and return that one-third of the territory they seized by force. Yes, the contact group countries meet with each other, with the Bosnians, with the Serb militants. They convene additional conferences to bring the sides together. We have seen this for nearly 3 years, a farcical display of resolve in contrast to the horrible tragedy on the ground. This approach has not worked, and there is no reason to believe it will now. As many have said from the beginning, a unilateral lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina is a last option. Until now, the international community, including the United States, has not taken genuine action to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Bosnia-Herzegovina, despite having the authority to do so. It has not intervened to stop Serb aggression with punitive air strikes or other measures, despite the fact that the genocidal nature of this aggression should have compelled us legally and morally to do so. And the United States has not sought--really and formally sought--a multilateral lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina, despite that U.N. member's inherent right to its own self-defense. Absent these other measures, Mr. Speaker, we have no other recourse than at least to lift the U.S. arms embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of course, until such time that this bill is passed and its provisions go into effect, President Clinton can seek to make the lifting of the embargo a multilateral action at the United Nations. He can also take other decisive steps to compel the Bosnian Serb militants to accept the contact group plan. But time is running out. The present course is untenable, and to support its continuation--even implicitly by our own inaction--would be irresponsible. It is therefore my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Clinton administration will take the time they are now using to defeat congressional efforts to lift the embargo, and use it instead to get others to agree to what we all would prefer, a multilateral lifting. After all, it was 2 years ago last Friday that Secretary of State Christopher, unveiling the administration's Bosnia policy, lamented the fact that the West had repeatedly missed earlier opportunities to effectively address the conflict and prevent it from deepening. The Secretary said: ``Our conscience revolts at the idea of passively accepting such brutality. It tests our commitment to the nurturing of democracy.'' Recognizing the implications of the Bosnian crisis he warned, ``The world's response to the violence in the former Yugoslavia is an early and crucial test of how it will address the concerns of ethnic and religious minorities in the post-cold-war world.'' One year ago, in the aftermath of the market place massacre in Sarajevo, President Clinton himself echoed this view when he said, ``This century teaches us that America cannot afford to ignore conflicts in Europe. And in this case, our Nation has distinct interests.'' He concluded, ``While the cold war may be over, the world is still full of dangers and the world still looks to America for leadership.'' And let us not forget his inaugural address, when he vowed that, ``When our vital interests are challenged or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act, with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.'' Let the Congress be clearly understood, the issue of Bosnia's survival is important and must be addressed. It is a bipartisan issue, where the most conservative and the most liberal share a common outrage over the inhumanity that has been allowed to take place in that country. This applies as well to the Senate, where Senators Dole and Lieberman have already introduced an identical bill. I hope, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to move on this legislation quickly, and today I am joined by the ranking minority member of the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Hoyer, Commission members, Mr. Markey, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Bonior, Ms. Molinari, Mr. Royce, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Moran, and Mr. Wynn.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the recent passing of Sister Ann Gillen, one of the leading human rights activists on behalf of persecuted Jewish dissidents and refuseniks in the former Soviet Union. A member of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, Sister Ann served for 15 years as executive director of the Interreligious Task Force for Soviet Jewry. On numerous occasions, she traveled to the former Soviet Union to visit and support Jewish refuseniks and the families of political prisoners. In addition, Sister Ann was a frequent attendee at international human rights fora. An unwavering supporter of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Sister Ann served as a leader for several human rights delegations to the Belgrade, Madrid and Vienna CSCE Review Conferences where she urged political figures and diplomats to press the Soviets to live up to their own obligations under the Helsinski Accords and other international agreements. Sister Ann was a woman of action when responding to the plight of Soviet Jews. In 1979, Sister Ann offered her own freedom to the Soviet Government in exchange for the release of long-time refusenik Ida Nudel. Needless to say, the Soviets refused, but her gesture helped dramatize Ida Nudel's plight to the world and bring additional pressure on Kremlin leaders to allow Nudel to emigrate. In 1982, Sister Ann was one of three human rights leaders to serve an historic Writ of Habeas Corpus on the Soviet Consul in Washington, DC for Andrei Sakharov. In 1989, while attending the Sakharov International Human Rights Conference in Moscow, Sister Ann publicly urged Soviet leaders to end state regulation of religion. Long before others were encouraged to speak out on behalf of religious liberty and long before religious organizations collaborated on issues such as these, Sister Ann crossed ecumenical lines and reached out to persecuted, imprisoned human beings of all faiths--and in particular the Soviet Jews--to bring them hope and to fight tirelessly for their rights. Even in the last days of her life, Sister Ann did not think of her own pain, but of the suffering of religious believers around the world as she continued to plan conferences and projects that would go on after her own work had ended. Sister Ann's fellow campaigner in the struggle for Soviet Jewry, Union of Councils President Pamela Braun Cohen, was certainly correct when she said, ``No doubt thousands of Soviet Jews owe their freedom to Sister Ann's tireless efforts.'' Dr. Kent Hill, President of Eastern Nazarene College and an expert on religion in the former Soviet Union, described Sister Ann as ``a tireless, selfless, and effective advocate of those who suffered because of their religious convictions.'' In an award presented to her by a coalition of human rights organizations just prior to her death, Sister Ann was honored with these words: ``All of us who are novices in this work are very grateful for the paths that you have paved for us. This small token of our admiration pales in contrast to the contributions that you have given to make the world more humane. Perhaps, someday, we, following your example, may demonstrate the same depth of devotion and be a role model to other human rights activists.'' Mr. Speaker, Sister Ann exemplified the finest qualities of her faith and her religious order as she reached across ethnic and religious boundaries to rescue strangers in distress. Her many friends and associates, and those who benefitted from her tireless efforts, will cherish her memory.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week the states belonging to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--the OSCE-- adopted a statement in Vienna regarding the escalation of ethnic tensions in Macedonia and the events that are causing this escalation. Some members of the ethnic Albania community of that country have sought to open their own Albanian-language university, and the resulting confrontation with the authorities became violent on February 17, leading to the death of one Albanian and the injury of dozens of individuals, including several police officers. Of course, there are now mutual recriminations regarding how the violence started. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I want to note and lead my support to the path outlined in the OSCE statement, which calls on all parties to exercise restraint, to strengthen the dialogue and to maintain an open-minded attitude in order to overcome the problems between them. It also indicates the willingness of the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities and the OSCE Monitoring Mission in Macedonia to contribute as they can to the alleviation of tensions. I support this, because the differences which exist in Macedonia today can, in fact, be worked out peacefully. To allow the tensions to worsen unnecessarily not only would be destabilizing to Macedonia, but potentially to an entire Balkan region where there is already too much tension and violence. In regard to the effort to establish a university in the city of Tetovo, provisions of the OSCE--and specifically the Copenhagen document of 1990--state that national minorities do have the right to establish and maintain their own educational and cultural institutions, as well as unimpeded contacts among themselves and with citizens of other states with common ethnic origin. The Macedonian Government is not obliged to fund, accredit or even recognize this university, but to consider the institution illegal--and to physically destroy last December the building in which it was originally opened--violates the spirit, if not the letter, of these provisions. Mr. Speaker, if some segments of the Albanian community in Macedonia genuinely have as their objective a solid educational institution for the benefit of the people of their community, they should make sure that education is not used instead to provoke tension or incite violence. While there are ample grounds for criticism of the Macedonian Government, as I have just expressed, there is also reason to believe that minority-related issues, including education, can be satisfactorily addressed in a far less confrontational manner. I would urge all sides to address education and other minority- related questions through dialogue, and the authorities to move more quickly on needed educational reforms. In the meantime, those ethnic Albanian leaders arrested for incitement during the February 17th incident are entitled to the protection of their rights, and any judicial proceedings should ensure due process in their regard. protection for human rights could be made and timely reforms could be forthcoming. While I recognize that Macedonia is not a member of the OSCE, Macedonia is not excused from complying with international human rights standards.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 28, Mike Oxley and I introduced the Local Governments Flow Control Act of 1995 (H.R. 1085) with the bipartisan support of several of our colleagues. This is the latest step toward providing relief for hundreds of communities nationwide who face enormous financial and long-term waste management burdens as a consequence of the Supreme Court's Carbone versus Clarkstown, New York decision. As you know, that court decision interpreted the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in such a way that it invalidated flow control laws which local governments management tool. In fact, flow control has enabled communities in more than 40 States to meet the Federal mandates of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] in a cost-effective, safe, and efficient manner. Since the Court decision, these communities have found themselves seriously overburdened. Because they needed to secure revenue bonds to finance costly, but highly advanced waste technologies, these communities now face a total outstanding debt of more than $10 billion. Several communities have already seen their credit ratings downgraded as a result of this debt--including five counties in my home State of New Jersey. And they are likely to be joined by others as investment services weigh the consequences of Congress' inability to swiftly grandfather their flow control authority. You may recall that I introduced legislation on the first day of the session as a legislative remedy. That bill--the Community Solvency Act (H.R. 24)--is the identical text of legislation approved by the House by unanimous consent on October 7, 1994. The substance of H.R. 24 and that which Mr. Oxley and I have now introduced (H.R. 1085) is largely the same; but the 11th-hour drafting style of H.R. 24 has been enormously improved in the Local Governments Flow Control Act of 1995. This new bill represents the same strong commitment to local governments as its predecessor. Those communities which had practiced flow control or had made significant commitments of time, resources, and money--as specifically defined in both bills--toward implementing flow control are still grandfathered. They will be able to maintain the integrated waste systems which they have labored to establish in an effort to meet the waste treatment and disposal needs of their residents in a cost effective, safe, efficient, and environmentally sound manner. This new bill also represents our dedication to the principles of competition and a free and open market. All communities will be required to meet strict needs test analyses--to prove that flow control can meet the needs of the community better than an entirely unfettered market--and detailed competitive designation processes--to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination against any private or public sector market participant. Finally, where the Local Governments Flow Control Act represents a vast improvement over its predecessor is in its simplicity. The numerous cross references and redundant phrases have been eliminated and replaced with definitions and well-ordered sections making this bill far easier to read and comprehend. Furthermore, those sections of the bill which had been ambiguous and a possible invitation to future litigation have been clarified. This fine-tuning has brought the substance of the bill even closer to the position which several private sector waste companies are now supporting. Both Mr. Oxley and I believe that this bill is truly a compromise which can benefit all parties at the negotiating table-- local governments, Wall Street, private sector waste companies, and recycling interests. Yesterday, I presented this bill to the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment during a hearing held on this matter and interstate waste control. I pointed out in my testimony that, particularly for my home State of New Jersey, the two issues are linked. Within the span of two decades, New Jersey went from the top importer of other States' waste to the No. 2 exporter. Twenty-five years ago, the State instituted a carefully designed waste management statute based on the premise of flow control. This statute places a strong emphasis on recycling efforts and integrated waste systems which are managed by the counties of the States, either individually or through interdistrict agreements. One of the key objectives of New Jersey's waste management laws is self-sufficient waste management by the year 2000. The State is well on the way to its goal. Recycling is close to 60 percent in parts of the State and averaging 50 percent overall. Upon completion of two projects already in the works when the Carbone decision was handed down, the State expects to be capable of treating and disposing approximately 88 percent of its waste within its own boundaries. When the plan has been fully implemented, the State expects to export only 5 percent of its solid waste; thereby addressing through its own initiative the concerns of Midwestern States which are seeking to close their borders to other States' waste. However, as I previously noted, flow control is the linchpin to the success of the New Jersey system. Without that authority, we can no longer be confident of meeting our worthy goals. I urge you to join Chairman Oxley, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Minge, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Saxton, and me in cosponsoring the Local Governments Flow Control Act of 1995 and in the effort to provide prompt passage through the Congress of this important and necessary relief for local governments.