[Pages H530-H551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPROVING THE PRESIDENTIAL FINDING REGARDING THE POPULATION PLANNING
PROGRAM

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of section
518(A)(e) of an act making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs for fiscal year 1997 (Public Law
104-208), I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) approving the Presidential finding that
the limitation on obligations imposed by section 518A(a) of the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
1997, is having a negative impact on the proper functioning of the
population planning program.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
The motion was agreed to.

{time} 1022

In The Committee Of The Whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of House Joint
Resolution 36 with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
By unanimous consent, the joint resolution was considered as having
been read the first time.
The text of House Joint Resolution 36 is as follows:

H.J. Res. 36

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
House of Representatives and Senate approve the Presidential
finding, submitted to the Congress on January 31, 1997, that
the limitation on obligations imposed by section 518A(a) of
the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, is having a negative
impact on the proper functioning of the population planning
program.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 518A(e) of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act for 1997, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] will control 1 hour in opposition to the joint resolution,
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] will control 1 hour in
favor of the joint resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] and I ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to yield to other Members.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a resolution which would
endorse a finding by the President that the delay until July 1, 1997,
in the obligation of funds for international family planning ``is
having a negative impact on the proper functioning'' of the program.
This resolution is being considered under expedited procedures as
called for in section 518A of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997.
The decision to delay obligations for international family planning
funds until July 1, but to require a vote to release the funds by March
1 of this year pursuant to a finding by the President, is the result of
a compromise struck by the House leadership and the White House during
negotiations on the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997.
The agreement also calls for a total funding level of $385 million for
international family planning, instead of $356 million as provided in
fiscal year 1996. In addition, funds are apportioned on a monthly basis
of not more than 8 percent.
We are not dealing directly in this resolution with the so-called
Mexico City policy, because the House has been unable to get the Senate
and the White House to agree to it for the past 2 years. The Senate
only voted once directly on the policy in the past Congress. On
November 1, 1995, by a vote of 53 to 44, it rejected the Mexico City
provisions included in the House version of the fiscal year 1996
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. In addition, the White House
threatened to veto such appropriations acts if Mexico City language was
included.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan], offered a compromise last year which would have allowed
organizations that refused to agree to abide by the Mexico City policy
to receive family planning funds, but at a level not to exceed 50
percent of the total provided to each such organization in 1995.
Organizations that agreed to abide by the Mexico City policy would not
have been capped.
That compromise was endorsed by the House but rejected by the
administration. Had it been accepted, we would not be here today and
international family planning funds would be flowing without delay in
obligations.
This is the second year that the obligation of funds for
international family planning has been delayed. As I stated earlier,
the House could not reach a compromise with the administration or the
Senate on the Mexico City policy as part of the fiscal year 1996
appropriations act and, as a result, delayed obligations until July 1
of that year as well.
However, the obligation delay was explicitly intended to encourage
the authorizing committee to address this issue as part of the pending
authorization bill for foreign affairs. As passed by the House, the
1995 foreign aid authorization bill included Mexico City policy
language. Unable to work out a compromise with the Senate and the
administration, all language was dropped in the final conference report
on the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that this changes this year. I hope that we do
not have to debate this anymore. Policy issues surrounding
international family planning should be addressed by the Committee on
International Relations, not the Committee on Appropriations. I urge
the authorization

[[Page H531]]

committee to resolve this issue so that legislative language on the
Mexico City policy does not continue to have a negative impact on the
proper functioning of the appropriations process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 36,
the Presidential finding on international family planning funds. As I
call on my colleagues to vote for this resolution, I want to remind us
all why this vote is occurring.
Our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr.
Livingston, has presented a long version of it and I will do a brief
one. But, first, I want to commend him for the spirit of fairness in
which he has enabled this resolution to come to the floor, which is in
keeping with his great leadership as chair of our committee.
I also want to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith],
who is in opposition to this resolution, has his own resolution on the
floor today. I do not think I have ever served with a finer Member of
Congress. He is a great champion for child survival issues and human
rights issues throughout the world. I have great respect for him.
Unfortunately, I disagree with him on this issue, but I want to pay
homage to his commitment to child survival issues.
Mr. Chairman, we are here today because of an agreement, as our
chairman mentioned, that was entered into in the fall. In order to
break an impasse, President Clinton and the House of Representatives,
the Republican leadership, entered into an agreement on the foreign aid
bill and, indeed, the entire and continuing resolution for fiscal year
1997.
Under the agreement President Clinton agreed to a reduced level of
funding for population of $38.5 million and to a 4-month delay in any
obligation to have the funds. The funds would go forward now or March 1
if the President certified to Congress that the delay is having an
adverse impact on international family planning programs and the House
and Senate vote to approve the President's finding.
Indeed, the President's certification states that further delay will
cause serious, irreversible and avoidable harm to the lives and well-
being of many thousands of poor women and children throughout the
world.

{time} 1030

Indeed, the delay undermines U.S. efforts to promote child survival
and actually increases the number of abortions worldwide. Evidence from
all regions of the world show increased contraceptive use by reducing
unintended pregnancies plays a major role in reducing abortions.
I join with many well-known development organizations, such as CARE,
World Vision, Save the Children, and some church-related groups such as
Church World Service, Lutheran World Relief, and the National Council
of Churches, to name a few, in urging my colleagues to vote yes in
accepting the presidential finding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take the balance of my time to make three
points. What do the population funds do, how are they used; second,
what they do not do, they do not promote abortions, and how do we
monitor that.
U.S. support for international family planning programs emphasizes
voluntary family planning as a part of an integrated approach to
population and development that includes complementary activities to
promote health, the status of women, child survival, and strong
families.
The goals of U.S. leadership in global population are: To promote the
rights of couples to determine freely and responsibly the number and
spacing of their children, improving individual reproductive health,
and reducing population growth rates to the levels consistent with
sustainable development.
I will put more in the Record about the work of our international
family planning efforts. Time does not permit me to go into more detail
here. However, I will say that gains made from the delivery of services
such as immunization, diarrheal control, and nutrition programs for
children are most effective and sustainable when combined with programs
for women on child spacing, maternal health services, and access to
contraceptives.
In fact, in most instances throughout the developing world by sheer
necessity the delivery of these programs takes place simultaneously.
Inaction today not to accept the President's finding would disrupt
child survival and family planning services and will end up costing us
dearly both in human and financial terms.
What the population funds do not do: AID's funds are not used for
abortion. As this chart indicates very clearly, since 1973, with the
enactment of the Helms amendment, AID's population program has been
legally prohibited from supporting or encouraging abortion as a method
of family planning. I will state these prohibitions specifically, and I
have the actual statutes with me at the desk if any one of our
colleagues wishes to inspect them.
No USAID funds can be used to pay for the performance of abortions as
a method of family planning or to motivate a person to have an
abortion. No funds can be used to lobby for or against abortion. No
funds can be used to purchase or distribute commodities or equipment
for the purpose of inducing abortions as a method of family planning,
and no funds can be used to support any biomedical research which
relates in whole or in part to methods of or the performance of
abortions as methods of family planning.
Strict procedures assure that no AID funds are used by contractors
for abortions, and these procedures in place to ensure that no funds
are used include, and I have another chart on that, legally binding
contracts that include standard clauses specifically listing prohibited
activities. Violators are subject to heavy fines and loss of future
funding.
It also includes close technical monitoring for requiring detailed
annual work plans, regular independent audits according to Federal
acquisition regulations of both contractors and subcontractors.
There have been claims that all population funds will be dispersed
without pro-life safeguards if this resolution passes. This is simply
not so. It is essential to restart funding for these international
family planning programs to promote the health and well-being of
millions of families throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, I do not hesitate to characterize this vote, based on
the exploding population growth we are experiencing, as vital to the
future of our planet, and one that is first and foremost about
providing families with the real means to lift themselves from poverty,
provide for their children and live with dignity. We must not hold the
poor children of the world hostage to congressional politics. Let us
take a step forward today, not backward. Vote ``yes'' on the
resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the very distinguished chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the debate really is not about family planning,
although we will hear that term a lot. This is about abortion. Family
planning, properly defined, is the matter of getting pregnant or not
getting pregnant. It has nothing to do with abortion. True, abortion
will hold down the population gain because you are eliminating people,
you are killing them, you are exterminating them. But that has not been
the policy of our Government and our country. And even now we give lip
service to the fact that none of these funds can be used to pay for
abortions. But what happens is the money goes to an organization, or
organizations, that perform abortions, that counsel for abortions, that
lobby for abortions in countries as a means of family planning.
Now, that wall between abortion and family planning should remain in
place. Under the legislation of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Smith] every penny of family planning money goes to organizations
engaged in family planning, properly defined. It will only be withheld
from those organizations that counsel, perform, and promote abortions.

[[Page H532]]

Now, the idea that none of this money can be spent for abortions, I
just wish frankly people would understand that we understand money is
fungible. And if you provide money for purposes A and B, you are
freeing up other money for C and D. So that really is not an argument.
The Mexico City policy, which was the policy until this President
assumed office--and 2 days after he was in office, he reversed it--
provides that we will support lavishly and generously family planning.
I am not objecting to that. But not subsidize--indirectly, or directly,
in any way--abortions, and not subsidize organizations that perform
abortions. That was the policy. Three hundred fifty foreign
organizations agreed to its terms, including the International Planned
Parenthood Federation. And they have affiliates in 57 countries. The
only one that did not agree, and that is what we are fighting about
here, is International Planned Parenthood Federation of London.
So I just suggest, if you think abortions are a good idea, and I do
not know anybody that will admit to that, but I do know a lot of
policymaking activities that amount to supporting abortion. I hope
Members will vote ``no'' on the President's finding.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee
of the Committee on Appropriations and, more importantly, a leader in
our country on international family planning issues.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the privileged
resolution to release the funds for international family planning
programs on March 1. I have personally visited clinics supported by
this aid, and I have seen firsthand the very critical work they are
doing for our families, for women, for children, for infants.
Each year approximately 600,000 women worldwide die of pregnancy-
related causes, leaving 1 million children without mothers. These are
unnecessary, tragic deaths that could be avoided through access to
family planning services.
Recently several of my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations and I visited Misr El Kadima, a maternal and child health
center in Cairo, Egypt. This center is a success story and is one of
the many successful facilities supported by USAID worldwide.
Family planning is just one of the basic health care services
provided at the center. The doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians who
spoke with us provide immunizations for children, routine prenatal
care, treatment for common diseases, general outpatient care, not
abortion.
Some of these clinics in Egypt are 5 miles from the nearest city. If
these clinics are shut down, as would happen if these funds do not go
forth, what are these women going to do for these vital services? In
Cairo and in the rest of the developing world, family planning services
are literally a matter of life and death.
In Egypt, largely due to USAID support, contraceptive use has doubled
in the last 15 years and the increase has been directly linked to
decreases in infant mortality and maternal death. Over the last decade,
as the rate of contraceptive use in Egypt rose, the infant mortality
rate dropped 42 percent. As the doctors explained, family planning
services allow families to plan and space the birth of their children.
If the funds at issue are withheld until July 1, USAID's main
contract in Egypt will be suspended. This disruption would force
clinics like the one that I visited to stop providing these life-
savings services, and would have a devastating impact on thousands of
men, women and children. So let's be clear--a ``no'' vote closes
clinics that save lives.
I urge you to remember what this vote is really about. This vote
isn't about abortion--the clinic that I visited in Egypt does not
provide abortions nor do any United States funds go to abortion
services. This vote is about releasing funds for medical services that
save the lives of mothers and babies worldwide. Vote for these
families. Vote for the resolution.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York [Ms. Molinari].
Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, family planning has clearly proven to
save the lives of women and infants. Sadly, 1,600 women die every day,
1 woman every minute, of pregnancy-related causes because they do not
have access to reproductive health services, including family planning.
Nearly half of the women today who die from maternity-related causes
would still be alive today if they could have prevented unwanted
pregnancy in the first place. Nearly all would be saved if they had
access to reproductive health care. By giving women the access to
health services they so desperately need during their childbearing
years, we will help prevent thousands of maternal deaths. The World
Bank estimates improved access to family planning can reduce the number
of maternal deaths that occur annually by 20 percent. In addition to
that, family planning programs have also helped stop the spread of
sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Access to contraception
is not only crucial in avoiding unwanted pregnancies but in fighting
the spread of the ever-growing HIV virus, and we all know these
sexually transmitted diseases do not stay within borders and impose
immense risk to the overall population. To delay the release of funds
until July will result in increased abortions, unintended pregnancies,
the further spread of AIDS, and the deaths of thousands of women.
Seventeen of the 95 programs will have to be shut down, denying
millions of women access to effective contraceptive services. Doctors
and nurses will lose access to obstetrical care, and the treatment of
sexually transmitted diseases and community health workers who teach
important health intervention, including immunizations and pre- and
postnatal care, will be eliminated.
Mr. Chairman, let us give women and their children more control over
their childbearing and health-related decisions and families the self-
sufficiency they want, the health and the hope that they deserve.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not whether we should
support international family planning and educational programs. The
question today is whether or not this Nation or this body supports the
use of abortion as a means of family planning.
As far as I am concerned, the terms ``family'' and ``abortion'' are
totally incompatible. This Nation and this Congress cannot and should
not subsidize an organization which advocates abortion or which lobbies
for the legalization or expansion of abortion as a means of limiting
population growth. We should not allow abortion to become our next
major export.
It is true that the Helms amendment prevents the direct use of U.S.
funds to pay for abortion procedures. But it does not prevent indirect
funds of programs that promote the legalization or expansion of access
to abortion as a means of birth control in developing nations. To do
that, we must defeat this resolution and reinstate the Mexico City
policy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. Help us
reinstate the Mexico City policy and show the world that we are willing
to support education and other family practices, but not at the expense
of the innocent unborn. Vote ``no'' on this resolution and vote ``yes''
on the Smith-Hyde-Oberstar substitute.

{time} 1045

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Torres], a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs and a leader on this
issue.
(Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this resolution
to release on March 1 the funds that we have already agreed to provide
for international planning programs.
This is not a vote on abortion. No U.S. funds can be used to lobby or
perform abortions; that is already prohibited by law as so well
explained by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
This is not a vote to increase funding for family planning programs.
The fiscal year 1997 funding level is already

[[Page H533]]

set. We did that last year as part of the foreign operations
appropriations bill. This vote is merely to decide when to release the
funds. We are already 5 months in arrears in providing for this money.
Not a single dime has been appropriated.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that this is a pro-family vote,
a vote for women's health and survival. To continue to delay in funding
will cost, simply, many, many lives. A UNICEF report has found that
just meeting the existing demand for family planning in the developing
world would reduce unintended pregnancies by one-fifth, thus reducing
the 600,000 annual maternal deaths at least by the same amount.
The counterproductive effects of the delay on international family
planning programs are detailed in the President's finding. There are
country programs here in this hemisphere for which the funding delay
would be especially harmful.
In Mexico some nongovernmental organization clinics will potentially
close including those in Chiapas, one of the states in Mexico which has
tremendous unmet needs for family planning services. Currently, USAID
is supporting programs that serve 70,000 people there annually.
In Haiti this May, there will be staff layoffs of thousands of staff
people that would help to service men and women who without family
planning would have devastating effects.
I urge, I urge a yes vote on this resolution.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Campbell].
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the question before us today deals with a
just and absolutely essential need in the world. I think my colleagues
have made this clear. But one colleague in particular, my dear friend
and a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, the gentleman from
Illinois, said that abortion and family planning are not related; and
of course that is right. Nobody wants abortion as a means of family
planning. But that ignores one very important point, and it is true
from anybody who has visited family planning centers in the United
States.
Many, many women come to a family planning center because they think
they are pregnant, and their first exposure to family planning is
because they think they are pregnant. That is the truth in the United
States; it is demonstrably even more so in the Third World. USAID has
done studies on this.
In particular, in Tanzania they found that, when women came in for a
legal abortion, only 19 percent had had any education exposure to, or
experience with, family planning. And USAID found in Egypt that, when
women came in, if they had an abortion, they left, 98 percent of them,
aware of family planning. The other study is in Turkey where the
realization of family planning doubled.
So if we say family planning and abortion are not related, we are
really missing an important point: the woman who comes to seek
assistance most often is going to a place where she believes that she
can get an abortion, if that is what she needs, if that is what is
legal in her country, but leaves, God willing, never to have another
abortion. And that is just blocked with the Mexico City policy because
the place where she would go to get the abortion counseling or the
abortion services would no longer be there to offer the family planning
assistance either.
So that point, I think, has been missed in the debate.
I conclude simply by saying this. My wife and I traveled to India
within the last couple of months at our own expense. And we just saw a
country, with 40 percent of the world's poor, 17 percent of the world's
population. We are our brother's keeper, we are our sister's keeper.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], a member of
the Committee on International Relations.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 36,
for this is a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate the Members of this
Chamber into releasing population control funding 4 months prior to the
date stipulated in the appropriations bill. The Clinton administration
seems to be under the impression that it can invoke waivers on any law
or make findings such as these with no concrete evidence to support its
contentions, just rhetoric. It is simply an attempt to justify breaking
the compromise reached during last year's debate.
Supporters of these programs would have us believe that their
objective is to save lives, that these programs are needed because the
countries in Latin America and other regions are unable to sustain
population growth. However, if they are truly concerned about the well-
being of the people of these countries, then why do not they take the
$385 million they want released and apply them toward vaccination
programs or better medication to improve child survival rates or better
nutrition programs?
The future of all nations is in the hands of today's children who, if
given an opportunity, will become the leaders of tomorrow. Yet these
population programs are directly and purposefully advocating abortion
as a form of birth control, and by doing so they are helping to deprive
these countries of their potential.
Abortion should never be promoted as family planning.
The United States commits a grave mistake in always assuming that it
knows what is best for others. Are we to be so patronizing of our
neighbors in the hemisphere and other regions to think that we know
what their society needs better than they do?
It seems that the Clinton administration is not content with
increasing government intervention in the affairs of U.S. citizens.
Apparently, it now feels the need to run the lives of individuals in
other countries, dictating what is best for women whose social,
cultural, and religious backgrounds differ greatly from those of the
United States.
But the problem goes beyond this argument and the promotion of
abortion. These population control programs are also being interpreted
as licenses to conduct widespread sterilization of women in Latin
America, in the Caribbean, and in other regions. We have received
numerous accounts from Central America, for example, of women who have
been asked general questions about their families, their economic
situation, and then about whether or not they want more children. This
then is translated by those involved with the population control
programs as a request for sterilization without the express consent or
full knowledge of the women, and these procedures are performed. By the
time these women realize what has taken place, it is far too late.
How can we possibly release the funds for such activities?
In summary: This bill is unjust, offensive, and should not be passed.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this measure.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution.
I do so for one overriding reason: it will save lives. In fact, it's
rare that we get to cast a vote that will result in such direct,
immediate, tangible and unarguable benefits.
International family planning agencies depend on this money--money
which, remember, we have already appropriated.
The work of these agencies saves the lives of women not only by
enabling them to prevent life-threatening pregnancies, but by providing
basic health care services. Their work also helps save the lives of
children who are born into such grinding poverty that they literally
cannot survive. And their work helps eliminate misery by stemming the
over-population that makes life unbearable in so many parts of the
world.
Indeed, UNICEF has noted that ``family planning could bring more
benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology
now available to the human race.'' That's an extraordinary statement,
and it is no exaggeration.
Family planning also prevents abortions. The World Health
Organization estimates that 40 percent of unintended pregnancies end in
abortion--40 percent.
Anyone who wants to prevent abortions--and I think that includes
those of us who are pro-choice--should vote for this resolution.

[[Page H534]]

None of the funds being released can be used to perform abortions, and
the services provided with these funds eliminate the demand for
abortions. In no way can a ``yes'' vote be reasonably characterized as
a pro-abortion or anti-life vote.
Indeed, we in Congress are given few such clear opportunities to be
so affirmatively and truly pro-life. Vote for this resolution and give
the gift of life.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] a member of the Committee on Appropriations
and another champion for international family planning.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, today I am asking my colleagues to support
House Joint Resolution 36, which releases funds which support family
planning programs all around the world.
This vote is not about supporting abortion. Not $1 of our family
planning funds can be used to perform abortions anywhere in the world.
This vote is about preventing abortion. This vote is about improving
the health of women and children. This vote is about saving lives. U.S.
family planning aid saves the lives of women, and each year around the
world 600,000 women die in childbirth.
If we fail to pass this resolution today, family planning and health
clinics across the developing world will close. That means that a CARE
program giving rural Bolivian women their first-ever pap smears will
have to shut its doors. Cervical cancer is curable, but it must be
caught early. I am a cancer survivor. I understand the importance of
this kind of preventive health care. Women in this region of Bolivia do
not have any other health care options. If the family planning clinic
closes, more mothers will die from curable diseases such as cervical
cancer.
For 30 years the United States has been an international leader in
reducing the number of maternal and child deaths through its support
for family planning. Today we must renew our commitment to these
important priorities. We must keep the promise that was made to the
President and release the funds without any qualifications or
alterations.
Today's vote does not add more dollars to our family planning budget,
but by voting yes to this resolution, we vote to add more days to the
life of a poor mother in the Philippines, we vote for fewer unwanted
pregnancies in Tajakistan. We vote for fewer abortions across the
world.
Support women's health, support children's health, support family
health by voting ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the President's
resolution on international population control funding, House Joint
Resolution 36.
Federal funds, except to save the life of the mother, are prohibited
to be used to kill unborn children in our country. We do this because
of the millions of children who are killed each year attacks our
consciences. It is an attack on our morality. Such killings increase
infant mortality. We need to stop this form of infant mortality.
I have had a colleague who stated that we are our brother's keeper.
From the same source that he brought that to us it says that how we
treat the least of God's creations we treat him. And that is what I am
standing here for, is to defend those infants, the defenseless,
unprotected infants in that respect and for that reason.
Now, if we do this in our country, we should have no difficulty in
doing this for the rest of the globe. Even though they are not American
children, unborn children, who are being killed by abortion, they still
are children, they are still creations of God. The sanctity of life is
what needs protecting.
Americans should not be deceived. This vote on this resolution is not
about family planning. This resolution is a manipulative maneuver to
try and overturn the 1973 Helms amendment which prohibits the use of
foreign aid funds to pay directly for abortions. House Joint Resolution
36 will make an additional $123 million available for organizations
that perform and promote abortions.
Opponents of this resolution, of which I am included, are not against
foreign aid to developing countries. We will have a chance to vote on
that later. The United States should not be in the business of handing
out cash to foreign countries to kill babies to get their population
numbers in line.
This is not altruism; this is genocide.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], who probably knows more about this
issue than any of us in the Congress.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the vote is not about whether we are pro-
choice or pro-life on abortion. This vote is whether life for hundreds
of thousands of families who choose to plan their families will include
a real chance to do so, not whether or not abortion will be available
to that family.
Some today will vote for both the privileged resolution and for the
Smith resolution. What Mr. Smith is saying to them is that, without the
Smith resolution being part of the law, a vote for the privileged
resolution is a vote for spending U.S. dollars on abortion-related
activities. That is not--not--correct.

{time} 1100

Since 1973, the Helms amendment has prohibited the use of U.S.
dollars to perform, support, or encourage abortions overseas, and that
mandate has been followed in good faith by the U.S. Government. Indeed,
in order to ensure its implementation, and sensitive to the argument
about the fungibility of moneys, when I was assistant administrator of
AID, we instituted in the late 1970's a rigorous system to separate out
U.S. moneys from other funds spent by organizations receiving American
funds.
This practice has been followed assiduously by every administration
of AID, as indicated by audits certifying that not $1 of American funds
is being used for abortion-related activities overseas.
Further, the organizations which have received American funds and
have been the subject of most controversy, in practice use either no
funds from any source or in any case a negligible amount for any
programs related to abortion.
So this is the question, really: When the United States is fully
abiding by the Helms amendment, when the Government has taken every
possible step to separate American funds so no American money is being
used for abortion-related activities, and when there is no real
fungibility as to U.S. dollars, do we want to stop the availability of
critical funds for family planning, for voluntary family planning
programs desired by millions of families in fast-growing developing
countries?
Mr. Chairman, I urge that the answer for each of us is to vote for
the privileged resolution.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the release of
international family planning funds on March 1, 1997.
We need to clear up the confusion on this issue and focus on the
importance of family planning programs. International family planning
programs save the lives of thousands of women and children across the
world, prevent unwanted and dangerous pregnancies and reduce the number
of abortions worldwide.
Representatives from the Russian Family Planning Association recently
shared information on the successes of their program. In this
developing country, they are using these valuable dollars to increase
access to quality family planning information and services. As a result
of this program, contraceptive use has risen from 19 to 24 percent
among women in just 4 years. And, between 1990 and 1994, total
abortions fell from 3.6 million to 2.8 million.
Yesterday, Secretary Albright testified before our Appropriations
Subcommittee. She stated:

Our voluntary family planning programs serve our broader
interests by elevating the status of women, reducing the flow
of refugees, protecting the environment, and promoting
economic growth. As the President has determined, a further
delay will cause a

[[Page H535]]

tragic rise in unintended pregnancies, abortions, and
maternal and child deaths.''

And, let us be clear--support for family planning programs has, to
this day, been bipartisan. This program was created in 1969 by
President Richard Nixon.
Let me also address some concerns that have been raised by
individuals who do not want their tax dollars being used for family
planning overseas. Of the two resolutions that we will vote on today,
this resolution actually provides less money than does an alternative
proposal that will be offered later today.
Finally, let me again reiterate that this is not an abortion issue.
Current law prohibits any of these funds from being used for abortion.
I hope that today the House will continue its longstanding and
bipartisan support of family planning.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Chabot], a distinguished member of the Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has embarked on
what is no less than a worldwide crusade promoting abortion on demand
at any time for any reason anywhere. I cannot condemn that policy in
words strong enough.
So let me just make a quick point in the short time that I have to
speak here this morning. Contrary to what some of those on the other
side have said, this vote is indeed about abortion. It has always been
about abortion. We simply say to foreign nongovernmental organizations,
unless you agree not to perform abortions and not to violate the laws
or lobby to change the laws of other countries with respect to
abortion, then do not come to this country asking for tax dollars. That
is what we are all saying. That is what it is all about.
I have only been in Congress for a little over 2 years now, yet I am
voting today for the eighth time on the restoration of the Mexico City
policy. A simple, straightforward pro-life policy initiated by
President Reagan, carried on by President Bush and eagerly decimated by
President Clinton in his first days in office.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that this year the Congress will finally do the
right thing and stop the international abortion.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this vote is so important, and it is about family
planning and it is against abortion. I would say to my colleagues, to
reduce abortions we must increase access to family planning. I hear
that this is an abortion vote. There is no logic to it. So let me just
try to set the Record straight by quoting some statistics.
We know from UNICEF that almost 600,000 women die annually during
pregnancy and childbirth, including 75,000 due to unsafe abortions. We
know that family planning services will improve the health and the
status of women and it will help children.
We know that population experts estimate that the 35-percent cut in
our family planning programs has led to an additional 4 million
unintended pregnancies and 2 million additional abortions, 2 million
additional abortions, as well as 134,000 more infant deaths.
The World Health Organization estimates that 40 percent of unintended
pregnancies end in abortion. The World Bank estimates that improved
access to family planning can reduce the number of maternal deaths
annually by 20 percent. What statistics, and that is only part of it.
We had a group here from Russia, and the testimony we had was that,
with United States help in Russia, contraceptive use has increased from
19 to 24 percent between 1990 and 1994, and the abortion rate has
dropped 25 percent. That means the number of abortions annually has
dropped by 800,000.
So I would submit that if you want to reduce abortions and you want
to help children and you want to help families that you vote for this
resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to say, we must keep the promise that we
made. So I hope that this body will vote for the resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues know of Oregon's
Republican Senator Mark Hatfield. He was known and is always known as a
man of integrity. He never said anything he did not believe in and he
always researched his information, and that is why it is important for
Members to hear his words, particularly those who oppose abortion.
In a letter to Representative Smith, Senator Hatfield said,

I have reviewed the materials you have sent to my office in
response to my request that you provide proof that U.S. funds
are being spent on abortion. I do not see anything in these
materials to back up your assertion.

Senator Hatfield goes on in the letter to say,

Chris, you are contributing to an increase of abortions
worldwide because of the funding restrictions you have
placed. It is a proven fact that when contraceptive services
are not available to women throughout the world, abortion
rates increase.

He says, ``This is unacceptable to me as one who strongly opposes
abortion.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for the resolution.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman
that the materials that we provided to Senator Hatfield clearly showed
that the organizations were promoting, performing abortions on demand
in these developing countries. No one is suggesting that they were
doing it with U.S. tax dollars.
The issue here is fungibility. The money that we give to an
organization frees up other money that then can be used to lobby for
abortion in the developing world. Let me remind everybody in this
Chamber that approximately 100 countries around the world protect the
lives of their unborn children.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation has made it their
mission, their goal explicitly to bring down every one of those pro-
life laws. When we give to these organizations, we then empower them to
be the super lobby to bring down the laws in Brazil, Peru. Poland
recently flip-flopped and went from a pro-life country to a pro-
abortion country.
In early February, a new law went into effect in South Africa, again
a flip-flop from pro-life to pro-abortion. It is the organizations that
are mounting this offensive against the unborn child. When we
contribute to them, we are facilitating abortion overseas.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Health, Human Services and Labor.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, let me say that there is absolutely no abortion issue or no
abortion money involved in this debate. I have always been a supporter
of the Hyde amendment. I have never supported public funding of
abortion in any way. Abortion is not a legitimate family planning
method. We outlawed that in 1973. In audit after audit, it has been
certified that not one U.S. dollar has gone to fund abortions. Some
people believe that there is fungibility, of these funds. The same
argument could be used for any health services funded by U.S. money,
such as child immunization or family check-up programs. Do we want to
end those? Of course not. Continuing a delay in funding will
effectively cut U.S. support for voluntary family planning and
contraception.
Now, the Smith bill, if it is passed here, in the House is going
nowhere in the Senate. Some may feel that by supporting this bill, they
are simply saying that they are against abortion for organizations who
use their own money for that purpose in countries where it is legal.
But, in actual fact, are these people saying no to voluntary family
planning, no to maternal and child health in countries that are the
poorest on Earth, no to contraceptives and preventing unwanted
pregnancies. The truth, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, is that they will
be saying yes, to more abortions, because the voluntary family planning
services will not be there that these countries so desperately need.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen], a Member of the freshman class.

[[Page H536]]

(Mr. ALLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Resolution
36 in the hope that this House will recognize that international family
planning funds are a good investment for America. These funds reduce
unintended pregnancies, they reduce the number of maternal and infant
deaths, they reduce the number of abortions.
All we are asking is that much-needed funds be released on March 1
instead of July 1. Three months. It seems like a small matter, but it
is not. It is not to the women and children around the globe whose
lives will be changed by our vote today.
Opponents say this is a vote to fund abortions. That is not true.
This resolution preserves the existing ban on the use of Federal funds
for abortions overseas. These funds have already been appropriated by
this Congress. We seek no additional funds. We ask only that the gap in
services not be extended.
As David Broder wrote recently, ``The women and children around the
world who have the most at stake will not have a vote.'' We do. We
should use it wisely.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], a member of the Committee on
Agriculture.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in
opposition to President Clinton's request for the early release of
family planning funds, and I urge my colleagues to instead support H.R.
581.
Let me begin by noting that H.R. 581, the proposal by the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Oberstar], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], would still
allow early release of these funds, but in a much better way. For more
than a decade, we had a system regarding family planning funds that
worked. H.R. 581 would restore that system.
Under H.R. 581, the organizations receiving these grants must again
agree to not perform abortions or undermine the laws of their host
countries. I will remind my colleagues that these grants are tax
dollars taken from the pockets of hard-working American families. Known
as the Mexico City policy, these short set of conditions worked for a
decade and was agreed to by all but 2 of the more than 300 agencies
which received family planning grants. There were two exceptions:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the International Planned
Parenthood Federation.
Mr. Chairman, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation's
official policy statement includes these goals: Advocate for changes in
restrictive national laws, policies, practices and traditions, and
campaign for policy and legislative changes to remove restrictions
against safe abortions. The IPPF even advises its affiliates to operate
right up to the edge of what is legal and sometimes even beyond.
So today's vote is also a test of whether we respect the sovereignty
and customs of these nations. Using American tax dollars to fund
organizations overseas that in some manner promote abortions not only
horrifies those of us who are pro-life, it should also concern every
American taxpayer and those of us in this body who believe we should
respect our friends in other nations.
Sending tax dollars taken from our hard-working citizens to groups
that promote abortions in foreign nations is wrong in all of these
ways. President Clinton dropped the Mexico City policy 4 years ago. I
believe it was a mistake, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to oppose the President's resolution and support H.R. 581.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
(Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint
Resolution 36.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 36 to
approve the Presidential finding regarding international population
planning programs. At issue is whether the money will be released on
March 1, or whether it will be further delayed by 4 months, until July.
It is my determination that a delay will cause serious irreversible
and unavoidable harm. In balance are the lives and the well-being of
many thousands of women and children, and American credibility as the
leader in family planning programs around the world.
The logic behind delaying the release of the funds as agreed to last
year is convoluted to me and many of my colleagues. Wouldn't the delay
in support for family planning, even by 4 months, deny safe and
effective contraception to couples who depend on these programs? Has it
not been documented that we will surely see a rise in unintended
pregnancies and maternal deaths, and could we see a return to unsafe
and unsanitary methods to terminate those pregnancies?
It seems illogical that those groups and members who oppose the
proper release of these funds would indeed believe that we are actually
promoting or funding abortion. We are not, and have been prohibited by
law since 1973 from doing so. The fact is that a delay in funding will
have the exact opposite effect of what those who would restrict these
funds would have you believe. The delay in releasing these funds will
result in increased abortions, increased overpopulation, and an adverse
impact on the environment and our resources.
I urge this body to go about our business of releasing these
important family planning funds now, as agreed to in last year's
legislation.

{time} 1115

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly].
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution
36.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the privileged resolution,
House Joint Resolution 36 and I ask that all Members do the same. Why?
Because the health of women and children worldwide depends on this
vote.
At issue here is maternal and infant mortality. International family
planning promotes preventive health care, such as prenatal care. It is
easy for us to take the availability of health care in the United
States for granted, but for sake of this argument we must remember that
women and children in developing countries are not so fortunate.
Furthermore, international family planning educates women and their
families about sexually transmitted diseases, as well as about the
dangers of HIV/AIDS. It is our obligation to humanity to use our
financial support and medical knowledge to prevent the spread of these
deadly diseases--diseases that often are brought into our own country
and threaten our own children.
Some members of Congress will have you believe that international
family planning results in abortions, but the truth is that only a lack
of family planning can result in such an unfortunate conclusion.
Without family planning, we abandon the world's poorest women and force
them to rely on abortion as their primary method of birth control.
Let's be clear--current law prohibits the use of any U.S. foreign aid
funds for abortion services, including lobbying efforts for abortion,
abortion counseling, and the purchase or distribution of commodities
for the purpose of inducing abortions as a method of family planning.
Obviously, this vote is not about abortion. It is about health, plain
and simple--not misguided and erroneous political statements. Please
support this resolution and release the already appropriated
international family planning funds on March 1.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support for the
international family planning resolution, House Joint Resolution 36.
Mr. Chairman, at the current rate, the world's population will double
from 5.8 to 11 billion people during our lifetime. Excluding China, 21
million of childbearing age in the developing world are added each
year, equal to the total number of women of childbearing age in
California, Texas, New York, and Florida combined.
President Nixon launched our international family planning program in
1969. That program improves the health of mothers and their children by
increasing the time between births while reducing unintended
pregnancies and abortion. After 30 years, this program

[[Page H537]]

helped reduce the average number of children in families in the
developing world from 6 to 4.
Contraceptive use has climbed from 10 percent to 35 percent, and
family planning helps reduce abortion. As contraceptive use in
countries such as Russia rose from 19 to 24 percent, abortion rates
fell from 109 per thousand women to 76. The population council
estimates that without family planning programs, there would have been
500 million more people in the world today, almost twice the population
of our own Nation.
If the resolution required by the law is not passed, the Agency for
International Development will have to cut vital programs in Mexico, in
Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Russia,
the Ukraine, Jordan, the Philippines, Turkey, Mozambique, Uganda, and
Zimbabwe. AID would also have to cut jobs with its contractors in
Alabama, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
While another bill, H.R. 581, will be offered, House Joint Resolution
36 is the only measure that will be given expedited consideration in
the Senate, requiring and ensuring that this vital program can continue
to operate.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Sam Farr], a great environmentalist.
(Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in these hallowed Halls
to remind us that the debate about this money really does not affect
us, but it does affect the developing countries of this world.
I have lived in one of those countries. I lived in one of the poorest
barrios on earth, without any running water, without any electricity,
where the birth rate was an average of 15 children per household. I was
a Peace Corps volunteer in Latin America, in one of the most Catholic
countries on the earth.
The women in that barrio, I was working with CARE as a Peace Corps
volunteer, were requesting every day for information about family
planning. They wanted to know about how to raise children and how to
have a proper number of children.
I also rise today as a father. I think the learned gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman] just pointed out that we are as parents whose
children will be growing up in a population that will double in our
lifetime, reaching the world's maximum carrying capacity, maximum
carrying capacity of this globe.
If we do not provide information, just information to people about
how they can properly have children, not too many, we are putting our
children into a situation in a globe that is unbearable. We will not be
here arguing about family planning money, we will be here arguing about
Fortress America, how we will wall ourselves off from the rest of the
world as supplies diminish.
Please support this resolution.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the very distinguished ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Proponents of this resolution have framed the issue as simply a vote
on family planning, or a vote about closing family planning clinics
overseas. That is not the case. It is a vote on using one-half billion
dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize and to promote abortions,
and to promote efforts to overturn legal and cultural barriers in
countries overseas and to promote abortion in foreign countries.
The position of this House historically has been a position out of
respect to the millions of women and men who in conscience are opposed
to abortion, to ensure that our tax dollars do not subsidize or promote
abortion.
We have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to approve funds for
family planning, but we have also ensured safeguards against the use of
those family planning dollars to promote or encourage in any way or
advocate abortion.
In international affairs from 1984 to 1993, 350 foreign organizations
signed contracts for U.S. family planning funds, which included
restrictions on the use of those funds, against using them for
abortion. Only two turned down the funds, because they would not accept
the House restrictions on abortion subsidy and abortion promotion.
We should not approve this resolution which will open the door once
again for use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote abortions overseas.
I have heard the arguments. I have lived in Haiti. I have seen the
face of poverty. I have seen the pain in those poor households, if you
can call them households; little huts.
I think family planning advice is fair. We should support such
activities. But we should not allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to be used to
promote abortion, to change the laws of countries that are against
abortion. We should be neutral on that issue. That is what the
resolution of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I will
offer subsequent to this action does, is to provide $713 million, $170
million more than the bill before us, for international family
planning, with the historic House pro-life language.
If all these groups are so committed to instructing women on
reproductive freedom, control of futures, control of their family life,
then they should be willing to agree that they will not promote
abortion.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. [Price]), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this vote presents us with
three choices: We can choose between improving and worsening women's
health; we can choose between increasing and decreasing child
mortality; and we can choose between preventing and causing more
abortions.
International family planning programs provide the only medical care
many women around the world ever receive. This year those services will
help prevent the deaths of as many as 8,000 mothers who die because of
the complications in their pregnancies or in childbirth. Family
planning services provide health care for children which dramatically
increases the chances children will grow up healthy. Having children
about 2 years apart in birth date can increase the survival rate by
nearly 30 percent.
Finally, preventing abortions. With U.S. funding, family planning
programs could prevent as many as 4 million unplanned pregnancies this
year, which could prevent up to 1.6 million abortions resulting from
those pregnancies. Recent studies clearly link providing family
planning services and declining abortion rates in Mexico, Colombia,
Hungary, Russia, the Central Asian republics.
Our job today is to sort through the information and the
misinformation and all the ideological pressures surrounding this
issue, and to do what we were elected to do, to do the right thing.
With this vote we can improve women's health, we can improve children's
lives, and we can reduce the number of abortions.
Mr. Chairman, there are not too many votes of which we can say that.
This is clearly a vote of principle. We must do the right thing. Vote
to release the family planning funds.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), a member of the
Committee on National Security.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution. The Supreme Court has opined in Roe versus Wade, and its
erroneous prodigy, that we have to allow the killing of preborn
children. Clearly, this was a misread of the Constitution by the Court.
I think this is a good example of a Court more bent on legislating than
on adjudicating; that is, the Court, in Roe, was more concerned with
setting public policy than in construing the Constitution.
In any event, even the Supreme Court has not opined that our
Government has an obligation to provide for or encourage abortion here
in America or in any other land. We should not take to this course by
our own will. Mr. Chairman, can we really call abortion family
planning? Can we really say

[[Page H538]]

that terminating life creates strong families? Can we say that by using
taxpayer dollars to finance abortion we are contributing to American
interests abroad?
This is not a vote about family planning. This resolution would
obligate the U.S. taxpayer to promote abortion services and facilities
in foreign lands. It is this obligation that I believe the House should
soundly reject. If this resolution passes, there is no question about
the President's actions. He will sign it into law.
Before we release any more funds to him for so-called family
planning, we must see to it that we do not do so without restrictions
at least as solidly respectful of human life as those enjoyed between
1984 and 1993. The sanctity of life transcends international
boundaries. It is time to say no to a careless export; that is, the
notion that abortion is acceptable as a means of family planning. I
urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, we have to pass this resolution. I do not
care how many times it is repeated, the assertion that this is about
making the U.S. taxpayer money available for abortion, to promote
abortion, or anything close to it, is simply not true. That is against
the law, a law that is strenuously enforced.
Does anyone really believe that the way to have fewer abortions is to
have more unwanted pregnancies? All evidence, all logic, is to the
contrary. Let us just look at what we have been able to get done in
Russia over the last several years, in which there has been roughly a
one-quarter decrease in the incidence of abortion, as there has been a
one-quarter increase in the availability of funds for contraception and
family planning. Does anybody think there is not a connection between
the two? The connection between the two has come because of our
American family planning assistance program.
Mr. Chairman, fewer pregnancies come from considered family planning
decisions made available with these funds and with contraception, fewer
pregnancies and fewer abortions. Let us get the logic straight.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson], a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)

{time} 1130

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the
President's resolution to make millions of taxpayer dollars available
for international organizations to promote abortion, in spite of what
they are saying.
Frankly, I am disappointed that we are taking the vote on the
resolution because of a last-minute compromise in the omnibus
appropriations bill. Do you know what, it was a last minute sellout at
the expense of the values of the American people. But I am further
outraged that the Clinton administration has been doing everything in
its power to make sure that the American taxpayer dollars are made
available on the international arena for abortions.
There are no monetary differences in these two measures. Both bills
release funds earlier than previous. The difference is that one
prohibits funding to organizations that perform or promote abortions.
The other does not.
The funds are supposed to be spent on international family planning.
I cannot believe that anyone in the administration or any Member of
this House, for that matter, would list abortion as a method of family
planning. We should know that in 1996 the White House administration
rejected a compromise which would have provided even more money for
international family planning. Why did they reject it? Because it
included pro-life language.
I urge this body to stand firm against the funding of abortions
overseas and to vote no on this resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney], who has worked very hard on this issue.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that family
planning is about saving lives, not ending them. Almost 600,000 women
die every year because they are having too many children too close
together. Not only are women dying, the world population is exploding.
By the year 2000, there will be 800 million teenagers on this planet,
one-seventh of the entire current world population. That is 800 million
people who need family planning information, or the world's population
growth will literally affect the survival of the planet.
Again, let me be clear, any family planning is about saving lives.
This is not a vote for abortion. It is a means of preventing abortion.
While family planning sounds like a domestic issue, its impact is as
far-reaching as world peace. Overpopulation leads to unrest.
Recently I met with Ambassador Wisner to India, and I asked him what
is the single most important thing we could do to improve relations
between our two countries. He said release this family planning money.
Women are lined up for days just to receive information. It is an
important vote. Vote for family planning.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], a great member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation,
House Joint Resolution 36. I rise for a couple of reasons. First, I
think it is morally wrong for us to export abortion under the guise of
family planning. We have an option that will come up later, the Smith-
Oberstar-Hyde amendment, that will allow us to have actual family
planning without exporting abortions. Occasionally the Federal
Government is wrong. I think it is wrong to do that.
Second, I think it is improper for us to take tax dollars from
Americans, borrowed money. We are still running a deficit, so it is
borrowing money from future taxpayers to send overseas to fund
abortions. Again, I think the Federal Government is wrong.
If we go back in history and look at the past when we have had
incorrect decisions, such as the Dred Scott decision, who of my
colleagues in this Chamber would say that that was a correct decision,
that African-Americans are not created equal by our Creator. No one.
That was an incorrect decision by those representing our Federal
Government.
In reading the history of the English-speaking peoples by Winston
Churchill, I came across an incident that occurred in Boston about the
same time, not long after the Dred Scott decision, where it said a
Boston mob attempted to rescue a fugitive slave whose name was Anthony
Burns. It took the Federal Government and a battalion of artillery,
four platoons of marines, a sheriff's posse and 22 companies of the
militia to line the streets so that our Government could return Anthony
Burns, a slave, to the South. Who of you here agrees with that Federal
decision that we made at that time? It was morally wrong. It was
incorrect to take American tax dollars to support the institution of
slavery.
Once again, we have a situation where the Federal Government is
morally wrong, exporting abortion under the guise of family planning. I
think it is very important that we vote against House Joint Resolution
36 because of the morality, because of misusing taxpayer dollars,
borrowed dollars that our children will have to pay back. When you
borrow a dollar today to export abortion, it takes at least $3 to pay
that dollar back, 3 future dollars that our children have to use to pay
back just the interest, let alone the usage and the loss because of
inflation. Every dollar. That is also wrong.
So I want to encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution
and to support Smith-Oberstar-Hyde.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand how we as
the leaders of the most powerful, prosperous Nation on Earth can vote
to deny the poorest people on Earth their ability to control their own
lives, to have some hope of one day rising out of the poverty that
destroys their dreams and severely limits the lives of their children.
We will leave today for home or for travel, comfortable in the fact
that we

[[Page H539]]

have control over our lives. We can express our love for our spouses
without the fear that it might cause even more suffering and
deprivation of our families and their future. Surely we all understand
that overpopulation is the most serious crisis facing the 21st century,
that it is the principal cause of child labor, of the sexual
exploitation of young girls in Third World countries around the world,
of the cheapening of human lives. We can empower these lives, give
those destitute mothers reason to dream that there may one day be hope
for their children, especially for their daughters.
Not to release these funds is unconscionable when we have the ability
to relieve suffering by providing voluntary information, information
that will substantially reduce the number of abortions performed and
will reduce the exploitation of powerless people. It is our
responsibility to know the cause of poverty, to care, and, when we have
the ability, to do something responsible about it. This is the right
thing to do. Vote to release these funds today.
Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not whether we should
act today to release family planning funds, but whether or not we can
conscientiously fail to do so.
I rise today in strong support of the President's resolution to
release funds to USAID for international family planning programs. Time
and time again, research shows that family planning programs work. The
bottom line is that they decrease poverty and improve quality of life
for families in developing countries.
We all agree that there should be fewer abortions. This is exactly
what the President's proposal accomplishes. Not surprisingly, delaying
the release of this money has resulted in an increase in the number of
unplanned pregnancies. This will lead to an increase in the number of
abortions.
Of the 585,000 maternal deaths which occur each year, 13 percent are
attributed to unwanted pregnancy and illegal and unsafe abortions.
According to the Population Institution, of the 22,000 children who die
every day, many are the result of inadequate family planning, and
insufficient time between pregnancies. The tragedy in these deaths is
that they can so easily be prevented with the adequate resources to
teach men and women how to prevent unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies.
A poignant example of the impacts this delay in funds has had, is
seen in Haiti. Haiti is currently in the process of integrating its
family planning programs into the CARE, the child health and maternal
care program. If we continue to deny release of these funds this
program integration will cease. By May of this year, just 3 months
away, the nongovernment organizations funded by USAID will be forced to
begin laying off workers leaving thousands of Haitian men and women
without access to family planning, threatening their health and the
health of their children.
Mr. Chairman, let's vote in the only responsible manner we can to
release funds for international family planning funds, and against any
attempts to apply unnecessary restrictions on their use.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon], a very distinguished doctor and a member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me, and I rise in opposition to House Resolution 36,
which is the resolution supported by the President, and urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on that and to vote ``yes'' on House
Resolution 581, the resolution introduced by the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Both of these bills, the bill supported by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the one supported by the President, will release
funds for family planning. So what is the debate about? It is about one
simple issue. Will U.S. tax dollars go to organizations that encourage
or provide abortions as a means of birth control? In spite of the
rhetoric, this is the issue before us.
To those who support the President's plan, I would ask, why are you
against language that says that none of these funds can be used to
perform abortions as a means of birth control; do you find abortion an
acceptable means of birth control? Why do you oppose language that
would stipulate that these funds cannot be used to violate the laws of
any foreign country with respect to abortion? Do you support using tax
dollars, U.S. tax dollars to subvert the abortion laws of foreign
countries?
Those who vote ``yes'' on President Clinton's bill are voting to give
tax dollars to organizations that promote or provide abortion as a
means of birth control. Those who vote ``no'' on President Clinton's
bill and ``yes'' on Mr. Smith's bill are saying, U.S. tax dollars can
go for family planning but they cannot go to organizations that promote
abortion as an acceptable means of birth control.
To spend tax dollars on international family planning is an issue for
debate. However, taking money out of the pockets of hard-working
Americans to pay for abortions overseas is totally unacceptable. Again,
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the President's plan and vote
``yes'' on the plan of [Mr. Smith].
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget,
I know we are trying to get our country's financial house in order and
balance the country's budget. We are also trying to save our trust
funds for future and present generations and we are looking to
transform the social and corporate and agricultural welfare state into
a truly caring opportunity society. I can get really immersed in those
issues, but as big as those issues are, they pale in comparison to the
fact that one mouth can eat, two mouths can share, four mouths will
sometimes go hungry, and eight mouths starve.
In the Book of Psalms, it said I had fainted unless I believed to see
the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. What kind of world
are we seeing; what kind of world is truly living? We have too many
people, too many children born into abject poverty, young children
living on the streets begging, robbing, stealing, killing, being
killed. Young girls and boys sold into sex slavery rings because their
parents cannot keep them, they cannot care for them. The rich are
getting richer and richer, and the poor are getting poorer and poorer
and poorer and poorer and sicker and sicker.
As a Peace Corps volunteer, I know that some countries have grown.
Their economies grow but their population outstrips their economies and
they are truly becoming poorer. Indigenous Indians in this country said
when they looked at the beautiful lake, it was a smile of the Great
Spirit. We are losing that smile. I hope and pray we wake up. Release
family planning funds now. Allow kids to have a future.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose public funding of abortion, but I
strongly support House Joint Resolution 36 because this is not about
funding abortions. That is prohibited, clearly, in the law. This issue
is about saving children. Sadly, there are millions of children across
the world that wake up hungry every morning. There are millions more
that live at the very edge of survival.
For one moment, just one moment, I wish every parent in this House
would imagine how you would feel if you awoke this morning not knowing
whether you could feed your child or children. Imagine you lived in a
country that had no welfare and there were more people than jobs. For
one moment imagine the emotional agony of watching your children crying
from hunger or malnutrition. Imagine yourself with just enough money or
resources to barely feed the children you love and that you have
already brought into this world.
For millions of parents around the world, Mr. Chairman, they do not
have to imagine this scenario. It is an everyday reality.

{time} 1145

Regardless of the intentions, I think it would be unfair and inhumane
to deny family planning services now to those parents who desperately
want to feed and nurture the children that they love, just as you and I
love our children.
For millions of parents, family planning is the difference between
providing adequate care and food for the children they have and facing
the desperation of watching all their children go hungry. Today we can
make a difference for millions of children.
This issue is about protecting children, children that are struggling
to survive and parents that are struggling

[[Page H540]]

to support and nurture those special children. I urge support of the
President's resolution.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, [Mr. Paul], a distinguished physician and a member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 36. It is
very clear to me that we should be doing nothing in the way of funding
international birth control and family planning. If one were to look
for the authority for this, it would be very difficult to find it
written in the Constitution that that would be a proper function for
U.S. taxpayers to be obligated to participate in such a program. So,
very clearly, a ``no'' vote on H.R. 36 would be a correct and proper
vote.
I have more problems with the second vote on H.R. 581 because if one
is concerned about being a fiscal conservative and following the rules
of the Constitution, one might ask how many more dollars of taxpayers'
money will be used if H.R. 581 passes? The best answer I can come up
with is that instead of the $215 million that the President would get
if he has his way, we would add that and have $385 million. In
contrast, if we did nothing, if we voted down both of these proposals,
it is my opinion that then the spending would be limited to $92
million.
The question arises here, well, what is a couple of dollars doing in
some program that is unconstitutional if we can get some language in
there that might do some good? Being a strong right-to-life Member,
member of the right-to-life caucus, I am very much aware of that and
very concerned about it.
Quite frankly, if we did not spend the money we would not be arguing
over whether or not the prohibition will do any good. Quite frankly, I
do not believe the prohibition language accomplishes what it really
intends to accomplish.
For instance, in the wording of this message it is in there that if
those who receive the funds do not spend it until the next fiscal year,
they would not have the restraints on it. Besides, these organizations
so often are international, they are huge in scope, and if they do not
use the funds for abortion these funds get shifted around.
Basically, it is very clear to me that the program should not exist.
We should vote down the appropriation or keep the appropriation as low
as possible. And quadrupling it, from where we are today, if we do
nothing, we spend $92 million; if we pass H.R. 581, with the attempt to
try to curtail the abortions, we actually quadruple it.
Quite frankly, I do not believe the language is strong enough to
really prevent any of this money getting into the hands of the
abortionists.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey, [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
I rise in strong support of the release of international family
planning funds on March 1 of this year. We need to clear up the
confusion on this issue and focus on the importance of family planning
programs.
International family planning programs save the lives of thousands of
women and children across the world, prevent unwanted and dangerous
pregnancies, and reduce the number of abortions worldwide.
Representatives from the Russian family planning association recently
shared information on the successes of their program. In Russia they
are using these valuable dollars to increase access to quality family
planning information and services. As a result of this program,
contraceptive use has risen from 19 to 24 percent among women in just 4
years. And between 1990 and 1994, total abortions fell from 3.6 to 2.8
million.
Yesterday Secretary of State Madeleine Albright testified before our
appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and
Related Programs. She stated:

Let us be clear: Support for family planning programs has, to this
day, been bipartisan. This program was created in 1969 by President
Richard Nixon.
Let me also address some concerns that have been raised by
individuals who do not want their tax dollars being used for family
planning services overseas. Of the two resolutions that we will vote on
today, this resolution actually provides less money than does the
alternative proposal that will be offered later.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming, Mrs. CUBIN, a member of the
Committee on Commerce.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the resolution on
the President's findings on family planning and I ask that my
colleagues support the Smith-Hyde bill.
It was stated earlier, and I completely agree, that in the past
international family planning has been a bipartisan issue. I suggest to
my colleagues that it absolutely remains that way today.
I am pro-life but I am also very much in favor of sex education and
birth control and family planning. In my opinion, it is a contradiction
to be opposed to abortions and yet be opposed to birth control and
family planning, and that is why I support the Smith-Hyde bill. The
Smith-Hyde bill supports international family planning programs in
foreign countries, but not like the President's proposal to promote
abortions.
I do not believe abortion is nor should it ever be promoted as a
method of family planning or for birth control. The Smith-Hyde bill is
a bipartisan bill, an alternative approach to the President's
shortsighted and irresponsible plan, and it actually increases funding
for international family planning even beyond the President's
resolution.
Now, let me repeat that. The Smith-Hyde bill will spend more money
for international family planning than the President's proposal, and
the Smith-Hyde bill will not allow any public money to be spent for
abortions.
There are many in this Chamber like me who support family planning
programs. This debate is simply not about family planning, but it is a
debate about abortion being used as a method of family planning or
birth control.
As I said, I am strongly pro-life and I believe that abortion is not
acceptable for purposes of sex selection, birth control, or
convenience. Frankly, people must begin accepting responsibility for
their actions, both domestically and overseas. That is why we must have
an honest debate about the use of contraceptives and sex education as
responsible methods of family planning. It is time to take the issue of
abortion out of the family planning debate.
The resolution on the President's finding ignores this Congress'
desire to keep pro-life safeguards in place when providing
international family planning funds. Let us send a clear message to the
President that we do not want to send taxpayers' money to foreign
countries to fund abortions.
I urge my colleagues to vote to permit a rule on a Smith-Oberstar
vote and against the resolution supporting the President's finding.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this
moment to thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], for her
leadership on this issue, and note that she had to forego going to her
dear friend Ambassador Pamela Harriman's funeral, so she could carry
out her duties in relation to this program this morning, and I thank
the gentlewoman.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support for this resolution for
release of funds for the Nation's international family planning
programs.
Make no mistake about it, no matter what we hear on this floor,
despite attempts by opponents to say differently, today's vote is about
international family planning. More than that, it is a vote to release
funds that have already been appropriated to a program that has already
been authorized. It is also an agreement we are talking about today
that has already been approved by the majority and the minority.

[[Page H541]]

International family planning programs work. They work to promote
sustainable development. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said
just this week, and as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Frelinghuysen] just mentioned, I too was struck by Secretary Albright's
words when she noted that these efforts concerning family planning
further promote U.S. foreign policy objectives by improving the status
of women, reducing the flow of immigration, protecting our environment
and, finally, promoting economic growth, which this is very much about.
I would add, too, that these family planning efforts truly do save
lives, lives that otherwise might be lost to infection and to
starvation, and we have to say it, yes, to abortion. To pretend
otherwise is to ignore reality.
I urge my colleagues today, whatever thoughts on other debates where
we do disagree, to vote today for the President's resolution.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the very distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the first
resolution and in strong support of the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde resolution.
Second, I want to make clear to people who are listening, I strongly
support family planning. I am not one, there may be some who are
opposed to family planning, I strongly support family planning and
think it is very important.
Third, the Smith-Hyde resolution moves the money out faster and, in
some respects, actually more, because by moving it out faster the level
is actually higher.
Fourth, I will tell the people that are undecided on this issue there
are more than enough groups in this country and in this world who are
strong proponents and supporters of family planning who can use not
only the money in this bill but double or triple the amount. So there
are enough family planning groups that can take the money that are not
connected with abortion and are not involved in controversial
activities.
We went through the same thing in Romania several years ago when this
battle came and the House then sided for family planning but not for
family planning groups that are involved in abortion. So I will say
that the Smith resolution puts more money out faster, and there are
more than enough family planning groups that are strong proponents of
family planning who are not involved in abortion, to use the money
under Smith-Hyde but to use double that money.
Had my will been done, I would have increased the amount of money for
family planning in the Smith-Hyde thing, although we were prohibited
from doing that because family planning is important but not family
planning to groups who are connected with abortion, which in many
respects in China is one of the most criminal violations of human
rights.

{time} 1200

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of releasing the
already appropriated funds for family planning on March 1.
With the growing program of overpopulation around the world, access
to international family planning is crucial. About 1.3 billion people
subsist on $1 a day, 1.5 billion people lack access to clean drinking
water, 120 million people are actively looking for work, and 700
million people are classified as underemployed, working long hours in
jobs that often fail to come close to supporting their basic needs. For
many of these people, health care is neither affordable nor even
available.
It is clearly in our national interest to address these changes and
to contribute to international stability and economic growth. It is a
more cost effective investment to address these problems proactively
rather than later when they erupt into an international crisis.
For health reasons alone, quality family planning deserves our full
support. Only through the use of family planning funds have women and
couples in poor countries had access to contraceptives, prenatal care,
and a link to modern health care services. International family
planning has improved women's health and allowed generations of
children to grow in safer, more suitable environments.
Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record two articles which appeared in
the Houston Chronicle in support of this motion.

[From the Houston (TX) Chronicle, Feb. 7, 1997]

Congress Should Release World Family Planning Funds

Most American couples take for granted their ability to
delay starting their families after marriage. They decide
when or whether to have more children after a baby's arrival.
Or a couple may choose to have no children at all. These are
choices that many parents in the developing world do not
have.
The link between access to contraception and healthier
babies, better educated children wealthier families and
population control is a solid one. Recognizing this
connection, the United States has a long tradition of
providing poor people the world over with the means of
controlling the size of their families and appropriately
spacing their children. American family planning aid is
credited with reducing birth rates in 60 countries and
lowering the average number of children per family from six
to three.
Now, conservative legislators, persuaded by anti-abortion
lobbyists, have tied these highly successful programs to the
abortion debate. Charging--mistakenly--during last year's
budget debate that U.S. family planning aid helps support
abortion services abroad, abortion opponents cut the
programs' funding by 35 percent and mandated that 1997 funds
could not be spent until July, nine months into the fiscal
year. After that, spending is restricted to only 8 percent
per month of the remaining $385 million allocation.
These funds, by law, cannot be used to provide or promote
abortions, and they should be released immediately. Abortion
opponents are working at cross purposes here since a lack of
contraception undoubtedly will increase unintended
pregnancies, which logically could result in an increase in
abortions.
Furthermore, the action has hurt family planning programs
without regard to a country's position on abortion.
For example, in Trinidad and Tobago, where abortion is
illegal, U.S. planning funding has dried up.
Access to reliable contraception and family counseling
services act as deterrents to abortion. Meanwhile, poor
parents who can direct the destinies of their families have
the ability to improve the quality of life for the children
they do have. Congress should act now to mitigate the damage
that this funding disruption has already caused.
____

[From the Houston (TX) Chronicle, Jan. 31, 1997]

Congress Ignoring Serious Population Problem

(By Werner Fornos)

For those who question that the world has an overpopulation
problem--and yes, there are a few--here are a few facts to
keep in mind.
1.3 billion people subsist on about one dollar a day. 1.5
billion people lack access to clean drinking water. 120
million people are actively looking for work. 700 million
people are classified as underemployed, working long hours,
often at back breaking jobs that fail to even come close to
meeting their most basic needs.
These facts are just the beginning.
In 1993, some 16.5 million people died from infectious
diseases. That was one-third of all deaths worldwide that
year, or slightly more than all deaths from cancer and heart
disease combined.
A recent report concluded that a resurgence of diseases
once thought to have been eradicated stems from a deadly mix
of exploding populations, rampant poverty, severe
environmental degradation, inadequate health care and misuse
of antibiotics.
And still there are skeptics, people who insist that
there's no world population problem. Unfortunately, some of
those skeptics are in the U.S. Congress, and they have more
than little influence. Not enough influence to terminate the
U.S. international family planning program, or at least not
yet. But, enough to place that program in serious jeopardy.
The 104th Congress last year appropriated $385 million for
population assistance, but the skeptics added a few bizarre
twists: None of it can be spent until July 1--nine months
into the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1--and then at a
rate of 8 percent of the total per month. For the 1997 fiscal
year, which ends Sept. 30, this would result in a 76 percent
reduction.
That's not exactly the way appropriations are made in
Washington. But it clearly indicates that some of our
lawmakers with sufficient clout have made up their minds to
do away with U.S. population spending overseas.
And that is just about the most untimely notion the
national legislature of the last remaining superpower could
possibly have. World population is closing in on 5.9 billion

[[Page H542]]

and it is growing at nearly 90 million a year. Virtually all
of that growth is in the poorest countries of the world, and
it is seriously hampering any reasonable chance many of them
will have for emerging from a cycle of poverty, malnutrition,
unemployment and social discrimination.
An escape hatch was built into the 1997 international
population budget. The President will submit findings to
Congress to show that the nine-month moratorium will be
harmful to family planning efforts for developing countries.
If his findings are accepted by both houses of Congress, the
appropriation will be released as early as March 1, rather
than July 1.
As this century draws to a close, there is sufficient
technology to vastly reduce world population growth. It is
possible to insure that world population stabilizes at 8
billion or even less, rather than 12 billion and possibly
more.
Virtually every developing country with a problem of rapid
population growth recognizes that fact and wants to reduce
it. Virtually every industrialized country is trying to do
its part to help. But the Congress of the United States, the
last remaining superpower has enough recalcitrants to place
its present and future overseas population efforts in doubt.
It is a situation the new 105th Congress can correct by
voting in February to disperse international family planning
funds by March 1. Then the United States can take its
rightful place in the forefront of stabilizing world
population in helping to lead our global neighbors toward a
21st century of progress, peace and prosperity.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder], a member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to first say, as the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] said, that I believe there is a role for
international family planning, and as we look around the world we can
see that need.
I strongly have concerns about the fungibility and the
maneuverability of funds not only directly but indirectly from fund-
raising concerns on abortion, and I have a deep heartfelt concern that
American dollars should not be used to kill innocent little children
around the world. But also this bill is based on a false premise, and
those Members and the general public who are still trying to make up
their minds on this bill should realize that Congress has been very
generous to international population programs.
Let us get some of the facts straight. The amount the administration
already has to spend in fiscal year 1997 in international population
programs, even if this resolution does not pass, is over $400 million.
Not $1 million, not $10 million, not $100 million, not $200 million,
over $400 million.
This is about 25 percent of the entire U.S. budget for developmental
assistance to poor countries around the world. It is substantially more
than the $300 million we spend on child survival programs which pay for
vaccinations and medicines and save hundreds of thousands of children
from dying from easily treatable diseases.
The money we spend on international population control is about twice
as much as the $200 million we spend on assistance for narcotics
control. It is about 4 times the amount we spend for microcredit
programs, which empower poor people, mostly women, by allowing them to
start small businesses.
In this $400 million for population control is literally hundreds of
times more than we contribute to other urgent needs such as the U.N.
Fund for Torture Victims. Yet the administration still tries to make us
think that population programs are underfunded.
They do this by constantly pointing to the fact that under the
funding compromise adopted last year, only about $92 million of the
fiscal year 1997 population funding can be spent in this fiscal year
beginning in July. But they refuse to talk about the additional $284
million in the carryover funds from fiscal year 1996 which is still
available in fiscal year 1997, and they somehow forget to mention the
additional $43 million Congress has appropriated for contributions to
the U.N. Population Fund.
Mr. Chairman, this is a total of $420 million. If we reject this
resolution, the total stays at $420 million. Population programs will
still have one of their best years in history. Not only is a no vote on
the Clinton resolution the right vote for those who respect life, it is
also the only vote consistent with fiscal responsibility and a balance
of priorities and how we approach international funding.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern], a member of the freshman class.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, throughout my district in Massachusetts,
I have spoken out quite clearly that one of my top priorities is
protecting the health and the lives of children, mothers, and pregnant
women. But, Mr. Chairman, my concern for the health of women and
children does not stop at the borders of my district. It extends to all
women and all children around the globe.
Over the past 30 years, U.S. support for international family
planning has been one of the great success stories of our development
programs. What do U.S. international family planning programs do? They
protect the health, welfare, and survival of women and children. They
reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. They
reduce poverty. They reduce the pressure of human population on the
environment. And they dramatically reduce the rate of abortion
worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, the cuts and delays in releasing current U.S. funds
have already caused harm to many of these programs. I urge all my
colleagues to support the President's finding and to release these
desperately needed funds now.
Mr. Chairman, USAID international family planning programs have
earned the support and respect from a broad spectrum of U.S. and
international nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], along with such
international agencies as UNICEF.
The NGOs represent a diverse array of interests, such as religious
institutions, environmental groups, population and development
organizations, legal and educational associations, and women's and
children's advocates. From the National Audubon Society to the
Religious Action Center on Reformed Judaism, from CARE to the Emory
University School of Public Health, all have urged the release of these
already appropriated USAID funds for international family planning.
The issues that bring together such an annual coalition of interests
reflect how successful U.S. international family planning programs have
been over the past three decades. It also reflects how very real is the
harm to women's and children's lives that has already been caused by
recent cuts in funding levels and the current delay in releasing
appropriated moneys for these programs.
For example, in Bolivia, a CARE program designed to give rural
Bolivian women access to pap smears for the first time ever will be
terminated if funding is delayed any further. When diagnosed early,
cervical cancer can usually be treated effectively. Bolivia is plagued
with the highest maternal mortality rate of any country in Latin
America. Without the benefits of early detection through pap smears,
rates of women's deaths in Bolivia will likely remain high.
In the Philippines, the USAID program in natural family planning,
which is carried out by the Georgetown University Institute for
Reproductive Health, would come to an abrupt halt in the Philippines.
Because the contract is up for renewal in June 1997, the funding delay
would close this project down completely.
In Zambia, more than 100,000 women in Lusaka, Zambia's capital,
receive family planning support through USAID. Should funding be
delayed to this project, key reproductive health care training will be
scaled back dramatically, meaning that condom distribution in this
country will be reduced significantly. As a result, hundreds of new HIV
cases will occur in this urban capital that already suffers from a high
HIV infection rate. The cutbacks in service training will also cause
thousands of couples to lose family planning information services. This
in turn will increase the incidence of unwanted pregnancies and
ultimately abortions in Zambia. Sadly, unsafe abortion has been among
the top causes of hospital admission in Lusaka.
As these cases only begin to illustrate, family planning programs are
truly development success stories. And by making widespread the use of
contraceptives, they are also one of the most successful means of
reducing abortion rates worldwide. Indeed, making family services
available to all who want them should be the common ground on which
both sides of the abortion debate can agree.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following two attachments
from the U.S. Agency for International Development, dated January 31,
1997, which outline some of the impacts of the fiscal year 1997 funding
delay on specific country programs.

The Impact of the Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Delay on Country Programs

The following country programs are among those that would
be most severely affected by not being able to receive FY97
population funds until July 1 or later:

[[Page H543]]

Bolivia--Defer ongoing population assistance to the
National Social Security Medical System, jeopardizing
services to 20 percent of Bolivia's population. Reduce
support to local organizations providing family planning
services to 30 percent of Bolivia's rural population.
Haiti--Layoff staff of NGOs serving thousands of poor
Haitian couples. Delay and possibly cancel integration of
family planning into CARE's maternal and child health care
program.
Mexico--Curtail USAID-funded training of family planning
service providers in the public sector and potentially close
some NGO clinics, including in Chiapas, one of Mexico's
poorest states.
Guatemala--Reduce services of largest private family
planning provider and close rural health promoter program.
El Salvador--Continue cutbacks and downgrading of services
of the leading NGO family planning provider.
Dominican Republic--Reduce services of leading NGO family
planning providers and lose opportunities for initiatives to
increase male involvement in family planning.
Russia--Suspend funding for two of the largest
organizations providing assistance, jeopardizing programs to
train family planning service providers and provide 1.7
million couples with access to modern family planning
services as an alternative to abortion.
Ukraine--Suspend planned extension to major cities of
training for service providers in clinical reproductive
health, contraceptive counseling and prevention of sexually
transmitted diseases.
The Philippines--Defer a number of programs to train health
personnel in natural family planning, introduce voluntary
surgical contraception at 200 sites, and work with the
commercial sector on provision of oral contraceptives.
Egypt--Suspend USAID's principal mechanism to provide
technical and financial support for the national family
planning program, a disruption that would affect thousands of
clients now served.
Jordan--Suspend establishment of model family planning
centers and information campaigns on availability of family
planning, affecting 500,000 couples who are current and
expected users.
Turkey--Suspend training of nurses and midwives, increasing
the shortage of trained providers of family planning and
related health services.
Mozambique--Reduce training and other family planning
service delivery activities in four focus provinces with a
combined population of over 6 million.
Uganda--Suspend or curtail a number of training and family
planning service delivery programs.
Zimbabwe--Suspend deliveries of USAID-funded
contraceptives, resulting in stock-outs for clinics and
community-based distributors.
____

The Impact of the Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Delay on USAID Technical
Leadership Through Worldwide Programs

The following worldwide programs are among those that would
be most severely affected if FY97 population funding is not
available until July 1 or later:
Service delivery--Critical service delivery programs
supported through US-based private voluntary organizations
(PVOs), including CARE, Pathfinder International, and AVSC,
would have to suspend or even shut down key activities. AVSC,
for example, would shut 70 percent of the family planning
service sites it supports in Nepal
Natural family planning--USAID's planned new agreement with
Georgetown University could not begin soon enough to prevent
suspension of programs serving over 700,000 annually,
including in Bolivia, the Philippines, and Ecuador.
Contraceptive supplies--There could be serious
contraceptive shortages in a number of countries in FY98--Up
to 50 million condom, 4.8 million cycles of oral pills, and
500,000 intra-uterine devices (IUDs)--as well as loss of U.S.
jobs.
Training--Training of over 4,500 family planning service
providers in 10 or more countries would be deferred
indefinitely.
Information and communications--Information campaigns on
family planning and maternal and child health designed to
reach millions of couples in Bolivia, Ukraine, the
Philippines, Kenya, and other countries would be slowed.
Research--Initiation of a large-scale clinical trial for a
new female-controlled barrier method would be deferred, and
work on other current contraceptive leads would be slowed,
delaying introduction of new and improved methods.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Rockefeller Foundation recently published this
report. It is called High Stakes: The United States Global Population
and Our Common Future. It is important that we consider what the stakes
are in this debate because the stakes are indeed high.
Mr. Chairman, the stakes are about women dying. They are about
mothers dying. Every day 1,600 women die of pregnancy-related causes
because they do not have access to reproductive health services,
including family planning. Around the world, 250 women will die for
lack of family planning services during the course of this debate;
585,000 women die for these reasons every year around the world.
What they die of is called most frequently postpartum hemorrhage. It
happens most frequently when poor women have undergone many closely
spaced births, and when these women die, they die because when they
have their pregnancies they are too young, they are too old, their
children come too closely together or they have too many children, and
when they die they leave behind vulnerable orphans.
It is indeed a tragedy. The stakes are about children dying. Every
year 7 million infants die on this planet because their mothers were
not healthy enough for their pregnancies, or they lacked obstetric
care, when the children most likely to die are those children who are
born too closely spaced together, into families that are too poor and
to women who lack access to family planning services.
We have heard a lot of talk this morning in this debate about
abortion, and speaker after speaker on the other side of this debate
have walked to the podium and talked about this program as if it
enhances the number of abortions in the world. Nothing, nothing, could
be further from the truth. Each year in this world 50 million women
have abortions performed; 20 million of those abortions are in unsafe
conditions.
Mr. Chairman, when I decided to speak out on this issue, I felt I
needed to understand how this program works and to see it operating on
the ground. A few weeks ago I traveled to La Paz, Bolivia, a country in
which abortion has never been legal and a country until just recently,
because of this program, family planning services were not available at
all. I went into the Andean Mountains and I met with the Aymara Indians
and I met with them in little clinics and little hospitals around the
country, and I spoke to them about their efforts to go out and talk to
their neighbors, door to door, using these funds, meager funds, to
promote family planning services.
What I found out is that just 8 years ago, the health ministry of
Bolivia did a survey for health planning purposes. They did not have in
mind a study about abortion or family planning services. They just
wanted to know how their hospitals were being utilized. What they
discovered, to everyone's amazement, is that 50 percent, half, of the
beds in the country, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere next
to Haiti, in Bolivia, 50 percent of the beds were occupied by women who
were suffering the results of botched and illegal abortions.
Abortion is not legal there. What has changed that, what has reduced
the number of abortions in poor countries like Bolivia and in poor
countries all over the world has been this program. This family
planning program is what reduces abortions. And not one penny, let us
say this over and over again, not one penny, not one dime of these
funds are used to perform abortions, to counsel that abortion is an
option, to promote abortion, not one penny of this money is used for
that.
In those few instances where these funds are provided to an
organization, a hospital, a government organization, a nongovernment
organization that does exist and operate in a country where abortion is
legal, these funds are strictly segregated. These organizations sign
contracts that they will use none of this money for abortion-related
services, and, in fact, they do not. We are here to prevent abortions.
We can define our interest in this issue in terms of the humanitarian
issues I have just talked about, women dying and children dying and
preventing abortion, or we can think of our more narrow national
interest, the interest of the United States.
It took 10,000 generations for the world's population to reach 2
billion, and that happened just about when I was born, in 1950. Yet in
the second half of this century, the population has increased from 2
billion to 5.5 billion. Look where it is headed. It is headed above 10
billion world population by midway through the next century.
The population in the industrialized countries has stabilized. But in
countries that are underdeveloped, and the

[[Page H544]]

poorest nations, India, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle
East, Mexico, the population is exploding and it is exploding out of
control.
Unsustainable population growth leads to increased demands for
energy, and in the Third World that energy is produced by burning coal,
dirty coal. Our scientists are clear about the fact that world
population explosion means much more greenhouse gases being distributed
to the atmosphere, it means global warming. Unchecked population growth
in the Third World means depletion of water resources. It means famine,
it means suffering. It pushes populations to clear rain forests. It
pushes populations to go out and graze on land that cannot sustain
cattle, and that leads to expansion of the deserts worldwide.
We all have a stake in the global environment.
When population explosion results in crushing poverty, people will
work for next to nothing. What this chart illustrates is the growth in
job seekers, the labor force in the industrialized countries, which is
relatively stable, versus developing countries. What you see is an
exponential growth rate in countries that are undeveloped and
nonindustrialized. And so what happens?
What happens is what we have seen happen in the last decade or two.
American workers are competing to produce products that are made
overseas by people who will work for 25 cents a day or a dollar a day,
and we cannot compete for those jobs. So in our very, very self-
interest, for the workers of this country, for the future workers of
this country, it is our job to prevent this great economic leveler,
population explosion, from making us economically uncompetitive.
When the local economies cannot provide jobs, poor people migrate.
They migrate to the industrial nations. Legal and illegal migration to
this country is coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Whether we
define our interests as humanitarians committed to saving women and
children from dying, or whether we define them more narrowly as
protecting our Nation from global environmental degradation and job
loss from a wave of migration, legal and illegal, this resolution is
the right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support it.

{time} 1215

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds in order to
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] for his very
comprehensive statement, indeed a definitive statement, on what is at
stake here on the floor today. It is about family planning, it is about
the individual lives of poor women and children and families throughout
the world, it is about population and our environment, it is about the
economies of the world, and I commend the gentleman for his courageous
leadership and on his clear presentation for us.
I wanted to make a couple comments about what I have heard--is my
time up?
Mr. Chairman, I will have to seek more time, but first I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the President's
recommendation to release the already appropriated international family
planning funds. Mr. Chairman, America's family planning program reduces
unintended pregnancies in developing countries; 40 percent of those
unintended pregnancies end in abortion. So, crippling our family
planning program clearly leads to more abortions.
America's family planning dollars help poor women to protect
themselves from deadly disease, to regulate childbearing when they want
to do so. So indeed the release of these funds saves the lives of women
and children. But this decision is about more, because unchecked global
population growth affects all us in many ways.
Population pressures cause irreparable environmental degradation in
fragile areas, and the growing numbers of the unemployed in developing
nations threaten the economic and political stability of the entire
globe.
So I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for the President's
resolution to release the funds on March 1.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] who is co-chair of the
Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, progress in family planning is one of the great success
stories of the world. It is where we are making progress throughout the
developing world. I am proud of the role my country has played in this
progress. This is one of the bright stars of American foreign policy.
I respect the conscientious and religious objections of those who
oppose abortion, but I cannot imagine what the world thinks of this
debate that drags abortion into a family planning matter. We must not
see abortion in issues that allow us to cut off our noses to spite our
faces. Family planning and contraception in the developing world impact
three issues of awesome importance: maternal health, children's health
and AIDS.
In the early century, graveyards showed more women dying at an
earlier age than men. We have turned that around almost exclusively
because of family planning. Let us do for the world what we have done
for our country. Let this money go.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing
and Related Programs, the very distinguished gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Callahan].
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] for yielding this time to me.
I had decided that I would not come to the microphone today to speak
on this issue. This is an issue that has been cast upon my
subcommittee, that is not an entitlement of ours. It is the
responsibility of the Committee on International Relations to handle
this issue. But in the absence of a bill being passed through the House
and through the Senate and signed by the President, it has become the
responsibility of my subcommittee to handle it.
Last year during the process, we went to great lengths to try to
compromise, which is what this body is all about, a body of compromise.
I am pro-life, and I do not apologize for that. But at the same time I
recognized what the pro-choice people were talking about.
In an attempt to make this issue go away, to make it fair, to give
both sides a half-full glass, we adopted what was perceived as the
Callahan amendment, and I spoke to many of my colleagues about this,
and I even took the liberty of calling to my office with the assistance
of a former Member of ours, Charlie Wilson, the leaders of the family
planning community.
Mr. Chairman, they could not find one thing wrong with the Callahan
amendment and they would not accept it because the right-to-life side
had accepted it. Had they accepted it, they would have more money
available, not for abortions, but for family planning. But they did not
want to accept it because of the fact that the other side did accept
it. That is the only reason they ever gave, the only logical
explanation.
So in a desperate attempt, I talked with Secretary of State
Christopher, and he agreed that it sounded fair to him. But
nevertheless, the President sent messages that he was going to veto the
entire foreign operations bill if the language we had proposed was in
there.
So I put in a call to the President of the United States to ask for
the opportunity to come to him and ask him to find one thing that was
wrong with it. And the President, whereas in the past when he needed
me, on situations like Bosnia, on situations like Haiti, when he
summoned me to the White House and begged for my support and I
ultimately gave it to him, refused to return my call.
And as a result of my inability to explain to the President to remove
his veto threat and solve this issue for a long period of time, and to
provide funding for family planning and at the same time to recognize
the rights of the unborn, we are here today.

[[Page H545]]

So we reconstructed the language at the insistence of Mr. Panetta,
even though Mr. Panetta agreed that maybe I was right. But in order to
allow the government to continue to operate in order to get the
Government running and pass the bill that we had to pass, we agreed to
this, knowing it would come back.
So as a result of that, I intend to vote ``no'' on the request of the
President, and I intend to vote ``yes'' on the Chris Smith amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Sawyer].
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the measure
before us.
Rapid population growth and movement are the primary causes of
worldwide environmental degradation, dwindling natural resources, urban
poverty, malnutrition, and social unrest that in too many cases leads
directly to conflict approaching the level of war. At the same time,
more than 90 percent of the annual population increase of 100 million
people is in the developing world.
This debate is really about giving the people of the world the
information and resources that Americans take for granted. As the
Houston Chronicle has pointed out, most Americans make responsible and
informed choices about when and whether to have children. These are
choices that many parents in the developing world do not realize they
have.
The number of people added to the world's population each year is
increasing, especially in the world's poorest countries that are least
equipped to deal with this growth. It is in our national interest and
in the global interest to support voluntary international family
planning. Efforts to slow population growth, elevate the status of
women, reduce poverty, and promote sustainable development will lead to
a more stable world.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make some points of clarification
because I think there is some confusion among Members about certain
points.
Let me make it clear the President's resolution does not subsidize,
promote, allow, perform, or in any way condone abortion.
Second of all, there is no more money in the Smith resolution. The
money is the same in the Smith resolution as it is in the President's
proposal. The money is the same.
Third of all, I once again want to call to our colleagues' attention
that all I have said first about this resolution not promoting or
having anything to do with abortion is a matter of U.S. law according
to the Helms amendment.
I have the provisions for our colleagues to see, blown up on a
bulletin board or in handouts, on the very statutes; and also I have
for them the safeguards to prove and demonstrate how this law is
implemented.
In closing I want to say one thing, and I say this with the greatest
respect for the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the chair of our
subcommittee on which I am ranking. The President has acted in good
faith on this issue. He entered into an agreement, he entered into an
agreement which called for less money, delayed the funding, in order to
be able to have this House vote at this time up or down, to accept his
certification that this delay in funding, et cetera, was a hindrance to
promoting our international family planning goals.
In further proof of the President's good faith, I call to our
attention a statement by the President in May 1996 where he accepted
the Congress' request to strike from legislation, provisions that would
have allowed the President to go forth with this spending with his own
certification and without a vote of Congress. Congress said, we put
that in by mistake; the President said, okay, I will take it out and
then we will proceed.
So I urge our colleagues to look carefully at these provisions which
safeguard any ideals that they have about abortion, but also uphold our
principle of promoting family planning internationally.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall], whose credentials are unsurpassed in the area of child
survival. He truly lives and acts by the words of the gospel of
Matthew, rendering to the least of our brethren as if he were rendering
to God.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] for yielding this time to me and for her very
kind remarks.
There is probably nobody more pro-life in the Democratic Party than I
am. If my voting record is not 100 percent, then it has got to be
pretty close. I was the author of the conscience clause on abortion
which was included in the Democratic platform, and I spoke of that
issue at the convention.
I feel myself in a position today that is unusual for me, for I find
myself opposing the views of the pro-life position. I support Mexico
City policy, but I believe that the pro-life forces have gone too far
in their effort to make the release of funds a pro-life issue, and this
vote would hurt millions of women and children. Because of massive cuts
to international family planning and very restrictive language that has
held up other funds related to it, the pro-life forces have caused
great damage, in my opinion, to poor communities all over the world.
I am for family planning, which is prenatal care and education to
women, and breast-feeding and proper nutrition, and spacing of children
and other child survival activities. I am against abortion. And there
is a difference between family planning and abortion, but sometimes
around here we do not separate the two of them from the discussion.
In quoting a letter from CARE and Save the Children, they have again
stated current law, and I quote: ``In keeping with the Helms amendment,
no U.S. funds are used to pay for abortion, nor do our organizations
use private money to pay for abortions.'' That is the law and has been
for some time.
World Vision, an organization that I have great respect for, is for
releasing these funds. World Vision is a Christian organization, and
they are pro-life.

{time} 1230

I have traveled with them in many parts of the world to visit the
poor, I have seen their work, and I have always been very inspired.
When they speak on this issue, I listen.
Along with CARE, Save the Children, World Vision, they wrote many of
us, and I am quoting from a letter that they wrote to me:

Based upon our knowledge and operational experience, we can
assure you that this is not an ideological or partisan issue,
but a serious health concern for women, children and
families. In addition to more maternal and child deaths,
reduced access to family planning services will result in
more unintended pregnancies, leading to more, rather than
fewer, abortions. By voting to release already limited family
planning funds, you will be voting to prevent more of these
tragedies from happening.

I agree with them. In our effort to legislate around here, sometimes
we become extreme and we become purists, and we hurt the people we are
trying to help. This should not be an issue between pro-choice and pro-
life forces. Rather, this is an issue of justice and fairness, in my
opinion. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire, am I correct that
there is no more time other than the time that remains to my side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana has 12 minutes remaining;
the gentlewoman from California has yielded the balance of her time to
the gentleman from Ohio, and that time has expired, so the gentleman
from Louisiana has 12 minutes remaining.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire, do we have any more time
left?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was in error. The gentlewoman from California
has 30 seconds remaining and the gentleman from Louisiana has 12
minutes remaining.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close and would
certainly ask the gentlewoman to expend her time.

[[Page H546]]

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Hall] for his leadership and for his fine statement from the heart
and from the head to our colleagues. I want to thank Members on both
sides of the aisle for what I believe is the fine tenor of the debate
today.
International family planning is an issue of grave importance, and
once again I appeal to our colleagues not to hold the poor children of
the world hostage to the politics of the House of Representatives. Let
us take a step forward and vote ``yes'' on the privileged resolution
and approve the President's findings regarding international family
planning.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. In sharing the expression by the gentlewoman from California
about the tenor of the debate, I think it has been a fine debate.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a member of the
Committee on International Relations and an outstanding expert on this
issue.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my very good friend [Mr.
Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly, nobody is holding any funds or
money hostage. This is all about fundamental human rights and
protecting the precious unborn children while simultaneously providing
family planning.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that the House will today
consider two diametrically opposed pieces of legislation on family
planning. While each is designed to release fiscal year 1997 family
planning funds by March 1, that is where the similarity ends.
The Clinton resolution, introduced by request by the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Armey]--and I would note for the Record that Mr. Armey does
not support the resolution--is strongly pro-abortion in its effect.
Make no mistake about it, the consequence of approving the Clinton
resolution is a fat payday for abortion providers. So please be fully
aware of the unavoidable fact that if you vote for House Joint
Resolution 36, you further empower, strengthen, and tangibly aid and
abet the abortion industry overseas.
Know that a ``yes'' vote on House Joint Resolution 36 pours hundreds
of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into organizations that have made
the toppling of pro-life laws and policies in the developing countries
their mission and their explicit goal. And know that once that they
have succeeded in overturning those laws that protect the unborn child,
once they have eviscerated the constitutional protections that are
currently in place, these are the same folks who jump in with both feet
to set up the abortion mills.
Who we subsidize, Mr. Chairman, not just what we subsidize, but who
we subsidize does matter. It should matter greatly to each of us not
just what an organization does with our specific donation, but the rest
of their agenda as well. It is a package deal. This is especially
important because money is fungible. What we give to a group
immediately frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be used and in this
case are used for performing and aggressively promoting abortion.
In recent months the Clinton administration has said that it does not
promote abortion overseas. Oh, if that were only true. During Mr.
Clinton's first term, my colleagues know and I know that his office
pushed hard for an international right to abortion. At the 1994 U.N.
Population Conference in Cairo, and especially at the preparatory
meetings, known as PrepComs, leading up to the conference, the
administration mounted a full court press for an international right to
abortion.
A State Department March 1994 action cable sent to every U.S.
ambassador and mission abroad prior to that meeting instructed our
envoys to lobby their host governments with these instructions:

The United States believes that access to abortion is a
fundamental right. The United States delegation will be
working for stronger language on the importance of access to
abortion services overseas.

In a speech at the second PrepCom for the Cairo Conference, Tim Wirth
said much the same thing, how they were going to be pushing abortion.
And in a keynote address at the 1994 meeting of the Population
Cooperating Agencies, Brian Atwood, the administrator of AID, said, and
I quote,

While obstacles cannot be removed overnight, this
administration will continue to stand for the principle of
reproductive choice, including access to abortion.

I say to my colleagues of the House, those so-called obstacles that
Mr. Atwood was referring to are right-to-life laws and constitutional
provisions that protect unborn children in approximately 100 countries
in the developing world. Virtually all of Central and South America
protect their kids from abortion. These are construed by the
administration to be obstacles.
These abortion power plays, these overt pro-abortion initiatives, so
far have been largely repudiated by the developing world, but they have
had some successes. Poland and South Africa recently flip-flopped and
went from pro-life to pro-abortion. So there is now a dual strategy:
When the overt strategy failed, another strategy was employed.
For the last 4 years the administration has relied on a parallel
track, a more sophisticated covert means designed to accomplish that
end. They have used surrogates, nongovernmental organizations like the
International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London, and the
Pathfinder Fund and others to do the lion's share of the dirty work to
nullify pro-life laws and to set up abortion mills the world over.
This past Tuesday I asked our very distinguished Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, an official for whom I have great respect, whether
she was aware of the 1992 International Planned Parenthood Federation
abortion manifesto called Vision 2000, a global strategic plan that
Planned Parenthood adopted and have been implementing ever since to
promote abortion in every corner of the world. The Secretary, known for
her candor, admitted she never heard of it.
IPPF, by the way, has received more than $70 million from the U.S.
taxpayers, courtesy of this administration, so it seems to me that the
Secretary of State and all of us should know what IPPF is all about.
Again, it is not just what they do with ``our'' money, it is what their
agenda is all about.
I urge Members to look at this document. This is their marching
orders in the developing world. Do not just say our money is not going
to be used. Other money then gets used to bring down these right-to-
life laws. Let me just quote briefly from it.
The Vision 2000 strategic plan says, and I quote, that they will
``bring pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative
change to remove restrictions against abortion.'' Can anything be more
clear? Pressure governments. Campaign for abortion on demand. And we
are providing many, many millions of dollars to this group.
Fred Sai, who is the former chairman of International Planned
Parenthood, put it very succinctly when they passed this IPPF strategic
plan. He said,

Now, for the first time, the IPPF strategic plan, Vision
2000, which was unanimously adopted at the Members' Assembly
in Delhi, outlines activities at both the Secretariat and FPA
level to further IPPF's explicit goal of increasing the right
of access to abortion.

Who we support and subsidize does matter.
IPPF has an elaborate plan and plans of action, as they call them, to
promote abortion in every country of the world, including Central and
South America where, again, they protect their unborn children. They
have plans to decimate the pro-life laws in Africa, the Muslim
countries in the Middle East, and several Asian countries who also
legally protect their children from the abortionist's knife.
A vote for the Clinton resolution empowers the abortion industry to
continue and expand these efforts to eradicate pro-life laws. Eliminate
a law in Poland and a whole generation of kids are put at risk.
Eliminate a law that protects them in South Africa or any other
country, and an entire generation of kids are put at risk of abortion
on demand.
I would respectfully submit that the only responsible pro-life action
today is a ``no'' vote on the Clinton resolution and a ``yes'' vote on
H.R. 581, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde bill.

[[Page H547]]

I truly believe that if we stand on the human rights principle of
safeguarding human life today, the administration will ultimately do
the right thing, provide family planning money, but do so with pro-life
safeguards.
I was very encouraged by the statement made this past December by
Phyllis Oakley, assistant secretary for population, when she appeared
before my subcommittee. I chair the International Operations and Human
Rights Subcommittee. Secretary Oakley, who is the point person for
population for the administration said, and I quote:

The United States does not promote abortion and does not
support the performance of abortion.'' She said, ``That is
clear. We have stated it over and over again. I can assure
you that remains our fundamental policy.

I therefore respectfully submit that the competing resolutions before
the House today put Secretary Oakley's statement concerning this
fundamental policy to the test. If the administration persists in
promoting abortion by way of surrogates, the Clinton denials of
promoting abortion will be exposed as wholly disingenuous and untrue.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 581 as introduced by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hyde] and myself. This pro-life, pro-family planning bill releases
the entire $385 million appropriated for fiscal year 1997 on March 1
for family planning, but, again, it does it with the pro-life
safeguards.
As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 1997 the administration will have
significantly more to spend on family planning with our bill, not with
the bill before you or the resolution, but with our bill.
Total cash on hand for population in fiscal year 1997, as this chart
shows you, with carryover funds from 1996, will be $713 million with
our bill. It will be only $543 million with the Clinton resolution.
That is clear; that is undeniable. Yes, the money will be spent
eventually, but the issue that the Clinton administration is making is
that money delayed is money denied. We will frontload the whole thing,
giving you the entire pot of money for family planning, but do so with
pro-life safeguards.
I think it is very, very significant for Members to know that these
safeguards are nothing new; they were in effect. People have talked
about the Helms amendment today. The Helms amendment in the 1980's was
found to be infirm. Yes, it stopped direct funding, but there were
loopholes. The pro-abortion groups simply took their own money, which
was freed up by our contributions, and used it for abortion promotion.
Let me just again say that the pro-life safeguards of the Mexico City
policy were in effect during the Reagan and Bush years as a way to
fully fund family planning without promoting abortion. The Mexico City
policy is both pro-family planning--and we make it clear in our bill--
and pro-life.
Specifically, the safeguards say this: We will condition funds only
to those organizations that will not perform abortions except in the
cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. We restrict funds to
those organizations that will not lobby, that will not become the
network in Peru or Brazil or any of these other countries bringing down
their pro-life laws.

{time} 1245

Mr. Chairman, they are extensions of U.S. foreign policy. We give
money to them. When they are talking to a legislator in one of these
countries they do not say, ``Are you doing that with U.S. money or are
you doing that with your own money?'' They are an extension of our
policy. Since we are the megacontributors and donators to them, what
they do reflects directly upon us here in the United States.
If Members want to promote abortions, say it. This Mexico City policy
makes it very clear that there ought to be a wall of separation between
the two.
Let me also point out that during the years that the policy was in
place, in excess of 350 family planning organizations, including
Planned Parenthood affiliates in 57 States or countries, accepted the
conditions. Some of the more extreme pro-abortionists in IPPF went
ballistic over that, and even censured IPPF Western Hemisphere for
doing that. But I believe they showed that they wanted to do family
planning. They did not want to be part of this big push for abortion.
Vote ``no'' on the Clinton resolution, and please vote ``yes'' on H.R.
581.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, the world's population is growing by 90
million every year--that is the equivalent of adding the entire
population of Mexico every year. Family planning is critical for the
survival of the planet and the people on it. Overpopulation leads to
the suffering of women and innocent children, poverty, and war.
There is an unfortunate tendency in this country to reduce important
debates concerning reproductive issues to the labels ``pro-choice'' and
``pro-life.'' We will ill serve the citizens of this country and the
world if we allow this vote today to fall victim to these labels.
First, there is evidence that without family planning, the number of
abortions increases.
And second, today what we are really doing is voting to ensure that
there will continue to be humane and responsible efforts through
voluntary family planning services so that the people who live on this
planet can live with decency and dignity.
The United States has a moral obligation to lead the effort to
control population responsibly. And I believe, therefore, that the
moral vote today is a vote for the President's resolution.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to those
that have spoken today in support of international family planning.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question that funding for family planning
has promoted the health and survival of women and children in
developing nations. The United States has taken a leading role in
promoting child survival in the world, decreasing maternal and infant
mortality, and ending the spread of deadly disease, including the AIDS
virus. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we have helped reduce the practice of
abortion through this program. Today, abortion is widespread in many
nations--Russian women have on average 7 to 8 abortions in a lifetime.
Family planning is helping to reverse this epidemic--to end the trend,
not to begin it.
We have heard it said on this floor today, and I will say it again:
not one penny of family planning aid goes to support abortions. Not one
penny. This vote is not about supporting abortions abroad--it is about
ending them. It is about about saving the lives of women and children.
It is about saving the lives of women who, in many cases, are children.
Family planning is helping to end the spread of the AIDS disease--a
disease who know no borders. It is helping couples in developing
nations reduce the size of their families so they can stay out of
poverty, become educated, survive, and thrive. Family planning has
limited the number of births in the developing world on average from 6
to 3.
And to my colleagues who suggest that family planning funds will
support abortions, let me say, and let me beg of you--there is enough
misinformation about family planning in the world today. There is
enough disease. Enough people have died. Enough women and children have
suffered. Family planning from the United States is provided for one
purpose and one purpose only: to end the spread of misinformation about
family planning--to end the death, poverty, and disease that comes from
the spread of myths and lies.
Family planning does not support abortions, It saves lives. I urge my
colleagues to support the release of family planning funds--funding
which has already been appropriated and approved. Do it now. Do it
today. The lives of women and children depend upon it.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to reiterate
my position on what has been referred to as the Mexico City policy--a
policy regarding the appropriation of taxpayer funds for the population
assistance activities of any foreign private, nongovernmental, or
multilateral organization.
My position on taxpayer-financed family planning has been well
established over the course of the previous two Congresses. I believe
in family planning programs. I believe they help women and children. I
also believe, however, in placing restrictions on how taxpayer dollars
are used in pursuit of family planning. Simply put, I believe that the
use of taxpayer dollars to pay for or promote abortion is
inappropriate, except under circumstances of rape or incest, or to
protect the life of the mother.
The Mexico City policy--that taxpayer funds intended for
international family planning should not be directed to organizations
that

[[Page H548]]

perform or promote abortion, except in the instances of rape, incest,
or to protect the life of the mother--has been raised several times in
recent years. I continue to support the main thrust of that policy, and
I continue to hold to the view that our government ought to be neutral
on the difficult question of abortion. I take the libertarian view that
government ought not to be involved in this most difficult and personal
of decisions, and will continue to support legislation which is
consistent with that view.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has embarked on
what is no less than a worldwide crusade promoting abortion on demand
at any time for any reason anywhere. I cannot condemn that policy in
words strong enough.
So let me just make a quick point in the short time that I have to
speak this morning. Contrary to what some of those on the other side
have said, this vote is indeed about abortion. It has always been about
abortion. We simply say to foreign nongovernmental organizations:
Unless you agree not to perform abortions, and not to violate the laws,
and lobby to change the laws, of other countries with respect to
abortion, then don't come to this country asking for tax dollars. That
is all we are saying.
I have only been in Congress for a little more than two years yet I
am voting today for the eighth time on the restoration of the Mexico
City policy--a simple, straight-forward pro-life policy initiated by
President Reagan carried on by President Bush and eagerly decimated by
President Clinton in his first days in office. I hope that this year,
the Congress will finally bring this debate to an end and do the right
thing Let's stop the international abortion crusade today.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Gephardt-Armey resolution and support the administration in
releasing family planning funds immediately.
Family planning works, it is a proven policy that has helped to
stabilize the world's population.
There are only two ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies: sexual
abstinence and safe and effective contraception.
By not releasing these funds now and by continuing to keep delaying
the funds, which the administration has already certified is causing
irreparable harm to family planning efforts around the world, we are
harming efforts to get that message out and are, in turn, contributing
to the increase of unsafe abortions rather than reducing them.
In fact, the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
Senator Hatfield, a strong pro-life advocate, unequivocally disagreed
with the proponents of the Smith resolution and said that there was no
evidence to support the claim that U.S. funding was being used to
provide or promote abortion. The distinguished Senator went on to say
that efforts to impede the release of family planning funds was not
reducing abortions, rather it would increase and contribute to unsafe
abortions.
This vote is not about abortion, U.S. law already prohibits the
funding of and promotion of abortion.
We have already accepted a 35-percent cut in family planning funding
which in of itself is a significant hit. But it was a bipartisan
agreement and now we must all honor that agreement.
By releasing the family planning funds now, millions of women and
family will have access to family planning counseling prenatal care and
preventative health care.
Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support the Armey-Gephardt
resolution and vote to immediately release these critical funds.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
President's request to release $123 million in foreign aid to support
an international pro-abortion agenda.
I have one question for my colleagues today. Why in the world should
we ask the American taxpayer to provide funding for abortions
administered overseas when we don't provide Federal funding for
abortions in the United States? It makes no sense at all.
We know that in many areas of the world, the population is growing
out of control and that something must be done to control this massive
problem. However, a ``no'' vote on the Presidents resolution will not
jeopardize our status as a world leader in this area. It will simply
confirm that abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control.
This body has made it clear on several occasions that we are willing
to provide funds for international family planning programs if the
participants will simply promise not to use abortion or lobby for the
use of abortion.
Many of the international organizations that benefit from this
funding are taking part in highly questionable practices.
We know that the International Planned Parenthood Federation in
London has a history of cooperating with the one-child abortion
policies in China. This organization has also been involved in active
lobbying to convince developing nations in Africa, Asia and the
Americas to overturn their abortion laws. Is this something we need to
pay for? I don't think so.
The question before us today is not whether we should support
international family planning and education programs.
The question today is whether or not this nation, and this body,
supports the use of abortion as a means of family planning.
As far as I am concerned, the term ``family'' and ``abortion'' are
totally incompatible.
This Nation and this Congress cannot and should not subsidize
programs and organizations which advocate abortion or which lobby for
the legalization or expansion of abortion as a means of limiting
population growth.
We should not allow abortion to become the next major U.S. export.
It is true that the Helms amendment prevents the direct use of U.S.
funds to pay for abortion procedures, but it does not prevent indirect
funding of programs that promote the legalization or expansion of
access to abortion as a means of birth control in developing nations.
To do that we must defeat the resolution and reinstate the Mexico City
policy.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution; help us reinstate the
Mexico City policy and show the world that we are willing to support
education and other family planning practices but not at the expense of
the innocent unborn.
Vote ``no'' on this resolution and vote ``yes'' on Smith-Hyde-
Oberstar.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support House Joint
Resolution 36 to endorse the Presidential finding and release
international family planning funds on March 1.
Family planning programs are common sense. Democrats and Republicans
ought to put partisan differences aside and come together to support
population assistance. Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Armey have set an excellent
example of bipartisanship by cosponsoring this important bill.
U.S. population assistance aid is critical to our world's future. The
high rates of population growth in developing countries affect
Americans through its impact on the environment, immigration, and the
economy. Unintended pregnancies threaten the society of developing
countries as well: it can put economic development at risk, it damages
the health and economic status of families, and increases the abortion
rate.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to support family planning
services. It is not a pro-choice or pro-life issue; it is a pro-family
issue. This vote today is very important. If we don't vote to release
the funds on March 1, we will reduce this year's total population
assistance program funding by $123 million. At least 17 worldwide
programs will need to defer, suspend, or terminate family planning
health care services. The consequences of the delay would be enormous;
there would be more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, and more
maternal and infant deaths, and more economic and environmental strain
on families and societies.
Opponents of this legislation argue that we should place extreme
restrictions on health care providers who receive U.S. aid. I oppose
this draconian policy: denying families the right to plan their
childbearing is wrong. Access to birth control is good for children,
good for families, good for the environment, and good for the society.
I urge my colleagues to vote to support House Joint Resolution 36 and
release the previously appropriated family planning assistance funds on
March 1.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my absolute
opposition to the President's proposal to send taxpayer dollars
overseas to promote abortions. We simply cannot allow the
administration to continue its policy of ignoring the fundamental
rights of the unborn.
The argument has been made that family planning funds serve to
decrease the number of abortions performed in developing countries. If
this is the case and if we are to ensure that family planning programs
respect the basic right to life, then the President should not object
to the pro-life safeguards on four separate occasions in the last
Congress, standing up emphatically for the rights of the unborn. The
President's refusal to accept these reasonable safeguards is proof of
the underlying abortion agenda of this administration and the
international groups which support a similar position.
I urge this body to say no to a plan that exports abortion policies
to developing countries. The right thing to do is to support the
alternative resolution, offered by Representative Chris Smith, which
reinstates the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy protecting the unborn.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House
Joint Resolution 36, which approves the President's finding that
withholding family planning funds has a negative impact on
international population programs.
These funds are crucial to the health of women worldwide, and
represent the single most effective means our country uses to reduce
the worldwide rate of abortion.
A recent Rockefeller Foundation report amply demonstrates the
importance and success of America's three-decade commitment

[[Page H549]]

to family planning programs: in countries where such programs are
active, contraceptive usage rates among women have increased from 10 to
50 percent. This has resulted in lowering the average number of
children borne by women in these nations from six to three, helping
millions of women evade poverty and maintain their health. According to
a UNICEF report, family planning programs, by helping women avoid risky
pregnancies, can prevent up to 100,000 of the 600,000 annual maternal
deaths. It's no wonder organizations like CARE and Save the Children
strongly support this resolution.
I also stand in firm opposition to the Smith-Oberstar alternative
resolution, which would reinstate the Mexico City gag order and delay
the release of already appropriated family planning funds 4 additional
months. I hope my colleagues will not be fooled by this antifamily
planning resolution. Under current law, no U.S. funds can be used to
perform or lobby for abortions. For the past 24 years, no one has
produced any evidence that one penny of this funding has ever been used
for abortion. In fact, the Smith bill will, in the words of passionate
abortion opponent Senator Mark Hatfield, ``contribute to an increase of
abortions worldwide.'' By some estimates, the Smith bill could result
in an additional 1.6 million abortions worldwide.
Furthermore, this resolution, if approved, will merely release funds
which have already been appropriated--it will not, as opponents of
family planning have suggested, add a single penny to our foreign aid
spending.
Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't provide any new spending. It will help
save the lives and health of millions of women and keep many more
children from becoming orphans. And it will decrease the number of
abortions performed worldwide. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass
this pro-family, pro-woman resolution.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
House Joint Resolution 36, approving President Clinton's findings
regarding international population planning programs and instead urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 581, the Family
Planning Facilitation and Abortion Funding Restriction Act. House Joint
Resolution 36 would not just allow for the early release of an
additional $123 million in fiscal year 1997 for international family
planning organizations. It would also allow these groups to perform
abortions and promote and lobby for abortion as a family planning
option within their home country.
As an alternative, I join Congressmen Smith, Hyde, and Oberstar in
supporting international family planning while also ensuring that
organizations that use Americans' tax dollars agree not to either
promote or perform abortions overseas. Simply put, abortion is not a
method of family planning.
Behind the smoke and mirrors of today's debate is the fact that
supporting the President's resolution (H.J. Res. 36) will result in the
promotion and performance of abortions overseas. As an alternative, I
ask my colleagues to join me instead in supporting a bipartisan
alternative, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde bill (H.R. 581) that will release
an additional $292.6 million in U.S. funds for international family
planning programs in fiscal year 1997--bringing the total fiscal year
1997 spending on these programs to $713 million. But more important,
the bill will ensure that foreign nongovernmental organizations
receiving U.S. funds are not performing or promoting abortions in
developing countries except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the
life of the mother is in danger.
The restrictions on abortion in the Smith-Hyde-Oberstar alternative
are not without precedent. The 1994 International Conference on
Population and Development held in Cairo reiterated that ``in no case
should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.''
Furthermore, from 1984 to 1993, the United States Government supported
international family planning programs with these pro-life measures
known as the Mexico City policy. Under this policy, over 350 family-
planning groups received funding. We should renew our commitment by
voting for House Resolution 581.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting true family
planning and not abortion. Vote for the Family Planning Facilitation
and Abortion Funding Restriction Act. Voting for the President's
resolution is not just agreeing with his finding that delaying family
planning dollars has had a negative effect. It also gives the green
light to the promotion and performance of abortions overseas.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to speak in support of
House Joint Resolution 36 which allows for the early release of
international family assistance funding. As my colleagues know, the
administration and the Republican leadership made an agreement last
September to allow the funding for international family assistance to
go forward in July, with the possibility of release of the funds in
March if the President certifies to Congress that the delay is having
an adverse impact on the family planning program and both Chambers pass
legislation to approve the early release. Last week, the President sent
his certification to us.
According to the President's report, delaying the release of funds
undermines U.S. efforts to promote child survival and actually
increases the number of abortions worldwide. Evidence from all regions
of the world shows that increased contraceptive use, by reducing
unintended pregnancies, plays a major role in reducing abortions.
Reductions in the rate of abortion as a result of increased
contraceptive use have been documented in countries such as Russia, the
central Asian republics, Mexico, and Colombia. In Russia alone, an
increase of only 5 percent in contraceptive use over 4 years led to a
decrease of 30 percent in the annual abortion rate. Why turn back this
progress?
One would think that abortion opponents would rush to support family
planning assistance since it reduces the number of abortions.
Unfortunately, this is not the case, considering the permission by the
Rules Committee to include consideration of House Resolution 581 which
would allow early release of funds with unnecessary and onerous
restrictions on the assistance. Contrary to what the supporters of
House Resolution 581 claim, current law prohibits the use of any
foreign aid funds for abortion or for motivating anyone to seek an
abortion. The U.S. agency for international development has followed
this policy for years and has strict procedures in place to ensure
compliance.
Family planning has proven effective in preventing abortions,
maternal and child deaths. If we delay support for family planning by
even 4 months, denying safe and effective contraception to couples who
depend on these programs, we will see a rise in unintended pregnancies
and maternal deaths and a tragic recourse to unsafe and unsanitary
methods to terminate those pregnancies.
This vote is about family planning and releasing delayed fiscal year
1997 funds; no new or additional funds are involved. This vote directly
affects the life prospects of countless women and children in
developing nations. I strongly urge my colleagues to support House
Joint Resolution 36 and vote ``no'' on House Resolution 581.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the release of family
planning funds, that have been held hostage to unwarranted anti-choice
forces in the Congress for more than 4 months now.
We here today are on a rescue mission. For if we fail to pass this
resolution, the funds will be held hostage until July 1, 9 months into
the fiscal year. This is unacceptable.
This is not about spending more money or new money. It is about the
previously allocated international family planning funds that have not
been released. The President has certified that this delay is harming
our efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies abroad. These funds must
be released now.
Releasing these funds will improve women's health, reduce poverty,
and protect our global environment.
International family planning promotes preventive health care such as
prenatal care, helps women to plan and space their pregnancies farther
apart, and prevents unintended pregnancies that may threaten women's
health and the health of their babies.
Do our programs work? As David Broder commented in the Washington
Post, ``the success of the program is undeniable.'' Studies have shown
for the past three decades the percentage of women using contraception
in foreign countries that receive this type of assistance has risen
from 10 percent to 50 percent, and the average number of children they
have borne has been reduced from six to three.
Some say that our international family planning efforts increase
abortion. This is absolutely false. No U.S. dollars are used to provide
abortion services either in the United States or abroad. In fact, it
has been illegal to use U.S. funds to provide abortion services abroad
since 1973. I happen to disagree with this policy, but it is the policy
nonetheless.
Family planning does not increase abortions, it reduces them. Senator
Mark Hatfield recognizes this, World Vision recognizes this, and I
believe that even most people in this Chamber recognize this. But you
cannot claim to support family planning and vote against this
resolution. Only passage of this resolution will lead to release of the
international family planning funds.
Let there be no mistake about it, this is a vote about choice, but it
is not a vote about abortion.
It is about a choice between supporting family planning or opposing
it.
It is about a choice between protecting women's lives or harming
them.
In fact, this is about a choice between right and wrong, and quite
seriously about a choice between life and death.
I urge my colleagues to choose wisely, to protect women's lives, and
to support this resolution.

[[Page H550]]

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted in support of House Joint
Resolution 36, a resolution to release funds for international family
planning on March 1, 1997, which passed the House of Representatives by
a vote of 220-209 on February 13, 1997. I made this decision after
careful consideration and deliberation. Former U.S. Senator Mark
Hatfield of Oregon, who is pro-life, sent a letter last fall to
Representative Chris Smith expressing his concern about the detrimental
effect of the delay in funding for these programs.

* * * Chris [Smith (R-NJ), author of H.R. 581], you are
contributing to an increase of abortions worldwide because of
the funding restrictions on which you insisted in last year's
funding bill. It is a proven fact that when contraceptive
services are not available to women throughout the world,
abortion rates increase. We have seen it in the former Soviet
Union where women had no access to family planning and relied
on abortion as their primary birth control method. Some women
had between eight and twelve abortions during their
lifetimes. This is unacceptable to me as someone who is
strongly opposed to abortion.

Based on this statement and other information from pro-life Members
of Congress, including Representative Tony Hall, I voted in support of
House Joint Resolution 36, a resolution to release international family
planning funds on March 1, 1997. Since it is my objective to decrease
the number of abortions, this pro-life vote is the only vote I could
conscientiously cast. Those Agency for International Development [AID]
international family planning funds are prohibited by law from being
used for abortion services. This prohibition is carefully monitored by
AID and by independent audits.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I also voted in support of H.R. 581, the
Chris Smith resolution, which would release funds as early as March 1
as long as recipients abide by the Mexico City policy, which prohibits
these funds from going to organizations that also provide abortion
services. I have been a long time supporter of the Mexico City policy.
I also support family planning which reduces abortion--and oppose the
use of Federal funds for abortion except to save the life of an
indigent mother. However, since President Clinton waits for H.R. 581
with his veto pen thus giving the legislation virtually no chance of
becoming law, I had to support House Joint Resolution 36 in order to
provide funding for family planning services that are proven to prevent
abortion.
KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the resolution,
House Joint Resolution 36, to release international family planning
funds beginning March 1, as recommended by the President, and to oppose
H.R. 581, which would place restrictions on international family
programs that already exist in Federal law.
The release of funds contained in House Joint Resolution 36 has been
delayed 5 months, and a report by the administration states that
further delay will cause serious, irreversible, and avoidable harm to
family planning programs. The report further indicates that a delay of
4 months will increase the incidence of unintended pregnancies,
maternal and child deaths, and abortions.
Those who oppose this family planning program assert that U.S. funds
are being used for abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Current Federal law prohibits the use of U.S. funds for abortions or
abortion counseling. The Agency for International Development, which
administers these funds, has strict procedures to assure no U.S. funds
are used for abortion. These procedures include legally binding
contract provisions forbidding such activity, staff monitoring, and
regular audits by nationally recognized accounting firms.
Even a highly respected pro-life advocate, former Senator Mark
Hatfield, has found no evidence to suggest U.S. family planning funds
are used to fund abortions in other countries. In a September 24, 1996,
letter to Representative Chris Smith, who is offering H.R. 581, Senator
Hatfield said:

I have reviewed the materials you recently sent to my
office in response to my request that you provide proof that
U.S. funds are being spent on abortion through AID's
voluntary international family planning program.
Unfortunately, I do not see anything in these materials to
back up your assertion.

I have received no evidence to contradict Senator Hatfield's belief.
Those who say providing funds to family planning agencies increases
abortions need to review the evidence to the contrary. Here are some
examples:
Russia: From 1990 to 1994, contraceptive use increased by 5 percent,
and the total number of abortions fell by 800,000.
Hungary: A dramatic increase in contraceptive use from the late
1960's to 1986 resulted in a drop in abortion rates from 80 per 1,000
women to about 30 per 1,000 women.
Chile: From 1960 to 1990, an increase in contraceptive use resulted
in a drop in abortion rates from 77 per 1,000 women to 45 per 1,000.
By supporting the expedited release of these family planning funds,
we in fact will decrease the incidence of abortions internationally. In
a letter to congressional leadership, Reverend Leo O'Donovan, president
of Georgetown University, said,

Your vote to release these funds on March 1, 1997 rather
than delaying until July 1, 1997 will make a tremendous
difference to countless families. Our program and
international efforts in natural family planning are
dependent on these federal resources.

The Smith bill, H.R. 581, would unnecessarily restate the existing
abortion prohibition and would restrict the expenditure of family
planning organizations' own funds. We have the right and the
responsibility to place conditions on U.S. taxpayer moneys, but not on
all the resources of these groups.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 36
and to oppose the Smith bill at this time. We will have numerous
opportunities in this 105th Congress to cast votes on real abortion
issues. Although H.R. 581 is cast as one, it fails the test.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the
Presidential finding that family planning appropriations should be
released on March 1 because any further delay would seriously impact
this very important program.
Congress should support family planning programs because they are a
crucial tool in international efforts to curb global overpopulation. At
current growth rates, we will add more humans in the next 50 years than
in all previous 500,000 years of human history. In the next decade
alone, world population will increase by 1 billion people. This growth
means more than longer lines at Safeway or at the local drug store.
Unrestrained population growth devastates environmental resources,
exacerbates immigration pressures, and raises the specter of worldwide
malnutrition and the spread of infectious diseases.
I also support family planning funds because I support healthy
families. Numerous studies have documented that mortality rates for
women and children are highest when births are too close together, when
women have many children, and when women give birth at very young and
old ages. These family planning funds will enable mothers and fathers
around the world to raise the healthiest children they can.
In addition, U.S. family planning aid often goes to families that
have no other recourse. It is estimated that 77 percent of the couples
using contraceptives in developing countries, excluding China, depend
on publicly financed family planning programs.
We only need to look to Mexico for indices of the success of family
planning. Due in part to foreign family planning assistance, the
average Mexican woman now has 2.7 children, a dramatic reduction from
the average of 6.7 children in 1970. Family planning is about thinking
ahead. It's about giving families, especially poor families, the chance
to make choices for their future. Let's not make the choice for them.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House
Joint Resolution 36, which provides for the release of U.S.
contributions to international family planning programs.
For over 30 years America has been a supporter of international
family planning. These programs have improved the health of millions of
women and children, eased the environmental impact of rapid population
growth, and prevented millions of unwanted pregnancies.
But in the past 2 years, Congress has withheld, cut or placed
arbitrary restrictions on these programs.
Approximately 4 million women, who do not have access to modern
contraception, medical advice or prenatal care, will have an unwanted
or dangerous pregnancy, resulting in nearly 2 million more abortions or
miscarriages. Funding restrictions only add to these numbers.
Unless we vote today to release the funds already appropriated, we
will create even greater obstacles to common sense family planning. If
this resolution is defeated there will be an increase in maternal
death, there will be an increase in abortions, and there will be an
increase in malnutrition.
The support of the United States for international family planning
has helped families space out the birth of their children and has
increased the odds that there will be enough food and other essentials
to be shared among all family members. We've enabled women to bear
children when they are physically strong and can breast-feed normally--
increasing child survival by as much as 20 percent.
These funds have not sponsored or supported abortion. For 20 years,
the U.S. Agency for International Development has prevented any money
distributed by the Federal Government from being used to perform
abortions or motivate anyone to have one. This is current law, and
nothing in this resolution will change it.
Mr. Speaker, for three decades Republications and Democrats, pro-life
and pro-choice,

[[Page H551]]

have supported a significant American role in international family
planning. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm that support today by voting
in favor of House Joint Resolution 36.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to section
581A(e) of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for 1997, no
amendment is in order and the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Sensenbrenner] having assumed the chair, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina,
Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) approving the
Presidential finding that the limitation on obligations imposed by
section 581A(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, is having a negative impact
on the proper functioning of the population planning program, he
reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 209, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 22]

YEAS--220

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NAYS--209

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Forbes
Gallegly
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Carson
Clay
Obey
Young (AK)

{time} 1303

Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Owens changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''

____________________