[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H1695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO PREVENT FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION AND 
        THE DANGERS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is 
recognized during morning business for 3 minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, today I am going to be 
introducing legislation with the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella] and the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins] on female 
genital mutilation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the 
Record, and I think it is long overdue that this country prohibits such 
mutilation in this country, and let me do that at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, today I and Representatives Collins of 
Michigan and Morella of Maryland are reintroducing a bill that would 
make it illegal to mutilate women in the name of tradition.
  The practice is called female genital mutilation, a painful ritual 
that involves cutting off all or part of a female's genitalia. Over 100 
million girls and women in the world have undergone some form of FGM, 
and I have received anecdotal reports that it is happening here.
  Our Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 
would make practitioners of FGM subject to criminal penalties. And it 
establishes penalties for physicians who discriminate against women who 
have been subjected to FGM.
  It authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to compile 
data on females living in this country who have been experienced FGM. 
HHS also would identify U.S. communities that practice FGM and educate 
them about its effects on physical and psychological health. Finally, 
the bill would instruct HHS to develop and disseminate recommendations 
for the education of students of schools of medicine and osteopathic 
medicine regarding FGM and its complications.
  These provisions would give doctors and social workers the 
information they need to treat the health needs of women who have 
undergone FGM and begin education to eradicate it in this country.
  FGM is not comparable to male circumcision, unless one considers 
circumcision amputation. FGM causes serious health problems--bleeding, 
chronic urinary tract and pelvic infections, build-up of scar tissue, 
and infertility. Women who have been genitally mutilated suffer severe 
trauma, painful intercourse, higher risk of AIDS, and childbirth 
complications.
  The practice of FGM stems from an intricate mix of traditional 
African perceptions of gender roles, sex, health, local customs, 
superstition, and religion. The net result is total control over a 
woman's sexuality and reproductive system. While we welcome immigrants 
from countries that practice FGM, we do not welcome their practice of 
such mutilation here. FGM has no medical purpose and is contrary to our 
beliefs about women's equality and place in society.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about one other thing because of 
last night. Many people wondered what it was that many of us were 
talking about when we came to the floor last night about this contract. 
As my colleagues know, I felt like road kill on this Gingrich 
revolution that is rolling along, but, when we get to this bill that we 
will be taking up tomorrow, H.R. 7, I have got some very serious 
questions about who is this omniscient soul that wrote this part.
  What it will do, first of all, is allow political appointees to a 
commission to oversee the Defense Department. Now that is a very 
serious thing. When we dealt with this in the National Security 
Committee, no one knew where this came from, and read yesterday's New 
York Times. Let me just read for my colleagues that first paragraph. It 
says:

       This week Congress is going to consider legislation that 
     would undermine this and every future President's ability to 
     safeguard America's security and to command our armed forces.

  Now that is a heavy sentence. It goes on to say:

       The measure is deeply flawed, and it is called the National 
     Security Revitalization Act, but, if adopted, it would do 
     just the opposite and endanger national security.

  I ask, ``Why?'' Do you want political appointees on a commission that 
runs for nothing making these decisions? I do not think so. I mean most 
of us do not want a committee running anything. We all know the joke 
about a camel being a horse designed by a committee. Imagine what kind 
of defense could be designed by political commissions overseeing the 
Pentagon.
  But this goes on to do other things. It mandates that we move forward 
with space-based defense. That could cost at least $40 billion. The 
question is where do we get it. Do we take it out of readiness? We are 
moving forward with theater missile defense, and there seems to be no 
one with the missile capability to shoot this far, so why are we doing 
that, and why are we doing it in such haste, and why when we decided 
not to do that in prior times, when there was a cold war, there is now 
such a rush to do it at this moment?
  We are also announcing unilaterally we will not participate in 
further U.N. peacekeeping operations. Wow, there is something. I ask, 
``Wouldn't we really rather see what those missions were?'' And we 
furthermore dictate to NATO who must be admitted and how they must be 
admitted. That is also wrong.
  I hope everybody reads the New York Times yesterday and takes this 
very seriously because this could be very, very damaging to America's 
future.


                          ____________________