[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5490-H5502]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 155 and rule 
XXIII, the chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1561.

                              {time}  1043


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1561) to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of the 
United States; to authorize appropriations for the Department of State 
and related agencies for fiscal year 1996 and 1997; to responsibly 
reduce the authorizations of appropriations for United States foreign 
assistance programs for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, May 
23, 1995, amendment No. 10, offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton], had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment at 
any point.
  Eight hours and ten minutes remain for consideration of amendments 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Are there further amendments to the bill:


              amendment offered by mr. smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: In title XXI 
     (relating to authorization of appropriations for Department 
     of State and certain international affairs functions and 
     activities) insert at the end the following new chapter.

                     CHAPTER 2--GENERAL LIMITATIONS

     SEC. 2121. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR ABORTION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this 
     Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
     Act for population assistance activities are authorized to be 
     available for any private, nongovernmental, or multilateral 
     organization that, directly or through a subcontractor or 
     subgrantee, performs abortions in any foreign country, except 
     where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
     were carried to term or in cases of forcible rape or incest.
       (2) Paragraph (1) may not be construed to apply to the 
     treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal 
     abortions or to assistance provided directly to the 
     government of a country.
       (b) Limitation on Lobbying Activities.--(1) Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law or of this Act, none of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act for population 
     assistance activities are authorized to be available for any 
     private, nongovernmental, or multilateral organization that 
     [[Page H5491]] violates the laws of any foreign country 
     concerning the circumstances under which abortion is 
     permitted, regulated, or prohibited, or that engages in any 
     activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies 
     of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under 
     which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to activities in 
     opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary 
     sterilizations.

     SEC. 2122, PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR COERCIVE POPULATION 
                   CONTROL METHODS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Act, 
     none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
     are authorized to be available for the United National 
     Population Fund (UNFPA), unless the President certifies to 
     the appropriate congressional committees that--
       (a) the United Nations Population Fund has terminated all 
     activities in the People's Republic of China; or
       (b) during the 12 months preceding such certification there 
     have been no abortions as the result of coercion associated 
     with the family planning policies of the national government 
     or other government entities within the People's Republic of 
     China. As used in this section the term ``coercion'' includes 
     physical duress or abuse, destruction or confiscation of 
     property, loss of means of livelihood, or severe 
     psychological pressure.
       In section 2102(b)(2)(F), delete subsections (iii), (iv), 
     and (v).

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, while the pro-life anti-
abortion policies I seek to reinstate in our foreign aid population 
control programs are not new, recent experience suggests that these 
pro-life provisions are needed now more than ever before. In recent 
months, the Government-imposed nightmare of forced abortion and 
involuntary sterilization in the People's Republic of China has taken 
yet another turn for the worse.

                              {time}  1045

  In February of this year the Government announced a new intensified 
campaign against women who attempt to have a child without explicit 
government permission. According to Steven Mosher, the Director of the 
Asian Studies Center, Claremont Institute, ``China's population control 
policy, which is without question the most coercive in the world, is 
about to become more so.'' Mr. Mosher explains on February 14 the 
Chinese Government announced a new campaign designed to ensure what Mr. 
Mosher termed as the most rigorous enforcement of its 16-year-old one 
child per couple policy.
  By now I think, Mr. Chairman, most people are aware of the fact that 
brothers and sisters are illegal in China, and the one child per couple 
policy instituted in 1979 relies heavily on forced abortion and forced 
sterilizations to achieve its results. Forced abortion, Mr. Chairman, 
is a crime against humanity. This House has gone on record on two 
occasions to condemn it as a crime against humanity, and we recognized 
in those resolutions that just as in the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals 
forced abortion against Polish women was construed to be a crime 
against humanity, forced abortions in China likewise is such a crime, 
and sadly it is on the rise in China and sadly as well the U.N. 
Population Fund is supporting the program to the hilt.
  Arrogant leaders, Mr. Chairman, in Beijing have decreed that children 
should not be born, and the population control cadres march off in 
lockstep to ensure that millions of women every year are shamelessly 
violated and their children are poisoned and dismembered.
  Last week the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human 
Rights which I chair heard expert testimony from Dr. John Aird, the 
former research specialist on China at the United States Census Bureau. 
Dr. Aird, who is an advocate of abortion rights, who does not support 
my view on the right to life, nevertheless testified that the brutal, 
and I quote, ``1991 crackdown is continuing.'' And he also pointed out 
that it took a turn for the worse in February, and I quote that, 
``contrary to the claims of some apologists for the Chinese program, it 
continues to rely on coercive measures to achieve its objective.'' He 
also pointed out in his testimony that the Clinton administration's 
resumption of funding for the U.N. Population Fund was seen by the 
Chinese Government as a ``retreat on the coercion issue and indeed that 
is what it was.''
  Mr. Chairman, a retreat on coercion is a retreat on human rights. It 
is a retreat and abandonment of women who are exploited by their 
government with international organizations joining in and it is a 
retreat from the protection and the advocacy of children.
  The language in the bill now, Mr. Chairman, and the substitute that 
will be offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], would 
codify that retreat by paying lipservice to concerns about coercion, 
all the while facilitating U.S. taxpayer funds to the U.N. Population 
Fund, which unapologetically applauds the Chinese program. Make no 
mistake about it, the substitute will allow the money to get there and 
adds some language that looks good. It is form without substance.
  Let me remind Members that the U.N. Population Fund cannot say enough 
good things about the Chinese program. In 1989, even when many abortion 
advocates in Congress had come to recognize the widespread coercion in 
China, Dr. Sadig, the executive director of UNFPA, continued to defend 
the programs as she does today, but she said at that time, ``the UNFPA 
firmly believes, and so does the Government of the People's Republic of 
China, that their program is a totally voluntary program.'' She also 
said that China has--and she gushed with this--``has every reason to 
feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its 
family planning policy, and control of its population.''
  ``Now the country,'' she goes on to say, ``could offer its 
experiences and special experts to help other countries.'' God forbid 
that that happen, that the Chinese policy, which has pervasive use of 
forced abortion and forced sterilizations, be exported to other 
countries to impose that kind of exploitation on women.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Smith of New Jersey was allowed to proceed 
for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, these kinds of statements make 
a mockery of human rights and the idea that the UNFPA says over and 
over again that the Chinese program is voluntary does not comport with
 reality. It is a whitewash of very, very, serious crimes.

  A police state, I would submit, could not ask for a better front. If 
the U.N. Population Fund was fronting for international terrorists or 
perhaps a drug cartel, we would not hesitate for a moment in 
redirecting U.S. taxpayer funds to more worthy recipients, which is 
exactly what Presidents Reagan and Bush had done when they were in 
office. They, like me and like many Members of Congress, believe that 
fronting for crimes against women and children is unconscionable.
  Mr. Chairman, just let me remind Members, and Mr. Mosher and others 
have pointed this out--and again, he is the one who broke the story 
back in the early 1980's--in China today women who have an unauthorized 
birth, because again the government tells you when and if you can have 
that child. And you are only allowed one, they tell you when and if, 
and if you fight that, women are arrested, they are taken to abortion 
clinics in handcuffs, and they are tied up and they are forcibly 
aborted.
  Pregnant women are routinely incarcerated, embarrassed until they 
acquiesce and make the voluntary decision because they have nowhere 
else to turn. It is not voluntary, it is coercion. They are forced to 
attend study sessions away from their families until they agree to have 
abortions. They are forced to carry out sterilizations without their 
consent. Infants' skulls are crushed, very often late in the term of 
the pregnancy as a routine. Often when children are being born to a 
woman who has an unauthorized child she is carrying. Can you imagine 
it, a country where children are illegal? And here we have--often have 
the injecting of iodine, alcohol, or formaldehyde into the cranium of 
the child as the child is emerging from the womb.
  Also, Amnesty International just came to us with a chilling report on 
[[Page H5492]] how two villages are being focused upon because they 
refuse to comply, and their homes have been bulldozed, their women have 
been raped, and there has been torture to get compliance with forced 
abortions and with the one-child-per-couple policy.
  There is also the issue of missing girls, a whole generation of 
girls, and you are only allowed one. Particularly in the Chinese 
culture, very often boys are the preference, and that is just the way 
they do it, but girls are screened out by way of an ultrasound or some 
other way, and they are killed because they are only allowed one, and 
the families say if they are only allowed one it is going to be a boy. 
There is a whole missing generation of girls. Infanticide is on the 
rise in China.
  We are poised, if the Morella amendment were to pass--and 
unfortunately in the first 2 years of the Clinton administration we are 
giving money to the group that is out there providing tangible 
assistance, people on the ground to help and assist these Chinese 
population-control zealots.
  Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members as well that UNFPA, in addition 
to providing cover and tangible assistance, has pumped over $100 
million into this heinous program, and it is the kind of program that 
only a Nazi could be proud of.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also say that the language that I am offering 
today also would restore longstanding policy as it relates to the so-
called Mexico City policy, which erected a wall of separation between 
family planning and abortion. I remember when President Reagan first 
announced that back in 1984, Members said no one will accept those 
clauses. Well, most of the family planning organizations said we want 
to provide family planning, not abortion, so they accepted it and they 
and their subcontractees decided to get out of the abortion business.
  This is especially important in light of the fact that most of the 
countries of the world protect their unborn children. Between 95 and 
100 nations, virtually all of Central and South America, have laws on 
their books that protect their unborn children. We are out of the 
mainstream of human rights when we put those children at such grave 
risk and allow them to be killed. But let us not export it.
  Again, family planning money during the Reagan and Bush years flowed 
uninterrupted. Only groups like International Planned Parenthood 
Federation of London, a London-based organization, and PPF of America, 
their foreign-based organizations, would not accept it, and I say this 
noting that a number of IPPF affiliates did accept it. They countered 
what the national office was doing and they said we want to provide 
family planning and we want to get out of the abortion business.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that this amendment is 
pro-life. It is backed by all of the pro-life organizations. The 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] I like Connie 
Morella, she is a good friend and colleague--is opposed by all of the 
pro-life organizations. It is form without substance. It repeats some 
of the current law and tries to substitute that with the substantive 
language that we are offering today.
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, first, this amendment was defeated in the Committee on 
International Relations and was proposed by the gentlewoman from Kansas 
[Mrs. Meyers]. I am prochoice, but I am adamantly opposed to forced 
abortions and certainly against sterilization and the policies of the 
Chinese Government on these issues, but neither does the United Nations 
Population Control nor any other multilateral or nongovernmental 
organization working in China fund abortions or support coercive family 
planning practices.
  But because there are forced abortions and sterilizations taking 
place in China, the Congress, this Congress, previously has mandated 
that no United States money provided to the United Nations Population 
Control may be used in China. That is the law today there, and I 
support this approach.
  This amendment is totally unnecessary. It goes far beyond the 
existing law that we have. It has far-reaching implications for all 
United States-supported international health and family planning 
activities.
  The real purpose of this amendment is to cut off all U.S. funding for 
population control worldwide without a doubt.
  The United Nations Population Control is the leading multilateral 
organization providing voluntary family planning services in the 
developing world. In this bill we already repeat existing law, the 
Kemp-Kasten language which ensures that no U.S. money go directly or 
indirectly to support these Chinese programs. This language allows us 
to take a forceful stand against China without undermining overall 
multilateral efforts in population planning worldwide.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, the same as 
they did in committee.


amendment offered by mrs. morella to the amendment offered by mr. smith 
                             of new jersey

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Morella to amendment No. 19 
     offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Page 1, strike line 4 and 
     all that follows and insert the following:
       (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this 
     Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
     Act for population assistance activities are authorized to 
     pay for the performance of abortions in any foreign country, 
     except where the life of the mother would be endangered if 
     the fetus were carried to term or in cases of rape or incest.
       (2) Paragraph (1) may not be construed to apply to the 
     treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by unsafe 
     abortions.
       (b) Limitation on Lobbying Activities.--
       (1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
     this Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act for population assistance activities are authorized 
     to be available for any private, nongovernmental, or 
     multilateral organization that violates the laws of any 
     foreign country concerning the circumstances under which 
     abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited.
       (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this 
     Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
     Act for population assistance activities are authorized to be 
     available to lobby for or against abortion.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to activities in 
     opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

     SEC. 2122. UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND LIMITATIONS ON 
                   FUNDING.

       (a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or of this Act, none of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act are authorized to be available for 
     the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), unless the 
     President certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that--
       (1) either--
       (A) the United Nations Population Fund does not support 
     coercive abortion and that no United States funds have been 
     used for activities in the People's Republic of China; or
       (B) during the 12 months preceding such certification there 
     have been no abortions as a result of coercion associated 
     with the family planning policies of the national government 
     or other governmental entities within the People's Republic 
     of China; and
       (2) the United States representative to the governing board 
     of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has made an 
     official request that UNFPA censure Chinese coercive 
     practices and transmit a report of the action taken on such 
     request to the appropriate congressional committees of the 
     Congress.
       (b) Definition.--As used in this section the term 
     ``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction 
     or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or 
     severe psychological pressure.

  Mrs. MORELLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer this perfecting amendment on 
behalf of the prime sponsor, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], 
who could not be here today because of illness. Mrs. Meyers is a member 
of the committee. The amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] was rejected by the full committee, which supported Mrs. Meyers.
  This perfecting amendment states that no American money may be used 
to perform an abortion overseas except in the case of rape, incest, or 
endangerment of the mother's life. No American money may be used to 
lobby either for or against abortion, and no American money may be 
spent by the UNFPA in China, and further, the [[Page H5493]] United 
States representative to the UNFPA must ask UNFPA to condemn Chinese 
coercion. The bill already reduces our aid to UNFPA by the percentage 
of its budget which the UNFPA spends in China.
  I want to also indicate exactly what it is we are talking about here. 
This is not, Mr. Chairman, whether or not U.S. taxpayers' money should 
be going to pay for abortions. This is already prohibited by current 
law. The Smith amendment strikes directly at women's rights to access 
family planning information, to space and time their pregnancies to 
suit the needs of their families, and to prevent pregnancy if they do 
not want more children. Access to family planning information and 
contraception decreases abortions, and we have many examples of that.
  The amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], by 
cutting out funding of organizations solely because they have an 
opinion on abortion, will deny money to those groups which have been 
most effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

                              {time}  1100

  This proposal is even more extreme than the Reagan administration's 
Mexico City policy that denied funding only to groups which actually 
performed abortions, and this amendment will not just affect groups 
like Planned Parenthood. The provisions threaten any number of 
humanitarian assistance organizations sponsored by prolife religious 
institutions. After all, the U.S. Catholic Conference lobbies on 
abortion. The proposal offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] will deny funds to Catholic Relief Services. The United States 
foreign assistance funds have, to the greatest extent possible, been 
channeled through nongovernmental organizations, because they use the 
money more effectively and with greater accountability than Government 
agencies. The Smith amendment will, by default, require population 
assistance to be channeled through foreign government agencies and less 
of the money will be available to assist those that it is meant to 
assist.
  The amendment that I offer today will maintain current law. No U.S. 
taxpayers' money will be used to finance abortion. That is the current 
law. No U.S. taxpayers' money will be used to lobby for more liberal 
abortion laws. That is already the law. No United States taxpayers 
money will be spent by UNFPA in China. This is currently the law.
  I would like to also point out, Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment is 
extreme because it would defund organizations that perform legal 
abortions or engage in abortion-related advocacy with their own funds. 
It is an attempt to revive the so-called Mexico City policy and place a 
new twist on an old gag rule. It is, in fact, an international gag 
rule. And the gag rule has been repudiated by Congress.
  This version would go far beyond cutting off family planning 
assistance, however. It would cut off any U.S. foreign aid for child 
survival programs, HIV-AIDS prevention programs, and other basic health 
services if a local hospital also provides legal abortion services.
  Similarly, indigenous women's organizations that receive U.S. aid to 
improve, the status of women or to
 promote female literacy would also be defunded if they engage with 
their non-U.S. funds in efforts to influence their own country's 
abortion law either for or against.

  And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment would have no 
impact on access to abortion. Rather, it would only hinder access to 
family planning and other health and development programs centered on 
the needs of women.
  Despite its ostensible goal of reducing abortion, during the time the 
Mexico City policy was in effect, which was 1985 to 1993, there was no 
decrease in the number of abortions worldwide, no decrease.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Morella was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, instead, it perpetuated the situation 
where women resorted to unsafe abortions in the absence of access to 
quality family planning and information about safe abortion. According 
to the World Health Organization, 500,000 women die each year of 
pregnancy-related causes, 99 percent in the developing world, and up to 
one-third of these maternal deaths are attributable to septic or 
incomplete abortion.
  Indeed, the only impact of the old Mexico City policy as well as the 
new, more sweeping version offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] is to interfere with the delivery of effective family 
planning and other development programs whose purpose is to reduce the 
incidence of unwanted pregnancy and the need for abortion. The prime 
target of the amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], 
who is my friend, has offered, the prime target concerning China is the 
United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA. The gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] and the antiabortion movement are using the UNFPA's 
presence in China as a pretext for pressing for United States 
withdrawal from supporting UNFPA altogether, and, indeed, they 
succeeded in convincing some administrations to boycott UNFPA for 
almost a decade until funding was resumed by the Congress, with the 
support of the administration, in 1994.
  Operating in over 140 countries, besides China, UNFPA is the 
principal multilateral organization providing worldwide family planning 
and population assistance. Nearly half of UNFPA assistance is used for 
family planning services and maternal and child health care in the 
poorest and most remote regions of the world. And since its founding, 
UNFPA has saved the lives of countless women and children.
  And I, frankly, think the amendment is unnecessary. Current law 
already denies foreign aid funding to any organization or program that 
supports or participates in the management of a program of coerced 
abortion or involuntary sterilization, and this is in any country under 
the so-called Kemp-Kasten amendment, which is restated in H.R. 1561.
  And, further, current law also ensured that none of the United States 
contributions to UNFPA may be used in its China program, including 
numerous penalties for any violation of this requirement.
  So, current restrictions and conditions are reiterated in H.R. 1561, 
as amended by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Myers], in committee. 
So, frankly, for that and a lot of other reasons, if we want to avoid 
abortions, if we want to allow these organizations to help women and 
children in countries throughout the world, then I ask this body to 
vote for the Morella-Meyers-Porter-Gilman amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in sharp opposition to the amendment 
to the amendment.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, if you think abortion is a 
good idea or if you think it is a neutral idea or if you think it is an 
acceptable solution to unwanted pregnancies, then this amendment is for 
you.
  But if you are troubled by abortion, if you understand the difference 
between family planning, which prevents a conception from occurring, or 
facilitate one if you want to get pregnant, as distinguished from 
abortion, which kills the life of an unborn child once it has begun, 
and those are the words of Planned Parenthood, which used them in a 
brochure for some years until they got into the business of promoting 
abortions, then they backed away from it, abortions kill a human life. 
They do not kill an animal, a vegetable or a mineral. And so it you 
think that is a good idea and a helpful idea, there are just too many 
people in the world and once they get created in the womb, exterminate 
them, then this is a good amendment.
  But if you do not think American money should go to pay for 
exterminating unborn children, this is a terrible amendment and ought 
to be opposed.
  Now, family planning is one thing. This country supports family 
planning. But it should not and ought not, and by defeating this 
amendment will not, support abortion. And those are 2 different ideas. 
One prevents a conception; the other exterminates it once it has 
begun. [[Page H5494]] 
  In this country, now, following, Roe versus Wade, we have had over 33 
million abortions. Is that a figure to be proud of?
  I hope and pray and believe that this Congress will back away funding 
organizations that support abortion.
  Now, the UNFPA, with all of its gimmicks and its semantic gymnastics, 
at the end of the day they support the Chinese coerced abortion policy. 
Nothing is more evil or inhuman that coercing a woman to have an 
abortion because it conflicts with the population policy. And yet that 
is what China does, and that is what the UNFPA supports.
  Oh, they have a bookkeeping gimmick, but money is fungible, and that 
would not deceive anybody, and it ought not deceive you.
  Now, we support population control if it is done through family 
planning, and by withdrawing the money from the UNFPA, there are still 
some 350 family planning organizations that will receive the largesse, 
the taxpayers' money to pay for family planning around the world. But 
the two organizations that do not want to take the money under those 
terms are International Planned Parenthood and the Planned Parenthood 
Federation of America. Well, they get plenty of money from other 
sources, from the abortion culture. Let them get it. But the taxpayers 
ought to make sure their money does not go to support killing unborn 
children.
  And, therefore, I urge you, with all the vigor I can muster, to 
reject the Morella amendment. I mean no reflection on the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] or her cosponsors, who are all wonderful 
people. They just are not as offended by abortion as I am, and I hope 
this amendment will be defeated.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment and 
in support of the Morella perfecting amendment. The Smith amendment 
would do nothing to stop China's policy of coerced abortions to which I 
object just as strongly as does the gentleman from New Jersey. It is 
merely an attack on international family planning efforts which I 
strongly support.
  The coercive abortion policy in China violates all principles of a 
modern society. Despite overwhelming evidence of forced abortions and 
involuntary sterilization, the Chinese Government denies it is 
conducting a campaign of intimidation and violence against the Chinese 
people. We must condemn this brutal policy, which deprives families of 
real choices and threatens hundreds of thousands of lives. We must 
ensure that no United States funds contribute to China's repression and 
violation of individual liberties.
  That is why we have a compromise that strikes a sensible balance 
between the need to censure China for its deplorable policies, while 
restoring the United States commitment to critical family planning 
programs in other nations that are trying hard to struggle with 
exponential population growth which makes their economic development 
goals even more difficult to meet. The family planning portion of the 
bill before us today accomplishes these goals. It imposes strong 
policies to confront the abuses, and imposes tough restrictions on the 
use of United States funds. We continue to ensure that no UNFPA would 
be used in China.
  One of the most important forms of aid we promise to other countries 
is family planning assistance. No one can deny that the need for family 
planning services in developing countries is urgent and the aid we 
provide is both valuable and worthwhile.
  The world's population is growing at an unprecedented rate. In 40 
years our planet's population will more than double as a responsible 
world leader, the United States must do more to deter the 
environmental, political, and health consequences of this explosive 
growth.
  And let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women 
around the world. Complications of pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe 
abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age 
throughout the third world. One million women die each year as a result 
of reproductive health problems.
  Each year, 250,000 women die from unsafe abortion.
  Only 20 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia receive prenatal 
care.
  Five hundred million married women want contraceptives but cannot 
obtain them.
  Most of these disabilities and deaths could be prevented.
  Today we have the opportunity to ensure funding for the United 
Nations populations fund, funding which has been held hostage to anti-
abortion politics in the past. Today, we can make a real difference in 
the lives of millions of women, and the future of our planet.
  Yet despite the opportunity to make real progress in world health, 
some would punish UNFPA, developing nations, and many other public 
health organizations around the world for China's policies. Approval of 
the Smith amendment would mean denying funds not only for UNFPA, but 
for critical projects all over the world.
  Let us be frank. The language currently in the foreign aid bill makes 
clear that no United States funds shall be used in China. A vote for 
the Smith amendment is a vote against sensible, cost-effective 
international family planning programs.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment. And support the 
Morella perfecting amendment.
                              {time}  1115

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee I rise in strong support 
of the Smith amendment and in opposition to the Morella amendment, and 
I would also like to make clear that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], who spoke so eloquently just a few minutes ago, when he was 
speaking out against the amendment, he was referring to the Morella 
amendment. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] strongly supports the 
Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is one of the 
great leaders of the pro-life movement, along with the gentleman from 
Illinois, Mr. Hyde and also the gentlewoman from Nevada, Mrs. 
Vucanovich, who will be speaking shortly, and I want to commend all 
three of them for their commitment over the years to the defense of the 
innocent unborn.
  This amendment will simply restore the pro-life policies that served 
as the basis for U.S. international population policy during the Reagan 
and Bush administrations. Even though the American people strongly 
oppose the use of tax dollars for abortions, the Clinton administration 
has embarked on a worldwide crusade to promote abortion in the 
developing world. The Smith amendment attempts to curb that crusade by 
preventing U.S. tax dollars from going to any private, nongovernmental 
or multilateral organization that directly or indirectly performs 
abortions in foreign countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Smith amendment is a sensible 
amendment, it is a much-needed amendment, and it is the right thing to 
do. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Morella substitute and in 
support of the Smith amendment and to compliment my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], on his sustained, vigorous and 
forthright leadership on the issue of opposition to abortions performed 
with U.S. funds overseas. He has been vigilant on this issue and has 
led the way on the committee and in the House year after year.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow U.S. funds to be used for population 
control programs in other countries where abortion is the means of 
population control. it is just that simple.
  If we do not support such policies at home, and we do not--
consistently under the Hyde language year after year we have opposed 
the funding of abortions with U.S. taxpayer dollars here at home--we 
should not be promoting such practices or allowing such practices to 
take place overseas. An unborn human being is still a human being 
whether American, or Chinese, or African, or wherever in the world.
  Clearly the language offered by our colleague from Maryland would 
open the way for funds to be moved from one account to another, would 
make, as the technicians say, those monies fungible [[Page H5495]] to 
be used for abortion support activities in other countries, and 
particularly in China. The language in the bill is insufficient to 
prevent the use of Federal funds for abortions overseas.
  The Smith amendment will tighten that language up, will make it very 
clear that no U.S. funding to any private, nongovernmental or 
multilateral organization that directly or indirectly provides funding 
for or performs abortions in a foreign country can be supported with 
U.S. taxpayer dollars in our foreign aid program. That principle should 
be maintained, should be set forth very clearly in law, and the Smith 
amendment will do so.
  Support the Smith amendment. Defeat the Morella amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the committee did not include in its bill a 
prohibition on funding for the UNFPA, nor did it impose the Mexico City 
prohibitions on what international family planning organizations can do 
with their own funds overseas. The Smith amendment was specifically not 
adopted by the committee, and for good reason, because it is not in the 
best interests of the United States, and that is what any foreign 
policy bill is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States is the largest international donor of 
funds for voluntary family planning. We recognize that a host of 
international issues, including economic development, immigration, 
political stability, health, and the environment are all linked to 
population. Providing targeted family planning assistance to nations 
that request it is in our Nation's interest.
  The U.S. voluntary family planning program is a proven success. In 
Kenya there was a 20-percent reduction in family size in just 4 year, 
done through voluntary family planning. In Bangladesh the contraceptive 
prevalence rate went from 5 percent in 1975 to 40 percent in 1993, and 
there was a decline in fertility from 6.7 births per woman to 4.9, 
voluntarily. In Egypt the average number of children per family has 
declined from 5.8 to 3.9 between 1960 and 1994 through voluntary family 
planning.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] aims at an egregious 
practice of coercive abortion in China that all of us deplore, but the 
Smith amendment guts United States bilateral and multilateral 
population programs, and it would first effectively cut off all United 
States funds to UNFPA, which operates not in China alone, but in 140 
developing countries, including the poorest countries in the world, 
only one of which is engaged in coercive practices. He claims correctly 
that China is engaged in a regime of coercive family planning 
practices, but he would condition all United States contributions to 
UNFPA on its pulling out of China, and there is not anybody who does 
not understand that a U.N. agency cannot pull out of a member country. 
It cannot unilaterally pull out of China.
  Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment is a killer amendment for all U.S. 
family planning programs.
  The UNFPA activity in China is minuscule, and very little, or none, 
of it goes to support the Government. The UNFPA is not supporting 
coercive practices. It has a total annual budget of $275 million. Only 
$4 to $5 million goes to China. China's own family planning 
expenditures are $1 billion a year. UNFPA is not part of the problem in 
China, it is part of the solution.
  Mr. Chairman, the Morella amendment would prohibit any United States 
funding going to UNFPA unless the President would certify that the 
UNFPA does not support coercive abortions in China. That is a 
reasonable way to approach the problem.
  The bill also contains language walling off all United States funds 
into a separate account that cannot be used in China, and United States 
law has long prohibited funds in this bill from being used to perform 
abortions overseas.
  These are reasonable protections. They ensure that U.S. funds are not 
used for coercion or for abortions, but allow truly voluntary family 
planning programs, the ones that we supported in 139 other countries, 
to continue, all of which would be cut off if the Smith amendment were 
to be adopted.
  Second, the Smith amendment prohibits U.S. funds from going to the 
most active and effective voluntary family planning organizations 
overseas, including Planned Parenthood, and it reinstates the so-called 
Mexico City language keeping AID from
 funding the most experienced, successful NGO's in family planning.

  The Smith amendment keeps U.S. funds from going to entities that use 
their own funds for performing abortions or for engaging in any 
activity or effort to alter the laws of any foreign country concerning 
the circumstance under which abortion is performed, regulated, or 
prohibited.
  This is, in effect, an international gag rule.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not say or support abortion as a legitimate 
family planning method; it is certainly not, and we do not fund it. But 
this amendment keeps organizations from promoting their own agenda with 
their own funds.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. PORTER. It is the equivalent of in the United States prohibiting 
hospitals using title X funds on the first floor from performing 
privately funded abortions on the third floor. Existing law already 
prohibits U.S. funds from going for abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that the Smith amendment is extreme, it 
prevents organizations from using their own funds for their own legal 
purposes, and it would, together with the part dealing with UNFPA, 
effectively destroy U.S. voluntary family planning programs in 139 
countries that depend upon our support and are making real progress in 
this area voluntarily, not with coercion.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the Morella 
amendment and in very, very strong support of the Smith amendment.
  As a background, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I 
spent a week in China, the week we went into Beijing Prison No. 1, but 
we interviewed all of the population people in China, and what they are 
doing is abysmal, it is just a disgrace. I say to my colleagues, ``If 
you look at the statement by Director of UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, she said 
China has every reason to feel proud and pleased with its remarkable 
achievements made in family planning policy and control of its 
population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer 
its experience and especially experts to help other countries.''
  That is crazy. Let me tell my colleagues what we have now found out. 
We have found out in China, and I am not going to show this picture, 
but I will show it to any Member that wants to see it, but we have 
found out in China that in government hospitals, because of their 
forced abortion policies, they are selling, and I would urge all 
Members to read this article from Eastern Express that says embryonic 
food of life; they are selling aborted fetuses, or frankly they are 
selling aborted babies for money, for about $1.25 in Hong Kong money. 
This money will be used by the Chinese indirectly to literally track 
down women. We have heard, Chris and I, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] and I have heard, of cases whereby they literally track 
down women in the villages, and bring them in and force them to have an 
abortion.
  This is a fundamental, important vote; it is much more important than 
population control. Let me just say, too, that I support birth control, 
I support money for birth control to India and places like that unable 
to gain control of the population, but under no circumstances would I 
ever support, nor should this Congress support, nor should any Member 
support, giving any American taxpayer money indirectly that goes to 
China.
  Here is a picture of what is not bad to show, of a young lady 
leaving, leaving with a container of aborted babies, leaving to go to 
Hong Kong. I say to my colleagues, ``When you read this story and look 
at these pictures, which [[Page H5496]] I will not show, they will make 
you sick.''
  This is a vote on a fundamental, ethical, moral issue. Under no 
circumstances should any American money go to UNPF and then go to 
China.
  So, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is right, and I commend 
him for offering this, and I urge all my colleagues, those who have 
been following this issue and those who may be new, this is a vote that 
will be watched. The Chinese Government will watch what we will do, and 
by voting for the Smith amendment we will send the strongest possible 
message we can to the Chinese Government that their policy of tracking 
women down, of forced abortions, of selling aborted babies, is 
fundamentally wrong, and we will support it in no way. A vote for the 
Smith amendment is a vote, I think, to help a lot of people.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. I have a great deal of 
respect for the gentlewoman from Maryland, but I truly believe she is 
wrong on this amendment. The Morella amendment would facilitate 
taxpayer funding to organizations which provide and promote abortion on 
demand.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith]. Now, some may claim that this amendment is a gag 
rule on family planning assistance. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. This amendment would not prevent groups from merely advising 
women as to what the laws are in each country regarding abortion. 
Furthermore, abortion is not considered a family planning method and 
should not be promoted as one, especially by the United States. 
Recently the State Department decided that the promotion of abortion 
should be a priority in advancing U.S. population-control efforts. This 
is unacceptable to the millions of Americans who do not view abortion 
as a legitimate method of family planning and do not support Federal 
funding of abortion except to save the life of the mother or in cases 
of rape and incest.
  This is just one reason why this amendment is important. This 
amendment will simply ensure that none of the moneys sent to the UNPF 
may be used to fund any private, nongovernmental, or multilateral 
organization that directly or through a subcontractor performs 
abortions in any foreign country--except to save the life of the mother 
or in cases of rape and incest.
  Most recipients of U.S. population assistance readily agreed to these 
terms from 1984 to 1993 and this amendment does not reduce the funding 
level for real international population assistance.
  In a time when 69 percent of the American public opposes Federal 
funding for abortion this amendment is desperately needed to clarify 
congressional intent so that it cannot be disregarded by those who seek 
to fund abortion on demand throughout the world. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Smith amendment to H.R. 1561.
                              {time}  1130

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Morella amendment and, 
regretfully, in opposition to the Smith amendment. It is with the 
highest regard for the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and others 
who support his amendment that I beg to differ.
  I share the gentleman's concern about the number of abortions that 
occur in our country, and I believe that if some strong language has 
been used in this debate already, and I will use a couple strong words 
too, one being hate, which I do not like to use, but if you hate 
abortion, as we all do, I think you should love family planning, 
because this is the way that we can reach the goals that I believe we 
all share, which is to decrease the number of abortions that occur in 
our country and in the world.
  The Morella amendment reasserts the restriction against any U.S. 
funds being used to fund abortion except where the life of the mother 
would be endangered. No taxpayer dollars should be used to fund 
abortion, nor would they be. The amendment also reasserts the 
restriction against U.S. funds being used for lobbying on the abortion 
issue. The Morella amendment further reasserts our strong opposition to 
the coercive population practices in China.
  On the Smith amendment, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is inappropriate 
to pass this amendment because there are some general setbacks that we 
would suffer should it become the law. Stabilizing population growth is 
vital to U.S. national interests. Rapid population expansion is a major 
source of political instability in developing countries as well as a 
drain on the global environment. That does not mean that we perform 
abortions in order to control population growth. It means that we 
should instead be educating people in methods of family planning so 
that we, again, can control population growth and reduce the number of 
abortions.
  Rapid population growth makes successful development and 
democratization much less likely. It reduces the quality and 
availability of health services, limits employment opportunities, and 
undermines economic and social progress. There has been tremendous 
progress already achieved in stabilizing world population, but we can 
do better and indeed we must.
  The new international consensus in support of population planning 
provides an opportunity to achieve global population stabilization 
within the next generation. Existing law already prohibits the use of 
U.S. funds for abortion-related activities. For 20 years there has been 
a protection in law and policy against using U.S. funds to pay for or 
advocate abortion.
  U.S. population programs focus on providing quality voluntary family 
planning services. They are directed toward improving maternal and 
child care of health, slowing the spread of AIDS and HIV and enhancing 
access to basic education. Population programs work. Since the 1960's, 
births for women in developing countries have dropped by 37 percent, 
child mortality by 50 percent, and primary school enrollment is up by 
38 percent. U.S. assistance has played an important role in these 
achievements.
  As I said before, there are already strict prohibitions in U.S. 
funding for abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or 
coerce any person to practice abortion. Also, there are strict 
prohibitions against funding for organizations that support and 
participate in the management of coercive abortion or in voluntary 
sterilization. There are existing provisions in the law that prohibit 
the use of Federal funds for lobbying on abortion.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that, similar to that, 
indigenous women's organizations that receive U.S. aid to improve the 
status of women or to promote female literacy would also be defunded if 
they engage with their non-U.S. funds, with their non-U.S. funds, in 
efforts to influence their own country's abortion laws, either for or 
against.
  Those are some of the reasons I urge my colleagues to support the 
Morella amendment and oppose the Smith amendment.
  On the subject of China, I am adamantly, as all of our colleagues 
have declared, adamantly opposed to forced abortion and sterilization 
and to policies of the Chinese Government on these issues. Neither the 
UNFPA nor other multilateral or multigovernment organizations working 
in China fund abortion or support coercive family planning practices. 
But because forced abortion and sterilization may be taking place in 
China, and indeed I believe they are, the Congress has mandated that no 
United States money provided to UNFPA may be used in China. I support 
this approach. This amendment, the Smith amendment, has far reaching 
implications for all U.S.-supported health and family planning 
activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Morella amendment 
and reluctantly to oppose the Smith amendment.
  The real purpose of this amendment is to cut off U.S. funding for 
UNFPA. UNFPA is the leading multilateral organization providing 
voluntary family planning services in the developing world.
  In this bill, we already repeat existing law (the Kemp-Kasten 
language) which ensures [[Page H5497]] that no United States money 
directly or indirectly supports the Chinese program. This language 
allows us to take a forceful stand concerning China, without 
undermining overall multilateral efforts in population planning.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have now gone 50 minutes with regard to 
this issue. We have about three speakers on our side. I think the other 
side has about three speakers. I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment be limited to 12 noon today, and that the time be 
equally divided between both sides of the issue. This is with regard to 
the Smith amendment and all amendments thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time will be equally divided between the minority 
and the majority to manage.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 
time on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who will control time for the majority?
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will control the time until the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] returns.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. The amendment continues the 
policy of preventing funds provided to UNFPA from being spent in China. 
Further, the United States representative to the UNFPA must seek 
condemnation of China's coercive population policy, and the amendment 
prevents funds to groups that lobby for changes in abortion laws in 
other countries. It does just about everything that anybody wants it to 
do.
  This amendment is the reasonable approach that our foreign policy 
should take with respect to family planning programs. The aid provided 
by the United States for the purpose of improving knowledge and access 
to family planning methods is an important investment in helping people 
improve the quality of their lives.
  Just listen to some of these statistics. In 1830, the world's 
population reached 1 billion people. Today the world's population is 
close to 6 billion people. In the year 2020, 8 billion people are 
expected to live on earth. In 40 years the population is expected to 
double, to about 12 billion people. During the years 2000 to 2025, the 
poorest countries will grow the fastest, accounting for 5.1 billion 
people of the world's population.
  Twenty-five percent of the Earth is land, and that is where we live. 
We do not have that much room on the planet.
  Mr. Chairman, population conferences such as the Bucharest 
Conference, the Mexico City Conference, and the Cairo Conference in 
1994, all became mired in this controversy about the abortion issue. I 
really think it is time, people are pleading with us around the world 
and people are pleading with us in this country, it is time for us to 
stop the argument and for those who are pro-choice, if I can label 
that, and pro-life, if I can label that, to get together and think of 
creative, thoughtful solutions to this most difficult problem.
  I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber that favors abortion. 
But the people who are discussing this issue today recognize the 
serious, severe potential calamity if we do not reduce the number of 
people, the huge burgeoning population growth, especially in 
underdeveloped countries, where they will never have an economy that 
can support the people, they do not have resources right now that can 
support their population.
  So it is necessary for us to sit down together, pro-choice people, 
pro-life people, and think of thoughtful, creative solutions that can 
solve the problem, so that abortions will become unnecessary as a 
result of the funds that we provide through education.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman from 
Maryland's amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment and in 
strong opposition to the Morella amendment, and to make three very 
brief points.
  First, I think we need to approach this, every time the word 
``abortion'' is mentioned on this floor, with tremendous compassion for 
the victims of abortion that are walking around today. Unfortunately, 
most of us have had experience with abortion. Somewhere in the family 
there is somebody hurting from this tragedy of abortion. So every time 
it comes up on the floor, I think it is important to indicate 
compassion for those for whom this is a very painful memory. The 
question then becomes why would we export this pain to other countries?
  The second point I would like to make is, is it not wonderful to have 
a bipartisan discussion here? It is sort of a break here on the floor 
where you have Republicans and Democrats of good faith working together 
to restore the right policy created in 1984 under Ronald Reagan.
  The third point I would like to make is money is fungible. Any time 
you have funding for a program, the money is fungible. That means if 
the money comes to that program, yes, it may be restricted so that it 
cannot go directly to abortion services, but since money is fungible, 
it means it frees up other money of that program to go into the 
provision of those services.
  It is very important that we understand what is at stake here. We 
simply want to return to the Mexico City policy enunciated by President 
Reagan in 1984 that we will not use taxpayer funded dollars to fund any 
program in any foreign country that provides abortion services. So it 
is a very simple point here. What the Morella amendment would like to 
do is change that policy or actually preserve the now existing policy 
that we will fund those programs. I believe very strongly we should 
return to that Mexico City policy and not fund programs that provide 
abortion services.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and ask unanimous consent 
that she be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the 
Morella amendment to the Smith language.
  I believe that every Member of this body who calls him or herself 
pro-choice should be a yes vote on the Morella amendment but so should 
every Member of this body who calls him or herself pro-life but also 
supports family planning, who also supports child survival programs 
around the world.
  The language in the bill gives every Member of this body who is pro-
life anything they could possibly want. It prohibits use of U.S. funds 
for abortion. But it also, unfortunately, produces a result that no 
Member of this body could possibly want, and that is to deny life 
saving services to innocent people around the world, many of them 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, whether we are talking about a hospital in Russia, a 
community center in India or Bangladesh, a hospital in Kenyatta, where 
on one side of the hospital, with private funds, abortions are being 
performed and they will continue to be performed with or without this 
language, precisely because those nations lack family planning 
services. And on the other side of the hospital services are being 
provided that all of the Members in support of my friend's amendment 
say they support, family planning services, also providing services of 
child nutrition, child inoculation, services to save young lives.
  This amendment would cut off funds to those institutions, simply 
because in another wing of the hospital, unrelated [[Page H5498]] to 
those services, not using American money at all, abortions are 
performed.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, those of us who do not want to see 
abortion used as a method of birth control or family planning but do 
want to see that family planning continues internationally along with 
American funds for child survival programs should support the Morella 
amendment. The Morella amendment amending the Smith amendment is a good 
compromise that we should all support.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my friends 
that on the Child Survival Program, I take a back seat to nobody. In 
the mid-1980's, I authored the continuation of that program and made 
sure that money for immunization and oral rehydration and the like was 
available.
  This language comports, I am not talking about the Morella language, 
the Smith language, with that whole idea that children born and unborn 
are precious and valuable. When the Mexico City policy was in effect 
during the Reagan and Bush years, child survival was not hurt. Family 
planning organizations had agreed to put a wall of separation between 
abortion, and family planning got their money. Only the crusaders for 
abortion disqualified themselves by not agreeing to the walls.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] has 
5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith 
amendment and strongly oppose the Morella amendment.
  The Smith amendment is a straightforward attempt to make sure that 
the American people are not forced to use their tax dollars to 
subsidize abortions around the world. I think all Americans, virtually 
all Americans, no matter where they stand on the issue of abortion, 
agree that millions of abortions around the world is a human tragedy 
and what makes this tragedy even worse is the fact that some nations 
impose abortion.
  The Chinese population control policy forces women to have abortions. 
I can think of few established policies that are more antiwoman or 
policies that are making women victims.
  This is not about family planning. Most Americans support responsible 
family planning. But support for family planning does not mean support 
for subsidizing abortions around the world. There is no reason why this 
Congress should continue to provide financial support for these types 
of international organizations.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Morella amendment to the Smith amendment. Family planning money 
that the United States contributes annually to the United Nations 
Population Fund has had an extremely positive impact in developing 
countries throughout the world. In the 28 countries with the largest 
U.S. AID-sponsored family planning programs, the average number of 
children born per family has dropped from six in the 1960's to about 
four today, a decline of nearly one-third.
  Providing women with the means to control fertility enables them to 
better provide for the children they choose to have. Thailand has made 
controlling the rate of population growth a priority issue in their 
development, and it has paid off. The average number of children born 
to Thai women has declined from 6 in the 1960's to the replacement 
level of 2.1 now. That means better health; that means less poverty; 
that means less tragedy in the lives of women and children in Thailand 
and a far better future for everyone.
  Let me point out to my colleagues that current law already prohibits 
the use of U.S. funds to either pay for or lobby for abortion. We do 
not need the Smith amendment. The Smith amendment, however, would cut 
off all foreign aid not just for family planning but to any 
organization that performs abortions so that local hospitals throughout 
the world that legally perform abortions would be denied any foreign 
aid for child nutrition programs, disease prevention or other basic 
health services for women and families, simply because those 
institutions, according to their national law, perform abortions.
  This is tragic. This is a stunning example of U.S. hubris that we are 
willing to micromanage the domestic and health policies of developing 
nations.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Morella amendment, maintain the 
ban against any U.S. dollars for abortion, maintain the ban against any 
U.S. dollars used to lobby for abortion, but preserve health services 
for women and children and population growth programs, population 
control programs throughout the world.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, when President Clinton took office in 1993, 
he changed U.S. family planning policy overseas in fundamental ways.
  He reinterpreted law with regard to funding for the U.N. Population 
Fund so that United States dollars could be used in China, where it is 
well-known that a brutal and coercive birth quota policy is in place.
  Clinton also outright repealed the Mexico City policy, which 
prohibited United States funding from going to nongovernmental 
organizations which perform abortions and which lobby internationally 
for the repeal of laws protecting unborn children and their mothers 
from abortion.
  Now, regardless of one's personal view of whether abortion is right 
or wrong, one generally agreed-upon principle is that taxpayers' 
dollars should not be used for its promotion. These drastic policy 
changes made by the Clinton administration completely fly in the face 
of this principle.
  The Smith amendment contains nothing radical--it simply puts into law 
what was practiced prior to Clinton's coming to office. It is Clinton's 
policy that is radical, forcing U.S. taxpayers to fund organizations 
that promote or lobby for abortion as a method of family planning 
overseas.
  To my colleagues, I say let us stick to the principle that has served 
U.S. family planning funding overseas well for so many years--that 
taxpayers should not be forced to support coercive population control 
or the promotion of abortion as a method of family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Morella amendment and a 
``yes'' vote on the Smith amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  This debate has nothing to do with family planning. It has everything 
to do with coerced family planning. The Smith amendment has everything 
to do with funding of forced abortions and everything to do the use of 
American taxpayer dollars to support organizations which perform 
abortions overseas and which lobby for pro-abortion policies.
  As my colleague from Texas just pointed out, the Smith amendment 
reenacts, simply reenacts, a policy which was in effect during the 
Reagan and Bush years. I hope my colleagues can agree that the United 
States should not be spending American taxpayer dollars promoting 
abortion anywhere or promoting China's forced abortion policy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Morella amendment and to 
vote ``yes'' on the Smith amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] for her leadership on this issue.
  I simply ask the question, Mr. Chairman, are we in fact our brothers' 
and sisters' keepers? And yes, we are. This Nation has been in the 
forefront of [[Page H5499]] seeking peace but as well of helping those 
who cannot help themselves. Unless we implement the Morella amendment, 
139 countries across this world will lose opportunities for informed, 
educated family planning. And yes, millions of families across this 
international family will lose the opportunity to be informed and 
educated about the ability to do wise family planning.
  Where are we in this instance? Are we willing then to cause the 
annihilation of young children, through hunger and disease simply 
because we have not further informed these families of the 
opportunities of sure family planning?
  Mr. Chairman, this is a wise amendment. I encourage us to support the 
Morella amendment that aids us in providing support for our brothers 
and sisters across the world for family planning.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who has been an outstanding advocate for the 
pro-life position.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Morella 
amendment and in support of the Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to give my strong support to the Smith 
amendment to the bill which codifies the Mexico City policy and 
prohibits funding to the U.N. Fund for Population Activities unless 
that organization discontinues all activities in China.
  During the 1970's and early 1980's, foreign nongovernment 
organizations were the major source of funding for a number of groups 
which promoted abortion and the legalization of abortion in developing 
countries. Adopted in 1984, the Mexico City policy substantially 
changed the United States position on funding such organizations by 
stipulating that the Agency for International Development will NOT fund 
any private organization which participates in performing or promoting 
abortion as a method of family planning.
  A year later, in 1985, the House approved the Kemp-Kasten amendment 
which denies funds to organizations that support coercive population 
programs. Funding is denied the UNFPA due to its active participation 
in China's population control program--its one-child-per-family 
program.
  Today, the Clinton administration is conducting an ideological 
crusade to expand access to abortion throughout the developing world. 
The Clinton administration's policy was announced by Under Secretary 
Tim Wirth in a speech to a U.N. population meeting in 1993. Mr. Wirth 
stated that the Clinton administration's position was to, ``support 
reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion'' and to make 
such ``reproductive choice'' available to every woman by the year 2000.
  It is inconceivable to me that as we debate the American Overseas 
Interest Act--a bill which attempts to support basic human rights 
across the globe--that the Congress would even consider denying the 
most basic human right, LIFE.
  Mr. Smith's amendment will codify the Mexico City policy and ensure 
that United States tax dollars do not support China's coercive 
population control policies. The Smith amendment is not a gag rule and 
will have no effect on private organizations that merely advise, 
counsel, or refer women for whatever types of abortions are legal 
within a given country. Rather, the Smith amendment will simply ensure 
that the United States will not pay for abortions or impose a 
proabortion doctrine in foreign countries.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment. The right to 
life is the most fundamental human right--both here and abroad.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Morella amendment 
and in favor of the Smith amendment.
  I would like to cut through all the rhetoric that has been heard here 
today for a little over the last hour and put it very simply. If you 
are in favor of using taxpayers money to kill babies, then I say vote 
for Morella. If you are in favor of saving those babies and not using 
taxpayers money to kill babies, then I say vote for Smith.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey and 
the proponents of the Smith approach have some obligation to explain to 
the body the effectiveness of their strategy.
  Coercive abortion and coercive policies are going on in China. We 
pulled out for many years. Nothing changed. Things got worse. 
Meanwhile, you cut out a whole bunch of positive, important profamily 
planning programs all over the world.
  The Morella amendment in this bill reduces the amendment by the 
amendment they put in to China, requires them not to support any 
process and allows the other programs to go on. You cannot keep pushing 
things on rhetorical and ideological basis without some look at the 
consequences of what you are doing. Your policy did not work. You tried 
it. China went on, continued to do it, and all you have done is hurt 
important and good programs all around the world.
  I urge a vote for the Morella amendment and defeat the Smith 
amendment.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington [Mrs. Smith], who is a strong advocate of life.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about a woman who, except for being in 
another country, would look a lot like me. Her name is Chee An. She is 
a Chinese citizen. I want to give the Members her words as she came 
back from an abortionist.
  She said:

       The population control official gave me an ultimatum. ``I 
     have made an appointment for you tomorrow at 8 a.m.,'' she 
     told me. ``If you miss it, the party secretary swears the 
     consequences will be serious.'' I knew I had no choice, and 
     the next morning, escorted by the population control 
     officials, I went to the hospital. The following days passed 
     in a haze of emotional pain.

  I want to tell the Members, under the Smith amendment we would be 
assured that our tax dollars would not go to that. I ask American women 
to listen carefully. After Clinton changed the policy, money can be 
shifted and shuffled to where money that is given for birth control, as 
we know it, IUDs, condoms, and such, forces women like Chian into 
stirrups.
  I will tell the Members, I started in the proabortion, and none of us 
ever believed our tax dollars would go to forcing a woman into 
stirrups. I have to tell the Members, if there is one woman that is 
kept from this inhumane position, we have done great things today by 
passing the Smith amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, 95 nations, including all, I repeat all, of Latin 
America, most of Africa, and much of the rest of the developing world 
have laws that are protective of unborn children. We have allowed our 
own proabortion laws to undermine American values at the expense of 
4,000 children killed every day. The Clinton administration arrogantly 
believes we should require this poison to be spread to other nations. 
We need to defeat the Morella amendment and pass the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], our outstanding leader.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues how they would think 
they would feel if they, their loves ones, including families and 
friends, were forced to live in a land where brothers and sisters were 
officially declared illegal; where only one child per couple is 
permitted; where children, if not explicitly authorized by a birth 
quota system, engineered by the Government, are literally stolen from 
their moms and killed with poison by population [[Page H5500]] control 
fanatics; where, as we talk, a new policy of eugenics reminiscent of 
the Nazis has just gone into effect across the country, and then to 
know that the United Nations Population Fund is there whitewashing 
these crimes against humanity in all kinds of international fora where 
apologists will stand up and say, ``But our money is not going to do 
that.''
  We all know money is fungible. The Morella amendment allows the FPA 
to take the United States donation, put it in their right pocket, and 
it frees up other money that they would send to China where this 
terrible crime and exploitation of women is daily practiced.
  Remember, too, that the U.N. FPA Executive Director has said that 
this is a totally voluntary program. That is a big lie, Mr. Chairman. 
It is not true. It is a terrible crime against women.
  She has always said we need to export the experience of the Chinese 
Government. God forbid. We would never allow it to happen here. If we 
were told that women had to be forcibly aborted, there would be rioting 
in the streets. Defeat the Morella amendment. I urge Members to support 
the underlying amendment, the Smith amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really very surprised about the rhetoric, not only 
the hyperbole, but the accuracy of what the amendment would do.
  Under the bill already, Mr. Chairman, none of the funds authorized 
would be used to help manage a program of any coercive abortion. No 
funds can be used for abortion. No funds can be used for lobbying. In 
fact, there is a reduction of the percentage that the United States 
would give to U.N. FPA for any funds that go to China. We have spoken 
against China's policies. The amendment would also direct the United 
States representative at the U.N. FPA to censure Chinese policies.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to reflect on the previous reference to the 
woman looking for an abortion. She may well be a Russian woman. Russian 
women have an average of 9 abortions during their lifetime. Why? 
Because they do not have access to family planning. We are not talking 
about any proabortion policies, we are talking about policies that are 
going to enable people to have the ability to manage their lives and 
their families, and to avoid the need for any abortion.
  The amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is not 
about cutting off China; it is about cutting off family planning aid to 
139 other countries. We know the world population tops 5 billion. Many 
of us will live to see it double by 2025. I urge adoption of the 
amendment. The Morella amendment is endorsed by the committee of 
jurisdiction and I hope by this House.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Morella 
amendment and in support of the Smith amendment. The Smith amendment 
will reinstate the long-standing prohibition on providing taxpayer 
dollars to any private organization that performs or promotes abortion 
in foreign countries.
  The Smith amendment is correct in recognizing that promoting abortion 
is never in the true interests of our Nation. Over 95 countries in 
Central and South America and Africa have laws on the books against 
abortion on demand. The Hyde amendment, prohibiting taxpayer funded 
abortions here in the United States, has been in effect for years.
  The United States has no business using American taxpayer dollars to 
overturn abortion laws in other countries. Why would we, as a nation, 
encourage a practice that is so divisive and controversial in our own 
country?
  The Smith amendment provides clear rules that will ensure that no 
taxpayer dollars will be diverted for any form of abortion promotion. 
The outrageous practice of forced abortion in China demands such clear 
and strong rules as proposed by the Smith amendment.
  It should be noted that the Smith amendment will not prevent private 
individuals from promoting family planning or abortion around the 
globe. Rather, the Smith amendment reinstates a sound policy that was 
in effect under the Reagan and Bush administrations. It is a policy 
that reflects the views of most Americans. Family planning is important 
but killing the unborn is just as wrong in Africa, Asia, or Latin 
America as it is in the United States.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, the consequences of rapid population growth 
include poverty, unemployment, hunger and malnutrition, economic 
degradation, and urban decay.
  These conditions may very well worsen before they improve--especially 
in countries experiencing high rates of population growth. Forty-five 
percent or more of the populace in several developing countries--
including Libya, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Cambodia, 
Guatemala, and Honduras--have not yet reached their reproductive years.
  We must mobilize resources to achieve stabilization of our human 
numbers through modern, safe, effective family planning. Abortion is 
not a means of family planning. It is a procedure resorted to when 
people lack access to modern family planning methods or appropriate 
information and knowledge about such methods.
  Those voting on the Smith amendment should know that it is really not 
about abortion. It would not prevent a single abortion. It is an 
amendment to limit funds for the U.N. Population Fund--the largest 
multilateral provider of family planning services for poor women. Thus, 
its approval would limit access to family planning, which is what it 
would indeed to. I intend to vote against it and call on my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and 
in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith].
  The effect of the Smith amendment would be to cripple the ability of 
such organizations as the UNFPA and International Planned Parenthood to 
make available family planning services to millions of women and men 
around the world, at a time when we need these services more than ever, 
not less than before.
  The rapid growth of the world's human population is the most serious 
problem the world--and the U.S.--faces. We must not adopt a policy that 
would cut off funding to the organizations that are the most effective 
in reducing unwanted pregnancies, as the Smith amendment would do. To 
do so would be utterly senseless.
  At this moment, nearly 5.7 billion people share our planet. By this 
time tomorrow, another quarter of a million will be added to that 
number.
  Ninety-five percent of the newcomers will be born in the developing 
world. Many of them will die in childhood of malnutrition or disease, 
and most of the rest will live out their lives in countries that cannot 
begin to adequately take care of their existing populations, where 
there are already too few jobs, inadequate schools, inadequate health 
care, inadequate amounts of food and, usually, very little, if any, 
individual freedom.
  By the year 2020, the world's already strained and overexploited 
resources will have to sustain life for more than 8 billion people--an 
increase of 2\1/2\ billion, most of them desperately poor, in just 25 
years.
  In much of the developing world, high birth rates, caused largely by 
the lack of access of women to basic reproductive health services and 
information, are contributing to intractable poverty, malnutrition, 
widespread unemployment, urban overcrowding, and the rapid spread of 
disease. Population growth is outstripping the capacity of many nations 
to make even modest gains in economic development, leading to political 
instability and negating other U.S. development efforts.
  The impact of exponential population growth, combined with 
unsustainable patterns of consumption, is also evident in mounting 
signs of stress on the world's environment. Under conditions of rapid 
population growth, renewable resources are being used faster than they 
can be replaced. Other direct, and catastrophic, environmental 
consequences of the world's burgeoning population are tropical 
deforestation, erosion of arable land and watersheds, extinction of 
plant and animal species, and pollution of air, water, and land.
  Overpopulation, however, is not a problem for developing countries 
only. Rapid population growth in already overcrowded and underdeveloped 
areas of the world has given rise to an unprecedented pressure to 
migrate, as people seek decent, and more hopeful lives for themselves 
and their families. According to a report by the United Nations 
Population Fund [UNFPA], over 100 million people, or nearly 2 percent 
of the world's population, are already international migrants, and 
countless others are refugees within their own countries. Many of the 
world's industrialized nations are now straining to absorb huge numbers 
of people, and in the future, as shortages of jobs and living space in 
urban areas, and resources such as water, agricultural land, and new 
places to dispose of waste grow even more acute, there will be even 
greater pressure to emigrate.
  Population growth is an enormous problem, but one we can solve--if we 
make a determined effort to do so.
 Over the last three decades, population programs have been remarkably 
successful. Since the early 1960's, contraceptive use worldwide has 
gone up from roughly 10 percent of couples to over 50 percent today. 
And over the same period, the number of births per woman dropped from 6 
[[Page H5501]] to 3.3, almost half the fertility of just one generation 
ago. Much of this progress is a direct result of U.S. involvement. In 
the 28 countries with the largest USAID-sponsored family planning 
programs, the average number of children per family has dropped from 
6.1 in the mid-1960's to 4.2 today.

  These international trends, however, while highly encouraging, 
conceal great demographic diversity among countries and regions. In 
most of sub-Saharan Africa and some Pacific Island countries, where 
family planning services are not yet widely available, contraceptive 
use is below 15 percent, and women bear an average of six or more 
children. At the global level, an estimated 350 million couples do not 
have access to a full range of modern family planning information and 
services. One indication of the large unmet demand for more and better 
family planning services is the estimated 50 million abortions that 
occur every year, many of them unsafe.
  But time is of the essence. How quickly we provide worldwide access 
to family planning and reproductive health services is crucial. Like 
compound interest applied to financial savings, high fertility rates 
produce ever-growing future populations. For example, if a woman bears 
three children instead of six, and her children and grandchildren do 
likewise, she will have 27 great-grandchildren rather than 216.
  That is why it is absolutely essential that we adopt the Morella 
amendment and continue the progress we have been making toward reducing 
population growth. At the International Conference on Population and 
Development [ICPD], held in Cairo last year, the United States was 
instrumental in helping to build a broad consensus behind a 
comprehensive program of action, which was signed by almost all of the 
180 countries that participated in the conference, and which will help 
guide the population and development programs of the United Nations and 
national governments into the next century. Central to this plan is the 
recognition that with adequate funding this decade for family planning 
and reproductive health services, as well as educational, economic, and 
social opportunities necessary to enhance the status of women, we can 
stabilize world population in the first half of the next century.
  The ICPD program of action represents a historic opportunity to 
address adequately the causes and effects of the world's rapidly 
growing population, while placing an emphasis on individual choice and 
freedom. To meet this challenge, the international community--
developing and industrial countries alike--has agreed to increase 
spending dramatically to achieve universal access to family planning 
and basic reproductive health services. In order to fulfill our 
responsibility under the Cairo agreement, the United States would need 
to allocate $850 million in fiscal year 1996 for international 
population programs, an increase of more than $260 million over this 
year's level.
  The U.S. contribution under this bill will no doubt fall short. The 
fiscal reality of our Nation's fiscal situation has eroded our ability 
to fully fund even the most effective and cost-efficient programs. But 
we should still do as much as we can. The Morella amendment will 
prevent the crippling of our efforts in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, combating rapid population growth by ensuring that our 
limited dollars for family planning assistance are used as effectively 
as possible is one of the most humane and farsighted efforts we can 
undertake. Providing adequate funding now will save many times this 
expense in future U.S. foreign assistance, will greatly reduce human 
suffering, and will promote global peace and security.
  I urge our colleagues to support the Morella amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a rollcall vote by electronic device may be taken 
without intervening business on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 227, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 349]

                               AYES--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--227

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Calvert
     Cubin
     Fazio
     Hansen
     Kleczka
     McDade
     Meyers
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers
     [[Page H5502]]
     
                              {time}  1223


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises Members that there has been a problem 
with one of the voting machines, so the Members are asked to please 
confirm their vote with the screen and in the voting machine.

                              {time}  1225

  Messrs. MOORHEAD, DORNAN, and BUYER changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. SABO, CLAYBURN, and DAVIS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  

                          ____________________