[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16492-S16495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                 APPROPRIATIONS ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3041

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask that I be added as a cosponsor of 
the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to show my support for this 
amendment, which, of course, includes U.S. funding for the U.N. 
Population Fund, UNFPA, as it is known. President Clinton had to resume 
funding for the population fund 2 years ago after a 7-year suspension 
during the Reagan and Bush administrations. I did not ascribe to that. 
I did not agree with the fine Presidents of my own party on that 
issue--either the wonderful Ronald Reagan or my fine, loyal friend, 
George Bush.
  Last year, the Congress appropriated $40 million for the fund, and 
$50 million was appropriated for 1995. This year, we are looking at 
funding levels of $35 million.
  I do understand that funding for all programs across the board needs 
to be reduced if we are to incur savings in this year's budget bill. 
However, I do not want to see population programs unfairly targeted for 
larger reductions than other foreign assistance programs.
  The United States needs to keep its funding at an adequate level, or 
we will surely send exactly the wrong message to the rest of the 
developed nations across the world. Last year, the United States was 
seen as a world's leader of population and development assistance at 
the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. I 
was a congressional delegate at the conference, as was my friend, 
Senator John Kerry. There were not a lot of colleagues eager or seeking 
to go to that particular conference. I came away very impressed with 
the leadership and direction displayed there by Vice President 
Gore, and the assistance given him by the now Under Secretary of State, 
former Senator, Tim Wirth in guiding the conference and its delegates 
in developing a ``consensus document,'' on a broad range of short- and 
long-term recommendations concerning maternal and child health care, 
strengthening family planning programs, the promotion of educational 
opportunities for girls and women, and improving status and rights of 
women across the world.

  We surely do not want to lose our moral leadership role and 
relinquish any momentum by abandoning or severely weakening our 
financial commitment to population and development assistance. The 
United States needs to continue its global efforts to achieve 
responsible and sustainable population levels, and to back that up with 
leadership with specific commitments to population planning activities.
  In my mind, of all of the challenges facing this country--and there 
are surely plenty of them--and around the world--none compares to that 
of the increasing of the population growth of the world. All of our 
efforts to protect the environment, all the things we hear about what 
is going to happen, what will happen to this forest system, or this 
ecosystem, promoting economic development, jobs for those around the 
world, are compromised and severely injured by the staggering growth in 
the world's population.
  I hope my colleagues realize, of course, that there are currently 5.7 
billion people on the Earth. In 1950, when I was a freshman at the 
University of Wyoming--not that long ago, surely--there were 2.5 
billion people on the face of the Earth. Mr. President, 2.5 billion 
people using the Earth's surface for sustenance and procreation in 
1950. Today, 5.7 billion--double--more than double.
   Since 1950 to today, the figure has doubled and it will double again 
if birth and death rates continue. The world's population will double 
again in 40 years. These are huge figures.
  If you want to talk about food supply, want to talk about the 
environment, pollution, fish, timber, coal, resources, there is your 
figure. Nobody pays much attention to that because we allow this debate 
to slip over to abortion. It does not have anything to do with abortion 
or coercive practices.
  That is why it is so important we show our support by funding this 
particular fund. It is supported entirely by voluntary contributions, 
not by the U.N. regular budget.
  You do not have to get into this one because you hate the United 
Nations either. This is not about whether you like the United Nations 
or not. Many of us have great problems with the United Nations, and 
they have certainly failed in many endeavors, but this is not a ``U.N. 
caper.''
  There were 88 donors to the fund in 1994, most of which were 
developing nations. Japan and the United States were the leading 
contributors to the fund with the Nordic countries not lagging far 
behind.
  UNFPA assistance goes to support 150 countries and territories across 
the world. UNFPA total income in 1994 was $265.3 million, and it 
provides about one-fourth of the world's population assistance to all 
developing countries.
  I think it would be a real shame if the United States were to back 
away from its commitment to the world's largest source of multilateral 
assistance for population programs.
  I want to reiterate again what has been said already about U.S. 
participation in this fund. The U.S. contribution would be subject to 
all the restrictions which have been in place for many years. These 
restrictions are in place to address concerns specifically about U.S. 
funds being spent in China. I hear those concerns.
  Under current appropriations law, foreign aid funding is denied to 
any organization or program that ``supports or participates in the 
management of a program of coerced abortion or involuntary 
sterilization'' in any country. That is pretty clear. I agree with 
that.
  Furthermore, current appropriations law ensures that none of the 
United States contribution to UNFPA may be used in China--none. Listen 
carefully: The United States is not funding any of the population 
activities in China.
  Furthermore, the U.N. Population Fund does not fund abortions or 
support coercive activities in any country including China. The UNFPA 
assistance goes toward family planning services and maternal and child 
health care across the developing world.
  Finally, no U.S. funds may be commingled with other UNFPA funds and 
numerous penalties exist in law for any violation of this requirement.
  I also have deep and serious concerns about China's coerced abortion 
policy, but forcing the U.N. Population Fund to withdraw from China 
will not affect that policy one whit. In fact, without 

[[Page S 16493]]

the careful monitoring that the fund performs, conditions in China 
would get very much worse. That is an important consideration. The 
world and the United States cannot turn its back on what is currently 
going on in China. Remove the funding and that great door will close 
ever further. No one will be able to participate or to change those 
policies.
  Finally, this amendment would strike the House Mexico City language 
that denies United States population assistance to groups that are 
involved in dialog with foreign governments about abortion policy or 
even distribute literature on preventing unsafe abortions. This House 
amendment would ultimately deny family planning activities overseas. 
Since the House language applies to nongovernment organizations [NGO's] 
it would cut off funds to the most effective and dedicated providers of 
services, groups that best understand the needs of the people in the 
country they serve.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment so 
that the United States might continue its leadership role in addressing 
the global population issues which are wholly significant in the range 
of other issues that we confront from day-to-day, because all of it 
comes back to the simple fact, how many footprints will fit on the face 
of the Earth?
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, 
Senator Nickles is going to speak for a few moments and then we are 
prepared to vote. It is my understanding that if the Leahy amendment is 
agreed to, that will be the last vote of the evening.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Leahy's 
amendment. I will read it for my colleagues' information:

       Provided, That in determining eligibility for assistance 
     from funds appropriated to carry out section 104 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, nongovernmental and 
     multilateral organizations shall not be subjected to 
     requirements more restrictive than requirements applicable to 
     foreign governments for such assistance: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available under this Act may be 
     used to lobby for or against abortion.

  It sounds kind of reasonable, until you realize we do not have 
restrictions on governments dealing with the prohibition of abortion. 
So this language is meaningless. It has no restriction whatsoever. That 
means that we would be funding international family planning groups 
that use abortion as a method of family planning. A lot of us really do 
not want to do that. It is troublesome to think that international 
groups, some of which support abortion as a method of family planning, 
would be receiving tax dollars to be used in that fashion. Maybe this 
amendment is a nice attempt to cover that up, as a substitute for the 
House language. I just hope that our colleagues will not agree to it, 
for a lot of different reasons.
  One, I do not think we want to fund international groups that promote 
or support or fund abortions. I do not think U.S. taxpayers' dollars 
should be used for that purpose. We have restrictions in this country. 
We have restrictions in this country that prohibit the use of 
taxpayers' dollars to be used to fund abortions, except in necessary 
cases--to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. 
That is really what the House language is trying to do.
  The House language reinstates the so-called Mexico City policy, and 
it goes back to 1984 through January 1993, which includes the Reagan 
and Bush era. It says we do not want to fund international groups that 
support or fund abortion. That was the policy of this country for that 
period of time.
  The Clinton administration, through an Executive order in January 
1993, reversed that policy. So now we have a policy, and Tim Wirth who 
served in this body has been actively promoting it, where we actually 
have been involved in encouraging countries to change their laws on 
abortion. I think 95 countries have significant restrictions in their 
laws against abortion.
  I think using U.S. taxpayers' funds to be telling other countries to 
change their laws is very offensive. Certainly to be contributing to 
organizations that use part of their money or some of their moneys for 
abortions is also offensive.
  Again, our stated policy in this country is we do not want to support 
abortion. We do not want taxpayers' moneys used to subsidize abortion 
unless it is necessary to save the life of mother or in cases of rape 
or incest. To be giving money to international organizations that 
either support or use abortions as a method of family planning or to 
try to change Government laws for abortion, in my opinion, is wrong.
  I looked at the House language and it basically says that money will 
not be used for organizations, nongovernmental or multilateral 
organizations, until the organization certifies it will not, during the 
period for which the funds are made available, perform abortions in any 
foreign country except if the life of the mother were in danger if the 
fetus were carried to term, or in cases of forcible rape or incest.
  I think that is good language. I think that language mirrors the 
language that we have agreed to on this floor dealing with Labor-HHS, 
the so-called Hyde language. Why in the world would we be supporting 
and giving money to foreign organizations that do the opposite? I think 
that is a serious, serious mistake.
  Also, I might mention this House language says that we do not want 
any money to be used to violate the laws of any foreign country 
concerning circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated 
or prohibited. We do not want U.S. taxpayers' dollars used to go into 
other countries to lobby, to encourage, to change laws that they may 
have dealing with abortion. Why in the world should we have the idea 
that we know best, and so we want to manipulate and make those laws 
basically more pro-abortion.
  I want to touch for a second on the issue of the People's Republic of 
China. There had been restrictions under the Reagan and Bush eras that 
we did not give money to the UNFPA organization if they were giving 
money to the People's Republic of China, because they had a coercive 
abortion policy. The House language, likewise, says we would not give 
money to the U.N. family planning organization if they were still 
supporting the coercive policies or contributing to the policies in the 
People's Republic of China.
  Mr. President, I remember when Mrs. Clinton addressed a large 
conference in Beijing earlier this year and she condemned forced 
abortion. Unfortunately, that happens to be the policy in the People's 
Republic of China today--a one-child policy, enforced by, in some 
cases, coercive abortion. That is unbelievable. It is also undeniable. 
Yet UNFPA has actually made supportive comments about some of the 
things that are going on in the PRC today concerning their family 
planning efforts.
  It is reprehensible to think that we might be contributing to an 
organization that might be assisting in coercive abortion. That should 
not happen.
  Mr. President, I look at the language that we have before the Senate 
in the so-called Leahy language. I do not find it acceptable. I find no 
restriction whatever on U.S. funds to international organizations, no 
restriction whatever. If it passes and if it became law, we will be 
giving money to international groups that use abortion as a method of 
family planning.
  That is offensive to me as a taxpayer. It is offensive to me to think 
that the result of that is that U.S. tax dollars will be used in some 
way or another to subsidize the destruction of innocent, unborn human 
beings.
  I look at the House language. The House language is basically 
reinstating the policy that we had from 1984 to January  1993.  That  
policy  saved 

[[Page S 16494]]

lives. Did it restrict use of family planning? No. Did family planning 
continue? Yes. Did family planning continue with funding from the 
United States? Yes.
  Over 350 organizations signed up and said, ``We will take your money 
and use it for family planning, but we will not use abortion as a 
method of family planning.'' That means organizations all across the 
world. It worked. Some people said they would not sign up, but they 
did.
  So we had family planning efforts, but we had family planning efforts 
separate from abortion. That is what we are trying to do with this 
House language.
  I urge our colleagues to reject the Leahy amendment and support the 
House language.
  I might mention, also, I think that the House language, which passed 
overwhelmingly, passed by a vote of 232-187. My guess is that if we do 
not have language similar to that, we will not have a bill. We will be 
looking at the foreign operations bill in a continuing resolution, in 
all likelihood, throughout the year.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Leahy 
amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, very briefly, with all due respect to my 
friend from Oklahoma, his description of the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment 
is not accurate.
  Mr. President, we debated the basic aspects of the Leahy-Kassebaum 
amendment less than a month ago. Mr. President, 57 Senators voted 
against what is in the House position, voted against the position we 
seek to replace. Nothing has changed since then.
  The Leahy-Kassebaum amendment simply says that private family 
planning organizations like the foreign organizations supported by the 
International Planned Parenthood Federation should not be restricted to 
require more subjective requirements, more restrictive than those 
applicable to Government.
  In other words, it permits us to support private organizations, 
provided U.S. Government funds are not used, are not used for abortion 
activities as we made funds available for family planning to 
governments in countries where abortion is legal, as it is in this 
country, just as we give foreign aid to countries where abortion is 
legal, as it is in this country.
  This bill contains the same explicit prohibition of funding for 
abortion that has been the law for years. Not one dime in this bill 
could be spent on abortion or anything related to abortion. The bill 
already contains a prohibition against using any United States funds in 
China.
  The House amendment would, nevertheless, prohibit a U.S. contribution 
to the U.N. population fund. I think that would be foolhardy. The 
question is whether we should accept the House position so that the 
bill might go forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that a statement of administration policy 
from OMB be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Office of the President,


                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                 Washington, DC, October 31, 1995.
     Re H.R. 1868--Foreign operations, export financing and 
         related programs appropriations bill, FY 1996 (Sponsors: 
         Livingston, Louisiana; Callahan, Alabama).

                   Statement of Administration Policy

    [This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned 
                               agencies]

       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on the item reported in disagreement 
     by the conference on H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 
     FY 1996. Your consideration of the Administration's views 
     would be appreciated.
       The conferees have reported in disagreement provisions 
     related to population assistance to non-governmental 
     organizations. This is an issue of the highest importance to 
     the Administration.
       The Administration opposes coercion in family planning 
     practices, and no U.S. assistance is used to pay for abortion 
     as a method of family planning. The House provision, however, 
     would prohibit any assistance from being provided to entities 
     that fund abortions or lobby for abortions with private 
     funds, thus ending U.S. support for many qualified and 
     experienced non-governmental organizations providing vital 
     voluntary family planning information and services. The 
     provision would also end U.S. support for the United Nations 
     Population Fund (UNFPA). This would sharply limit the 
     availability of effective voluntary family planning programs 
     abroad that are designed to reduce the incidence of unwanted 
     pregnancy and thereby decrease the need for abortion. The 
     Administration also has serious concerns about the 
     constitutionality of the House provision. If the House 
     language were included in the bill presented to the 
     President, the Secretary of State would recommend to the 
     President that he veto the bill.

  Mr. LEAHY. I read the last sentence: ``If the House language were 
included in the bill presented to the President, the Secretary of State 
would recommend to the President he veto the bill.''
  I think, Mr. President, we have heard debate for and against the 
Leahy-Kassebaum amendment. I know Senators are concerned about their 
schedule, and I am happy to go forward with a vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to thank the chairman for his leadership 
in crafting this foreign operation conference report. In light of the 
budgetary restriction placed upon all of these projects, I think the 
chairman has done a skillful job of handling many divergent interests.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would also like to thank the Senator for his 
assistance in attempting to remedy funding difficulties we have 
experienced for International Narcotics Control. As the chairman knows, 
I am extremely concerned that funding for U.S. drug interdiction 
efforts has been drastically declining since 1992. During this time we 
have witnessed a proportionate increase in the use of drugs in America. 
For example:
  After a steep drop in monthly cocaine use between 1988 and 1991 from 
2.9 to 1.3 million users, and a similar drop in overall drug use 
between 1991 and 1992, from 14.5 to 11.4 million users, numbers 
released earlier this year revealed that youth drug use increased in 
1994, for all surveyed grades for crack, cocaine, heroin, LSD, non-LSD 
hallucinogens, inhalants, and mari- juana.
  According to the Department of Health and Human Services, illegal 
drug use among the Nation's high school seniors has risen 44.6 percent 
in the last 2 years.
  The resurgence of heroin in the United States borders on epidemic 
proportions. DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine recently noted that 
heroin is now available in more cities at lower prices and higher 
purities than ever before in our history. In addition, Administrator 
Constantine says: ``For the first time in our history, America's crime 
problem is being controlled by worldwide drug syndicates who operate 
their networks from places like Cali, Colombia * * *.''
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am in complete agreement with my colleague from 
Georgia, that we are at a crucial point in our war on drugs. Without 
the immediate commitment of resources to stop the flow of illegal 
narcotics across our borders, the United States will be facing the 
largest expansion of illicit drug supplies and the greatest increase in 
drug use in modern American history.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The chairman has clearly summarized the problem that 
the Senate attempted to address by increasing funding for international 
drug control in the foreign operations appropriations bill. I know the 
chairman shares my concern that the conference report before us today 
severely undermines the Senate's commitment to drug interdiction by 
decreasing the direct funding from $150 to $115 million and replacing 
the $20 million mandatory transfer of funds with language merely 
allowing the transfer of funds from ``Development Assistance'' and/or 
the ``Economic Support Fund'' to ``International Narcotics Control.''
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Georgia is correct. It is my 
understanding, however, that the conference committee fully intended 
that the identified $20 million be transferred to International 
Narcotics Control.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the chairman's clarification and would 
ask if the chairman would be willing to assist the Senator from Georgia 
in securing these resources.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my colleague, that I strongly support 
the transfer of the funds, identified in the conference report, to 
International Narcotics Control for drug interdiction 

[[Page S 16495]]

activities and will work side-by-side with the Senator from Georgia to 
ensure these resources are committed to our war on drugs.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the chairman for his efforts to stop the flow 
of illegal narcotics into the United States.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion 
to concur in the House amendment with the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 561 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--44

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bradley
     Hatfield
       
  So the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished leader in the 
Chamber. And I just mention first that we have, so my colleagues will 
know----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate will come 
to order, please.
  Mr. LEAHY. So colleagues would know, we have passed the conference 
and sent one amendment back in disagreement.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me thank the managers of the bill.

                          ____________________