FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT
(Senate - April 28, 1998)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S3680-S3686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate equally divided for closing remarks prior to the vote 
on the adoption of the conference report accompanying H.R. 1757, which 
the clerk will now report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1757), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. It is what, 5 minutes each?

[[Page S3681]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes on each side.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield myself half of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Notify me when it is over.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, rumors, they are aflying to the effect that the 
President of the United States has instructed the Democrats of the 
Senate to vote against this conference report and, if my intelligence 
sources are correct, it will get about three Democratic votes this 
afternoon. That compares with the vote of 90-5 for this very same bill, 
largely, that was passed by the Senate. If such game playing is going 
to happen, and if this conference report is defeated because of that 
sort of thing, then the President is going to have a difficult time 
about a lot of things.
  Let me say it again. The pending conference report is the result of 
more than a year's hard work by Senator Biden and Secretary Albright 
and Judd Gregg, Rod Grams, and many others to abolish two antiquated 
temporary Federal registries created in the 1950s and bringing reform 
to the United Nations. Now, if this conference report is defeated this 
afternoon, so be it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the chairman and I have worked very, very 
hard over the last 9 months to produce this bill. I will not reiterate 
all that each of us said last week at the end of the day. We have no 
real disagreement in terms of the substance of the bill. We have a 
disagreement on not even whether or not we should attach a provision 
relating to family planning and abortion in the bill. We don't even 
disagree on that. The chairman had nothing to do with that being in. He 
is a strong supporter of the family planning limitation that is in this 
bill, so-called Mexico City, although he did not ask for it to be put 
in this bill, but it is on the bill. We are faced with the reality, it 
is on the bill.

  The question is, What do we do from here? I urge my colleagues, 
notwithstanding the agreement the Senator and I have in every other 
aspect of the bill, to vote against this conference report. I do so 
because, at the insistence of the House, the Mexico City provision, 
which is not related to the underlying legislation, is in the bill, and 
stopping the conference report, I hope--and I may be tactically wrong 
here; this is my objective--I hope we send a signal to the House that 
we will not yield to what I characterize--not the chairman, ``me''--
characterize, as legislative blackmail on this or other controversial 
issues.
  As indicated, it would be inappropriate, if the Democrats took back 
the House next time out--I have no idea whether that will happen, but 
if they did--for them to attach to one of the bills an education 
provision that no one on the Republican side liked and said, ``Take it 
or leave it.'' I think it is a mistake.
  The underlying legislation is critically important to American 
foreign policy. It would pay off our arrearages to the United Nations 
and bring additional reform to that body and reorganize our foreign 
policy agency, and it begins to provide the funds, in essence, to 
restore our diplomatic presence worldwide. I believe the President will 
sign it promptly, provided we send him one without Mexico City 
attached.
  Again, the only thing that the chairman and I disagree on, he 
believes, and he believed, and I believe he believes it, that what the 
House sent is at least a compromise on Mexico City. I view it as not a 
compromise at all on Mexico City.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report so we can 
return to conference and produce a bill that the President can sign.
  I reserve the balance of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BIDEN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. I see the Senator from Texas is standing. After he speaks, 
I am delighted to yield my 2 minutes in closing to my friend from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. GRAMM. I want to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee 
a question, if I might, if he will yield for that purpose.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield for that purpose.
  Mr. GRAMM. Obviously, a great deal of compromise has occurred on our 
side of the aisle with regard to arrearages at the United Nations. That 
is now, obviously, a focal point of this bill. I have to assume that 
the President would have to understand that if this bill is defeated 
today, his chances of getting any arrearage funding for the United 
Nations in this Congress would be diminished substantially and probably 
would not happen.
  I ask the chairman his views on that.
  Mr. HELMS. If I have anything to do with it, there will be no action 
on arrearages or anything else that the President is interested in.
  Now, he has waved that veto flag time and time again. Let him wave it 
this time, but he must bear in mind that this is it, this is the end of 
it, one way or the other.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRAMM. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will join, I hope with the vast majority 
of colleagues on this side of the aisle, to vote against this bill even 
though the bill is an important bill and it is one that I have worked 
on with the ranking member and chairman for a long period of time.
  I know the chairman worked diligently to try to break this bill free 
of the Mexico City language and to try to have the capacity to move 
forward on the floor. I applaud him for his good-faith efforts to do 
that.
  Let me say to my colleagues that this is a tragedy of enormous 
proportions. It is dangerous. It is damaging to the interests of the 
United States to tie the U.N. arrearages and larger policy questions to 
one issue, to one point of view, by a very narrow percentage of Members 
of the U.S. Congress who want to tie it in this way to the United 
Nations. It is a form of a kind of political blackmail.
  The reality is that the United States of America is going to lose 
significant prestige, significant leverage, and our interests are going 
to be set back in the international arena. We are going to be hurt with 
respect to issues like Bosnia. If anybody mistakes it, all you have to 
do is look at the way in which the coalition fell apart over Iraq and 
the issue of holding Saddam Hussein accountable for weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Talk to anybody at the United Nations and you can learn very quickly 
about the growing anger of nations who watched the United States, which 
has become a scofflaw within the United Nations, unwilling to live up 
to the rules that we helped to write, unwilling to fulfill our 
obligations under the United Nations, all because one point of view in 
the U.S. Congress can't have its way.
  I think those who think about this should think hard about what 
interest is being served here--the interests of abortion versus the 
interests of world leadership of the United States in the United 
Nations. That is what is at stake here.
  I think the President ought to veto this and we ought to hold those 
accountable who are unwilling to assert the interests of the United 
States, the world's leader, all nations of the world today looking to 
us for that leadership, and here we are, handicapping ourselves over a 
totally separate issue.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to express my opposition to 
the measure we are about to vote on, H.R. 1757, the State Department 
Authorization conference report. Despite the fact that this bill 
contains many provisions which I support, such as a wide-ranging reform 
package that would ensure U.S. payment of dues to the United Nations, 
the entire measure is overshadowed by an egregious and misguided 
abortion provision included at the insistence of those who oppose 
abortion rights.
  This provision would prohibit foreign organizations from receiving 
U.S. family planning funds if that organization, with its own funds, 
provides legal abortion services or advocates on abortion issues in its 
own country. Such providers, for example, would lose their U.S.

[[Page S3682]]

funds if they discussed at a conference that more than 20 percent of 
all maternal deaths throughout Latin America and the Caribbean are due 
to illegal abortion.
  In my view, this provision is a thinly-veiled attempt to further 
erode our commitment to international family planning programs. I must 
say, Mr. President, I am always perplexed by those who oppose family 
planning and also oppose abortion. Study after study has shown that 
lack of family planning leads to more unintended pregnancies which 
leads to more abortions. Consider two countries: Russia has very little 
contraception available, and abortion is the primary method of birth 
control. The average Russian woman has at least four abortions in her 
lifetime! Alternatively, Hungary has made family planning services more 
widely available and the abortion rate has dropped dramatically.
  The impact these family planning programs have on the health and 
well-being of women and children around the world cannot be denied. But 
there is another issue here that should not be overlooked--the 
important role population programs play in sustaining the global 
environment.
  The earth now supports 5.7 billion human beings. In thirty years it 
is estimated the world's population will be 8.3 billion. We are growing 
by 86 million people per year. It is expected that 90 percent of this 
increase will be in the developing world. India has to feed an 
additional 16 million people per year. And so many of these people are 
children--forty percent of the population of the average less-developed 
nation is under the age of 15.
  Mr. President, the United States plays a critical role in providing 
family planning services abroad. I feel strongly that we should 
continue our leadership role in this area. It is both humane and 
environmentally sound. This conference report contains provisions that 
would gut our commitment to international family planning, and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, here we go again. As we have done so many 
times in recent years, we are sacrificing serious and legitimate 
national interests to the partisan and divisive abortion debate. Due to 
the global gag rule imposed on international family planning, I will 
vote against the conference report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs 
Reform and Restructuring Act.
  I commend the President for his strong veto message to the Congress 
on this legislation. Passage of this conference report will not change 
current law. A vote in favor of the conference report will not 
ultimately result in the payment of the U.S. debt to the United Nations 
or the reorganization of the State Department. Passage may score 
political points but it will delay this important legislation and 
diminish U.S. standing in the international community.
  This language is anything but a compromise as proponents of the new 
global gag rule claim in defending the conference report. It was not 
adopted nor debated on the Senate floor. Every single Democratic 
conferee to this legislation refused to sign the conference report. 
Labeling this language a compromise is misleading and untrue.
  Passage of the conference report will unfairly disqualify many family 
planning organizations from receiving U.S. international family 
planning funds if they use their own funds in their own countries to 
point out the adverse public health consequences of medically unsafe 
abortion. The elimination of these non-governmental organizations from 
the program, considered to be one of the best and most cost-effective 
channels for U.S. foreign aid dollars, will have a devastating impact 
on this critical foreign aid program.
  The language in the bill will condition an organization's eligibility 
for U.S. family planning assistance unless it agrees to surrender its 
rights to free speech and participation in the political process in its 
own country using its own funds. Proponents of the controversial 
language will describe it as a ban on abortion lobbying, such as a 
restriction would be unconstitutional if applied to American citizens 
and would undermine one of the primary objectives of our foreign 
policy--the promotion of democracy around the world. The Senate should 
reject this conference report and the restrictive family planning 
language added behind closed doors.
  Enactment of the conference report will result in the reduction of 
family planning funding by $44 million. The funding cut would likely 
cause a subsequent increase in the number of abortions as couples lose 
or are denied access to contraceptive services. Any Senator who 
supports family planning as a means to reduce the incidence of abortion 
should oppose this bill.
  Family planning saves lives, particularly in the developing world 
where a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth every minute of every day 
and where more than 12 million children each year do not live to see 
their fifth birthday.
  I urge the Senate to reject the Conference Report on the Foreign 
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
conference report on H.R. 1757--The Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998.
  As is the case with many of my colleagues who have already spoken on 
this matter, I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to be holding the 
payment of U.N. arrears and the structural reform of U.S. foreign 
affairs organization hostage to a single issue related to international 
family planning--an issue by the way which was never even discussed 
during Senate consideration of this legislation. I am speaking of 
course of the so called Mexico City restrictions on U.S. international 
population programs that have been included in the legislation pending 
before us today--Section 1816 of the bill. These restrictions not only 
prohibit foreign non-governmental organizations that accept U.S. 
funding from using their own funds to perform abortions, but also bar 
them from lobbying their own governments, with their own money, on 
abortion related public policy issues.
  Without doubt, Section 1816 is going to result in all of the other 
sections in the bill, over 160 of them--not becoming law.
  That means that nearly two years of work on this bill will have been 
for naught. That is unfortunate in my view, because many of the other 
provisions are meritorious and should become law.
  Mr. President, how did we get to where we find ourselves with respect 
to this legislation? Mr. President, let's be clear about who is 
responsible. It was not the President who created the current dynamic--
he and officials in his administration have worked in good faith for 
months with House and Senate conferees on the legislation before us 
today.
  It certainly wasn't the Senate conferees who working together had 
come up with an acceptable package of compromises on the various 
difference between the House and Senate passed bills --a package that 
we all more or less agreed to and would have supported. A package that 
did not include Mexico City language.
  The responsibility for putting U.S. leadership at the U.N. in 
jeopardy and delaying foreign affairs reorganization rests solely with 
the House Republican leadership.
  The Republican leadership knew full well that this entire bill was 
being put at risk with the inclusion of Section 1816 in this bill--a 
provision which, incidentally, would never become law if it were to be 
applied to domestic non-governmental organizations because it is so 
fundamentally a violation of the first amendment constitutional 
protections of free speech.
  I know our Democratic colleagues in the House warned them of what was 
likely to happen.
  I know Senator Biden did as well. Certainly the President has made no 
secret of his fundamental opposition to the so called Mexico City 
language and most especially the ``global gag rule'' aspect of it.
  Despite these warnings, the House leadership instructed House 
Republican conferees to include this provision in the final version of 
the bill. Not a single Democratic conferee from either the House or 
Senate supported the final conference report that we have before us 
today. I was one of those conferees who refused to sign onto this 
legislation.
  I certainly agree with those who are strongly opposed to the 
codification of the Mexico City language into law. I

[[Page S3683]]

think it is reprehensible to attempt to restrict the free speech of 
foreign non-governmental organizations and their members.
  I happen to believe that these organizations do very important work--
work that is making a real difference to the health and over all 
quality of life for hundreds of millions of women and children living 
in developing countries throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
  But my objections with respect to this matter go beyond the substance 
of the provision to that of the tactics that are being used here and 
for an unwillingness to take into account U.S. national and foreign 
policy interests that may be at stake. Proponents of this measure have 
made no effort to balance these overarching interests against the 
narrower ones of wanting to score partisan political points by 
promoting a very controversial agenda that clearly does not have the 
support of the majority of the American people.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the Senate will vote to reject the 
pending conference report and thereby send a signal that, at least in 
the Senate, we aren't in the practice of ``legislative hostage 
taking''--that is not the way the Senate conducts its business. In 
doing so, we will also be sending a signal to the American people that 
we are here to do their business, the business that we were elected to 
look out for, and not to play games of ``partisan one upmanship.'' I 
would urge my colleagues to join me in sending such a message by voting 
no on this measure.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this conference report contains many 
important provisions that deserve the support of the Senate.
  It authorizes Congress, at long last, to pay our overdue debt to the 
United Nations. It clears the way for comprehensive UN reform. The bill 
also includes a much-needed, major restructuring of our nation's 
foreign affairs agencies.
  In the years since the Cold War ended, the maps of the world have 
been redrawn. The reorganization plan in this bill would enable us to 
redraw our foreign affairs structure to match the new, post-Cold War 
reality. It is the product of careful and detailed negotiations, and 
enjoys broad, bipartisan support.
  Despite these important provisions, I regret that I will vote against 
this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. The 
reason I oppose this report is because, in addition to its positive 
provisions, it also contains an extreme and extraneous provision the 
Senate has considered and rejected many times in the past. This 
provision--the so-called ``Mexico City language''--would do serious 
damage to international family planning efforts--including efforts that 
have nothing to do with promoting abortion and that, in fact, help to 
prevent abortions.
  It would do serious damage to one of the ideals on which our own 
nation was founded, freedom of speech and expression. The Mexico City 
language would bar any agency that receives international family-
planning assistance from the U.S. from using their own funds to pay for 
abortions, or to lobby for abortions.
  Let me repeat: This bill does not tell agencies it cannot use U.S. 
funds for these services. That is already prohibited under existing 
law. This bill tells agencies in other nations that they may not use 
their own funds to pay for, or lobby for, abortions, without losing all 
U.S. family-planning assistance. This goes far beyond what the current 
law prescribes.
  This body has rejected this kind of restriction in the past because 
we agreed it is inappropriate to place such limitations on how 
organizations in other nations may use their own money. Mr. President, 
it is still inappropriate for us to do so. But it is important to note 
that the Mexico City language is not simply the language this body has 
previously rejected. In 2 important ways, it is even more extreme.
  First, this Mexico City provision will cut funds for international 
family-planning services. The conference report mandates that family 
planning agencies in other nations may not receive one dollar in U.S. 
family-planning assistance unless and until they certify that they will 
not perform abortions with their own funds. It is true that the 
President may waive this restriction. But if he does so, U.S. aid for 
international family-planning programs for that year would be limited 
to $356 million--$44 million less than we are now spending.
  Second, this new version of the Mexico City language includes a 
provision that not only prohibits funding for any organization that 
lobbies to change abortions laws in other nations, as the former 
version did. It goes far beyond that prohibition to forbid recipients 
of U.S. funds from making any public statements about abortion. They 
are forbidden, Mr. President, even from expressing concerns about the 
dangers of illegal abortions.
  And the President has no authority to waive this provision. The 
Secretary of State has rightly labeled this restriction a ``gag rule.'' 
In no way would this provision improve the lives of women and children 
around the world, nor would it reduce the incidence of abortion. 
Instead, this gag rule would violate one of our country's most hallowed 
principles, the principle of freedom of speech.

  What kind of message would we be sending to the rest of the world if 
violate our founding principles? That those principles are not 
inalienable after all? That they may have worked 200 years ago, but 
they are not applicable in a modern world?
  Surely, at a time when struggling new democracies all over the world 
are looking for guidance and inspiration, these are not messages we 
want to send. But the greatest danger of these extreme and extraneous 
provisions is that they will not improve the lives of women and 
children anywhere, nor will they prevent abortions anywhere. In fact, 
they will have the opposite effect. They will make it more difficult 
for women to plan their own families.
  U.S. support of international family planning programs have 
immeasurably improved the lives of women in developing countries. By 
helping women limit the size of their families, we have enabled women 
to make the educational and economic gains that are essential if they, 
and their children, are to live longer and healthier lives. The number 
of women of childbearing age is increasing by 24 million every year. 
Now is not the time for this nation to cut back on our commitment to 
programs that enable women to plan their families--programs that 
actually reduce the incidence of abortion.
  And make no mistake, Mr. President, that would be one of the 
consequences if we pass this conference report. There would, 
inevitably, be an increase in the number of abortions. That is not 
something I want to see, and I know that every member of this body 
agrees with me on this point.
  Finally, Mr. President, it is important to note the context in which 
we are considering this conference report, and the implications it has 
for another important piece of legislation the Senate has already 
passed--the supplemental funding for the U.S. contribution to the 
International Monetary Fund.
  Last month, the Senate approved these funds overwhelmingly. The vote 
was 84-16. The size of that margin indicates the importance Senators 
attach to an adequately-funded IMF. Unfortunately, a small but vocal 
minority of members in the other body have expressed reluctance to vote 
on the IMF funding unless we give into their demands on the Mexico City 
issue.
  They are, in effect, holding hostage an important bill with 
significant national security implications, a bill that has broad, 
bipartisan support in the Senate, in order to force their way on a 
completely unrelated issue. The IMF appropriation is an insurance 
policy for the world economy and for countless American exporting 
businesses and farmers whose livelihoods depend on strong markets in 
Asia, Latin America, and other regions of the world. It is 
inappropriate and dangerous to link passage of IMF with the Mexico City 
restrictions. The longer we delay passage of the IMF funds, the more we 
expose our businesses, workers, and farmers to the risks and 
uncertainties of world financial markets.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. President, the Mexico City provision 
does not belong in either the State Department authorization bill, or 
the IMF supplemental. If the other body wishes to implement the Mexico 
City restrictions, it should debate those restrictions in the context 
in which they belong--in a comprehensive foreign aid

[[Page S3684]]

authorization bill. They should not hold hostage every high-priority 
piece of foreign policy legislation moving through the Congress.
  It is imperative that the Senate defeat this conference report to 
demonstrate that we will not support such efforts at linkage either in 
this instance or in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the conference agreement.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to emphasize the value of our 
nation's international family planning program. I share the outrage 
expressed by my colleagues that the United States Congress would even 
consider the un-democratic and un-American provisions contained in the 
Foreign Affairs Reform Act. What Congress should really be focusing on 
as we debate the role of international family planning is the impact of 
these scarce federal funds on the lives of women and families 
throughout the world.
  Currently at least one woman dies every minute from causes related to 
pregnancy and childbirth. In developing countries, maternal mortality 
is the leading cause of death for women in reproductive age. The World 
Bank estimates that improved access to family planning would reduce 
maternal death by 20 percent. In the United States, there are 12 
maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births; in parts of Sub-Saharan 
Africa, this ratio is more than 1,500 maternal deaths for every 100,000 
live births. That's over 100 times greater than in the United States.
  By being able to plan their pregnancies, mothers are able to ensure 
they bear their children at their healthiest times and that pregnancies 
do not occur too close together. This reduces the risks to the lives of 
both the mother and her children. Data from developing countries shows 
that babies born less than 2 years after their next oldest sibling are 
twice as likely to die in the first year as those born after an 
interval of at least 2 years. Further analysis suggests that, on 
average, infant mortality would be reduced by 25 percent if all births 
were spaced at least 2 years apart.
  Reduced maternal and infant mortality are just two of the benefits of 
family planning programs. Family planning education also helps prevent 
the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Family 
planning can also reduce the number of abortions. A U.S. study found 
that for every $1 increase in public funds for family planning, there 
is a decrease of 1 abortion per 1,000 women. According to the 
Rockefeller Foundation, in just 1 year, cuts and severe restrictions of 
federal funding for family planning programs will result in an 
additional 4 million unplanned pregnancies, and 1.6 million of those 
pregnancies will end in abortion. These are only conservative 
estimates.
  U.S. family planning funds are having a profound, positive impact on 
families throughout the world. Mothers and children are healthier; more 
women are using contraception; fewer women are having abortions. Let me 
share just a few examples of the positive role family planning has 
played in Latin America. In 1960 in Chile, less than 3 percent of 
married women were practicing family planning, and the abortion rate 
was 77 abortions per 1,000 married women of reproductive age. By 1990, 
56 percent of married women were using family planning, and the 
abortion rate had dropped to 45 per 1,000. Data from Bogota, Columbia 
showed that contraceptive use doubled between 1976 and 1990, 
accompanied by a 40 percent decrease in the abortion rate during the 
same period. In Mexico City, use of contraception increased by about 24 
percent between 1987 and 1992, and the abortion rate fell 39 percent.
  Similar successes can be found in examples from former Soviet Bloc 
nations. In Almaty, Kazakhstan, the United States population program 
has provided funding to train doctors and nurses and to increase 
contraceptive supplies for 28 clinics. Between 1993 and 1994, the 
number of people receiving contraceptives from the clinics increased by 
59 percent, and the number of abortions fell by 41 percent. In Russia, 
contraceptive use has increased from 19 to 24 percent after an 
affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation opened in 
1991. The abortion rate dropped from 109 per 1,000 pregnancies in 1990 
to 76 in 1994. The total number of abortions fell from 3.6 million in 
1990 to 2.8 million in 1994. In Hungary, abortion rates dropped 
dramatically from the late 1960's to the mid-1980's, largely due to the 
significant increase in contraceptive use.
  The numbers are incredible, but what is truly important and who we 
can't forget are the women and their families represented in these 
numbers. One such woman is 30 year old Maria Elena Absalon Ramirez in 
Mexico. Her husband earns just $80 per month to support Maria and their 
four children. They cannot afford contraceptives and rely on USAID-
funded family planning. These are Maria's words: ``What I fear most is 
becoming pregnant again.''
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the valuable impact of family 
planning on the lives of millions of families throughout the world, and 
to oppose restrictions on the use of international family planning 
funds.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to comment on one aspect of the 
conference report before us today, the provisions relating to the 
consolidation of USIA into the State Department. Although the President 
has already signaled his intention to veto this bill should it pass, I 
would like to highlight a concern I share with others which was 
addressed to some degree in the conference report: the need to protect 
the integrity of U.S. public diplomacy.
  There have been some indications that when the State Department 
incorporates the functions of USIA into its organization, there are 
some State Department officials who are interested in using the 
resources associated with USIA programs to boost the public affairs 
functions of the State Department. I would like to go on record in 
opposition to any shifting of resources or even worse merging of these 
two very distinct functions of public affairs and public diplomacy.
  To give some background on this issue, since 1948 when U.S. 
government information programs were first authorized under section 501 
of the Smith/Mundt Act, it has been understood that public diplomacy 
programs were directed to foreign audiences. As Under Secretary of 
State Philip Habib said in 1986:

       There is a distinction between public diplomacy and public 
     affairs. The word diplomacy means ``outside'' and has nothing 
     to do with what you are trying to do with the American 
     people, which is altogether different. Gaining the support of 
     the American people for U.S. foreign policy initiatives is 
     entirely different from attempting to pursue the interests of 
     the United States in the foreign arena.

  Over the years, Congress and the courts have upheld and strengthened 
the distinction between public diplomacy, which is directed abroad, and 
public affairs, which is directed toward a U.S. audience. As USIA and 
its functions are folded into the State Department--and I do not 
necessarily oppose this and other cost savings moves--we must continue 
to uphold the distinction between these two functions. I support the 
need to provide a clear articulation of U.S. foreign policy to 
Americans, especially as the world and U.S. international interests 
have become increasingly complex. However, the State Department should 
not anticipate a windfall in resources for its public affairs function.
  Public diplomacy, the presentation and advocacy of information about 
the United States, not just the advocacy of a particular foreign policy 
position, has been best presented independently and objectively without 
consideration of how that message would play at home. Educating the 
rest of the world about American society should not be hindered by the 
equally important but distinct function of explaining U.S. foreign 
policy to the American people.
  Edward R. Murrow said it best almost 40 years ago:

       What we endeavor to reflect . . . is not only our policy, 
     but our ideals. We not only seek to show people who we are 
     and how we live: we must also engage others in the delicate, 
     difficult art of human persuasion, to explain why we do what 
     we do.

  Mr. President, as we consider legislation to consolidate USIA into 
the State Department, whether it be in this session or in future 
sessions of Congress, I urge my colleagues to keep this important 
distinction in mind.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.
  My opposition is tinged with a measure of regret, for this bill 
contains

[[Page S3685]]

many provisions that I have worked on, first as Ranking member on the 
House International Operations Subcommittee for ten years and for two 
years as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on 
International Operations. This bill consolidates our foreign policy 
apparatus by merging the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the 
United States Information Agency into the State Department--which will 
make our foreign policy machinery run more efficiently.
  With regard to arrearages owed to the United Nations, I supported the 
provisions of this bill--which are similar to provisions in my own UN 
Reform bill--which linked payment of funds owed by the United States to 
the United Nations implementing certain benchmark reforms including a 
reduction in the dues charged to the United States for the United 
Nations regular budget as well as our share of peacekeeping 
assessments.
  I have worked on six State Department authorization bills during my 
time in the Congress and know how difficult a process it is to assemble 
a consensus on the reorganization of the State Department. I was 
extremely pleased that this bill built upon the foundation the Foreign 
Relations Committee laid in the last Congress when I was Chair of the 
International Operations Subcommittee, I worked with Senator Helms on 
these most important foreign policy issues. The work done by Senators 
Helms and Biden on these matters is to be commended.
  However, this bill also contains a provision that would reinstate the 
Mexico City Policy in a way that imposes unacceptable restrictions in 
international family planning efforts. And for that reason I cannot 
support it.
  Mr. President, this issue is often referred to as the ``Mexico City 
policy'' issue because it was at the 1984 United Nations Population 
Conference in Mexico City that the Reagan Administration adopted for 
our international family planning programs a precursor of what became 
known as the ``gag rule'' for our own domestic family planning 
programs. Under the Mexico City policy, the Reagan Administration 
withheld international family planning funds from all groups that had 
even the slightest involvement in legal abortion-related services using 
their own private funds.
  Before I address what I believe to be the most troubling aspects of 
the current version of the ``Mexico City policy,'' let me first 
emphasize that no United States taxpayer funds are being used to pay 
for abortions overseas. Since 1973 an amendment, authored by the 
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, prohibits the use of 
United States funds for abortion services. That needs to be made clear 
in discussing United States funding for international family planning 
efforts.
  However, the current version of the so-called ``Mexico City policy'' 
contained in this bill is most troubling. Foreign nongovernmental 
organizations would still be barred from receiving family planning 
assistance if they, with their own funds, perform legal abortions. 
While the President can waive the ban on the performance of abortions, 
he is prohibited from using waiver authority granted him under section 
614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to permit these groups to 
lobby on abortion matters.
  As Secretary of State Albright noted, this lobby ban ``is basically a 
gag rule that would punish organizations for engaging in the democratic 
process in foreign countries and for engaging in legal activities that 
would be protected by the First Amendment if carried out in the United 
States.''
  Let me take just a moment to illustrate what the practical effect 
this lobbying ban would have on international family planning efforts.
  If a foreign nongovernmental organization, or NGO, were to produce a 
paper that noted that a certain percentage of all maternal deaths in a 
certain part of the world are due to illegal abortion, it would lose 
their US family planning funds. The reason? This paper would be calling 
attention to ``defects'' in abortion laws.
  If the president of an NGO were to give a radio interview and make a 
``public statement'' giving an opinion about his or her nation's own 
abortion law, that NGO would lose its US family planning funds. The 
reason? A question about abortion law was answered on the airwaves.
  These restrictions greatly concern me and they should concern anyone 
interested not only in the free exchange of ideas but the welfare of 
developing nations.
  Ever since the 1974 United Nations Population Conference in 
Bucharest, Romania the United States has been the traditional leader in 
international family planning assistance. Many of the world's 
developing nations at that time perceived family planning to be a 
western effort to reduce the power and influence of Third World 
nations. By the time of the Mexico City Conference ten years later, 
most developing nations had come to understand the importance of 
widely-available, voluntary family planning to their own nation's 
development potential.
  I believe that the absence of family planning assistance may well 
lead to more, not fewer, abortions being performed. If organizations 
such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation would be denied 
United States funds, we would be unable to support some of the most 
effective and capable family planning programs in the developing world. 
These programs are vital in preventing unplanned pregnancies, in 
reducing infant mortality and in promoting maternal and child health.
  I am also troubled by the message that this ``gag rule'' sends to 
nations all around the world about American values that I cherish--
freedom of speech and participation in the political process of one's 
country. Under the restrictions imposed by this bill, a foreign 
nongovernmental organization would be required to remain silent on this 
issue. This restriction on public debate is unhealthy for the 
democratic process and is something Americans would not tolerate if 
attempts were made to impose it here at home.
  Finally, I am troubled by the fact that these restrictions would 
place the weight of the United States government behind efforts to tell 
NGOs what they can and can not do with their own, let me repeat that, 
their own, funds. These groups should not have to check in with the 
United States whenever they wish to issue a public statement, sponsor a 
conference, or distribute materials with their own money.
  Mr. President, international family planning should not be held 
hostage to these restrictions. The benefits of population control are 
substantial. Funds invested in family planning yield savings in 
maternal and child health care costs. Lower population growth rates 
make it easier for developing nations to institute the types of free 
market reforms that offer them their best hope for long-term 
sustainable development. Lower population growth places fewer strains 
on these nations political institutions which means there is less of a 
risk to international stability and peace.
  Lower population growth also places less of a strain on the 
environment. Reduced environmental trauma, improved standards of 
living, and reduced immigration pressures benefit every single living 
person on the planet.
  This conference report endangers all of these potential benefits. For 
this reason I will oppose its adoption and I urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allocated to the Senator from 
Delaware has expired.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. All the President has to do is pull back that flag of 
veto. All the Democrats have to do is to vote for this bill, and then 
we can proceed to work in harmony, as we have previously, leading to a 
90-5 endorsement on this bill on the first go-round.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished assistant 
majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my colleague from North Carolina for his 
work on the State Department reorganization bill. He has worked on it 
for years. He has done good work. It will save taxpayers a lot of money 
and make the State Department more accountable and do a better job.
  We have heard colleagues on the other side say, I will not support it 
because of the so-called abortion provision. The only thing in this 
bill that deals with abortion is that it basically says we don't want 
to have U.S. money used to lobby other countries to change their laws. 
What in the world makes

[[Page S3686]]

people think that we are so right on abortion, this administration's 
philosophy is so right on abortion, we should be lobbying other 
countries to change their position? Some countries are pro-life. They 
have it in their constitution; they have it in their legislature. Why 
should U.S. tax money be used to lobby those countries to change their 
laws? That is a serious mistake--a serious mistake.
  I heard somebody say we haven't changed Mexico City policy. There is 
no restriction in here. These International Planned Parenthoods can use 
their money for abortions overseas. That is not even in this. The only 
restriction is, anybody that received nongovernmental entity can't use 
money to lobby other countries to change their laws and influence other 
countries on abortion. I don't think we should do that. We certainly 
shouldn't have U.S. tax moneys doing that.
  I think this is a decent compromise. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to pass this.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Does the Senator from Delaware have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent for 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know my friend from Oklahoma didn't 
intend to mislead, but there is already a law, the Helms amendment, 
which says no U.S. money can be used for that purpose --no U.S. money.
  What the Mexico City language in this bill says is that these 
nonprofit organizations cannot use their own money, the money they 
raise, in Mexico, in Argentina, in Italy, in France, in China, they 
can't use that money to lobby their government. No U.S. taxpayers' 
dollars are allowed under present law to be used to lobby for abortion, 
period, bang. That is already law. That is the Helms amendment.
  What we are talking about is using their money raised from sources 
other than a contribution from the U.S. taxpayer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, money is fungible. We had the law of the 
land under President Reagan and President Bush for 10 years, 12 years, 
a certain number of those years. No money should be used by these 
organizations if they take U.S. money to fund abortions or to lobby 
governments. Whether it be government money or their money, we said, 
``No; if you are going to get U.S. money, you can't go in and take 
other money and use it to pay for abortions or lobby other countries.''
  Money is fungible, so the net result is, what we are trying to say 
is, wait, if you are going to take U.S. taxpayer dollars, don't use 
money and shuffle money around in accounts and lobbying other countries 
to change their laws. They are representing our Government in many 
cases. If they are getting U.S. taxpayer money and they are lobbying 
and using that money to set up family planning, and they are also 
lobbying, a lot of other countries are going to think that is the U.S. 
Government or would think that is taxpayer dollars. That is a mistake.
  This is a reasonable compromise. I urge my colleagues to pass it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  Mr. HELMS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________