[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 98 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 8, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration 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 years 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:

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strongest opposition 
to the amendment proposed by my distinguished friend from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith]. I have the highest regard for my colleague, Mr. Smith. He 
and I have worked together on many issues on human rights, and I fully 
share his abhorrence of coerced abortions that have been carried out in 
China. I have joined him on many occasions to protest in the strongest 
terms this egregious violation of human rights. While we have worked 
closely together on a large number of human rights issues, including 
coercive population control programs, and I look forward to working 
with him on a number of other issues in the future, I disagree in the 
strongest terms with this amendment that he has offered to the bill 
H.R. 1561.
  I support the reasoned alternative that has been presented by our 
distinguished colleague from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, which is the same 
provision that Mrs. Meyers of Kansas presented during full committee 
markup, and which was approved by a significant margin during that 
markup by the entire International Relations Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, unchecked population growth in developing countries 
poses a serious and a growing threat to United States national 
interests throughout the world. It has serious implications for our 
international policy in areas of trade, security, environment and 
international migration.
  To reduce the whole range of U.S. population assistance to the issue 
of abortion--which is what the amendment of our colleague from New 
Jersey does--does a great injustice to our pioneering work in the field 
of population planning, where the United States is a recognized leader 
and innovator.
  U.S. population assistance addresses a broad range of critical 
needs--maternal health; child survival; primary health care, including 
the prevention of death due to pregnancy-related causes; and the 
prevention of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; and 
contraception.
  The aim of a family planning organization is not to promote abortion, 
but quite to the contrary--to prevent unwanted pregnancies and 
abortion, which is the leading cause of maternal mortality. The 
principal objectives of the Agency for International Development's 
Population Program are to enable couples and individuals to decide 
freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, to 
improve individual health, and to reduce population growth rates to 
levels that are consistent with sustainable development.
  U.S. population assistance is very much in our Nation's interest 
and--dollar for dollar--probably offers the best return on investment 
of any of our foreign assistance programs.
  If effective action is not taken with this decade as today's 1.6 
billion children in the developing world under the age of 15 reach 
their childbearing years, then the Earth's population could nearly 
quadruple to over 19 billion people by the end of the next century.
  Such an unchecked explosion in population threatens the international 
community just as much as the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction or the increase in international crime, because the 
alarming rate of population growth underlies virtually every 
developmental, environmental, and national security problem facing the 
world today. In Algeria, Brazil, and India--to name but a few 
examples--we are seeing how growing populations hinder economic 
development, foster serious environmental degradation, and exacerbate 
political instability.
  Experts estimate, Mr. Chairman, that 125 million people in developing 
countries want to delay or avoid childbirth, but they are not using 
contraception because they do not have access to means of birth 
control.
  Population growth is outstripping the capacity of many nations to 
make even modest gains in economic development, leading to growing 
political instability in many countries. At best, this undermines the 
ability of these countries to be reliable members of the international 
community or good trading partners of the United States. At worst, it 
can contribute to massive unrest and violence, as we have witnessed in 
Rwanda.
  The impact of exponential population growth is also evident in the 
mounting signs of depletion and overuse of the world's natural 
resources. We have only to see what is happening throughout the 
continent of Africa, in South Asia, and in many areas of South America 
to realize the serious and, I, fear, irreversible environmental 
consequences of unchecked population growth.
  At the International Conference on Population in 1984 in Mexico City, 
the Officials of the Reagan administration speaking for the United 
States Government announced a new policy of denying United States 
foreign aid funds to any foreign nongovernmental organization that 
provided abortion counseling, referral, or services. Initially called 
the Mexico City Policy, because it was announced at the U.N. conference 
in that city, it came to be known as the International Gag Rule.
  While the ostensible purpose of that policy was to prevent abortion, 
the evidence has shown that restrictions did nothing to reduce reliance 
on abortion. In fact, the only impact of the restrictions was to 
interfere with the delivery of effective family planning services and 
appropriate medical care.
  Current law and the explicit text of the Morella/Meyers language make 
it very clear that no United States funds can be used now or in the 
future to perform abortions abroad except in cases of rape, incest, or 
endangerment of the mother's life. No United States funds may be used 
to lobby for or against abortion, and no United States funds will be 
spent by the U.N. Family Planning Agency in China.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this effort to return us 
to the era of the International Gag Rule. The counter-productive and 
self-defeating Mexico City Policy was appropriately and rightfully 
rejected by the American people, and it was repudiated in the past by 
the Congress as well. It is necessary for us to reject this effort to 
turn back the clock. The Smith amendment is contrary to American 
national interests, and it is a policy that is contrary to the interest 
of stability and economic development in the Third World. It is time 
for us to move forward and face realistically and meaningfully the very 
serious population problems that we face in the world.


                          ____________________