[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12356-H12362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 1868) making 
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
purposes, with the remaining Senate amendment thereto, and move to 
disagree to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment numbered 115.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment numbered 115, as follows:

       Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment, insert: ``: 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 the 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''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.


                     motion offered by mr. callahan

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Callahan moves to disagree to the Senate amendment to 
     the House amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 115.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Wilson] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].


                             general leave

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 

[[Page H12357]]
  may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and that I be allowed to include tabular and extraneous 
material on H.R. 1868.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, under the present circumstances, we must do whatever is 
needed to move all of the remaining appropriations bills to the 
President's desk as soon as possible. Each appropriations bill the 
President signs will put more agencies back into business. In the case 
of this foreign aid appropriations bill, we must act to ensure that 
humanitarian aid continues without interruption.
  The complicated motion I have just offered is actually a simple one. 
Both the House and Senate have passed the conference agreement on the 
foreign aid appropriations bill. This morning, the House is being asked 
to insist on its previous position on the only remaining amendment in 
disagreement.
  This is the so-called Smith-Callahan amendment on population funding 
and abortion. It last passed the House on October 31 by a vote of 232 
to 187. In a slightly different version, the Smith amendment passed the 
House on two previous occasions during consideration of H.R. 1561, the 
foreign aid authorization bill. This will be the fourth time the House 
is being asked to vote on this.
  By sending this amendment back to the Senate, we will be giving the 
other body another opportunity to consider the Smith amendment which is 
so important to many Members of this body. I expect the Senate 
leadership to work to pass this amendment. I hope they are successful, 
but I recognize that parts of the Smith amendment have failed to pass 
the Senate on two previous occasions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to agree to this motion. Our leadership 
has determined that this is the best way to move the foreign operations 
appropriations bill toward the President's desk. We must do what we can 
to make sure that humanitarian aid to displaced people and refugees 
around the world is not disrupted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we finished the foreign operations conference more than 
3 weeks ago, but we have been unable to send a bill to the President 
because of the issue of who will receive family planning funds.
  Today we are wasting a vote by again voting on the same language that 
the Senate has refused to accept, and the President has said he will 
veto the bill if it is included.
  We need to look at the priorities in this bill and take out the 
Mexico City language so that this bill can get to the President for 
signature.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman, just indicated that this bill is before us because we had to 
move these appropriations bills forward.

                              {time}  1045

  I agree that we do. The problem is this motion does not do that. It 
keeps the Congress stuck on dead center on another 1 of the 10 
appropriation bills which still have not made their way into law.
  We have been here before, Mr. Speaker. Three weeks ago we went 
through this exercise. The House voted to insist on its position on 
this matter. It was sent to the Senate and the Senate turned it down. I 
know of absolutely no development which has changed the Senate position 
to this point. What we have is, I think, another example of why the 
Government at this moment is shut down with over 90 percent of the 
appropriations still not in law for the coming fiscal year.
  Frankly, there are a whole lot more issues in this bill that I care 
about more than how we come down on the Mexico City issue. I have been 
trying through the years to find any way to resolve that issue, and I 
offered a compromise motion the last time we were on the floor with 
this issue. We lost. The rules do not allow me to make that same motion 
again. If they did, I would make that motion again because I think both 
chambers need to show some movement.
  I respect people's strong views on this subject, on both sides, but 
it seems to me we are caught in a higher problem this morning. It seems 
to me that this motion is again, in a small way, a vivid example of why 
the Congress has not been able to finish its work, why we are sitting 
here wrapped around the axle with the Government shut down, with the 
majority party blaming the President because he has not signed bills 
they have not sent him yet.
  It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the way out of this box is to, 
not just on this bill but on all the other bills that have not yet 
become law, try to find ways to bridge the differences between the 
House and the Senate, not to keep those differences going. This motion 
keeps that difference going this morning. It does nothing constructive 
to either move this bill to the White House or to lessen the portion of 
the Federal budget which has still not been passed for the coming 
fiscal year.
  I will vote against the motion, Mr. Speaker, not because of any 
particularly strong feelings about the motion per se, but simply 
because I do have strong feelings that we ought to be moving these 
bills forward, as the subcommittee chair indicates, but this motion is 
not doing that.
  I really think that sooner or later people have to get over their 
insistence on first preferences. We have to recognize that we have an 
obligation in a legislative body to get our work done, and continuing 
to polarize this issue between the House and the Senate is not making 
any significant contribution toward that end.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion 
before us. This motion aims to completely eliminate family planning aid 
overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is one of the reasons why the Federal 
Government is shut down today. The Republican leadership has insisted 
on putting extreme provisions in appropriations bills like this one 
that have no place here. Every appropriations bill that comes up has an 
abortion rider attached to it. Collectively, these riders have brought 
the budget process to a grinding halt.
  This language is a substantial change in law that should not tie up 
passage of an important spending bill like this one. I have the utmost 
respect and admiration for Chairman Callahan. He has crafted a good 
bill here that makes sense for America and the world, and it is a shame 
that this critical legislation is being held up by extremist language.
  Proponents of this language claim that it simply cuts abortion 
funding. What they have not told you is that abortion funding overseas 
has been prohibited since 1973. This language would cut abortion 
funding from its current level of zero to zero.
  Therefore, this motion goes after family planning, not abortion.
  One of the most important forms of aid that we provide 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 abortions.
  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. 
  
[[Page H12358]]

  This motion would defund family planning organizations that perform 
legal abortions--even if the abortion services are funded with non-U.S. 
money.
  The motion also cuts funds to the UNFPA, an organization that 
provides family planning and population assistance in over 140 
countries. The pretext for this provision is that the UNFPA operates in 
China, and therefore the funding must be cut. However, the law 
currently states that no United States funds can be used in UNFPA's 
China program. Proponents of this language are clearly using the 
deplorable situation in China as an excuse to eliminate funding for 
this highly successful and important family planning organization. The 
UNFPA is in no way linked to reported family planning abuses in China, 
and should not be held hostage to extremist antiabortion rhetoric.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion. No matter how its 
proponents try to disguise it, this motion is ultimately intended to 
end U.S. family planning assistance overseas. A vote for this motion is 
a vote against sensible, cost-effective family planning programs.
  It is also a vote to continue these destructive budget games at the 
expense of the American people. Let us face it. The reason October 1 
has come is because we have not done our work, my colleagues.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
two previous speakers.
  What we are trying to do, I think, is a responsible thing, and that 
is just what Mr. Obey wants us to do, is to pass these bills, to get 
the Government operating.
  I think that we are being very responsible in giving the President 
the opportunity to have a foreign policy operation capability. So that 
is the purpose of it.
  I do not know why we should go through this continued debate on a 
bill that has already been debated four times and say the same things 
that we are saying; but, nevertheless, we have indications from the 
Senate that if we will send this message back to them, that possibly 
they can work something out. So it is a responsible thing to do in 
order to give the President the latitude he needs to handle foreign 
policy and to continue the humanitarian efforts worldwide.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. 
Knollenberg] who is a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I rise and join my colleagues in urging the House to reaffirm its 
strong commitment to the Callahan amendment language, the very language 
which passed the House on October 31 by a vote, and most of my 
colleagues know this, by a vote of 232 to 187.
  This amendment prevents taxpayer money from going to fund the 
promotion or performance of abortions. It does not reduce, and I would 
challenge the comments of the gentleman from New York, does not reduce 
funding for international family planning. It simply ensures that our 
money is spent saving lives and not taking them.
  Mr. Speaker, the statement has been made, and I am just repeating it, 
that this is the very same language that we passed before. The will of 
the House is very clear on this issue. Our limited funds, and we do 
have limited funds, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Obey] spoke 
in regard to some of this, as has the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], that we do have limited funds, but those funds for foreign 
assistance programs should not be spent on promoting or performing 
abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Callahan motion and 
insist on the House-passed language.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, with the highest regard for the chairman of our 
subcommittee, Mr. Callahan and for the maker of this original 
amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, I rise in 
opposition to this motion today.
  I heard our colleagues on the other side talk about this. The 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] and the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan], our chairman, and it reminded me of the many 
weeks our chairman with his leadership took us through with this bill. 
We resolved every point except this one. Indeed, 3 weeks ago we were 
gathered here and we voted on this very issue and here we are back 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, it is, yes indeed, one example of why our appropriations 
bills are not finished, and why we are in the difficult situation we 
are in today with the closing down the Government. If we could get our 
appropriations bills passed we would not have to be waiting for a 
continuing resolution.
  Having said that, in terms of procedure, I oppose the technique that 
is being used, to go back and forth and back and forth to the Senate on 
this language. The Republican Senators agree with many people in this 
House of Representatives that the language in the Smith legislation is 
not appropriate to this legislation. I would urge my colleagues to 
support that position, which is to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road before as I have said. The 
conference report has gone back and forth. This legislation contains 
the same restrictive anti-choice language which the Senate has already 
rejected. Negotiations require each side to compromise. Sending back 
the exact same language already rejected by the other body is not a 
compromise.
  When the bill was before us 3 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] proposed language that would remove the 
legislative language referred to as the Mexico City policy that should 
be debated on an authorizing bill. Mr. Obey proposed restrictions that 
are in current law on coercive abortion. The gentleman included a 
provision limiting funds for UNFPA unless they stop their program in 
China. It was tougher than I wanted, but, nonetheless, it was a 
compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the House language in disagreement. According 
to the World Health Organization, 500,000 women die each year of 
pregnancy-related causes, 99 percent of them in the developing world. 
Restrictions on family planning organizations proposed in this 
provision represent a threat to the health and safety of the world's 
women.

  We all share the goal of decreasing the number of abortions performed 
throughout the world, and, indeed, even in our own country. However, it 
is not at all likely that the Smith language would succeed in that 
regard. Indeed, during the time the Mexico City policy was in effect 
there was no decrease in the number of abortions performed worldwide, 
but there was a decrease in the safety of that procedure.
  The provision in disagreement is not about cutting abortion funding, 
because there is no funding to cut. Existing law, as has been said over 
and over again, existing law already prevents the use of U.S. funds for 
abortion activities abroad, and has done so under the Foreign 
Assistance Act since 1973. This amendment would restrict effective 
women's health care in family planning organizations and interfere with 
the efforts to provide safe and legal reproductive health care for 
women in developing countries.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about improving health for women throughout the 
world, and especially in the developing countries. It is a big 
environmental issue. A vote for this amendment is a vote against family 
planning. It is not a vote for cutting abortion funding. There is no 
abortion funding in this bill to be cut.
  So on the basis of procedure, Mr. Speaker, and on the basis of 
substance, I urge our colleagues to vote against this proposal.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, there are some things that are factual, and 
one is that China has a brutal, inhuman policy of mandating only one-
child families, and if you have more than one child, you can be, and I 
have talked to seven women from China who were forcibly aborted, 
coercively aborted, or sterilized. I talked to one woman whom the 
authorities took and aborted her when she was 6 months pregnant, 
because she picked up a baby girl that 

[[Page H12359]]
was thrown away on the side of a road, and that gave her two children, 
and so they aborted her. How can anybody support that kind of policy?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations does. Money is fungible. Do not 
say ``no money for abortion,'' because what you do not spend with this 
money, you spend with that money. So that is just a dodge.
  Now, I have heard about the number of women who die from unsafe 
abortions, and that is tragic, but the mortality rate for the babies is 
100 percent. Millions of them die.
  Mr. Speaker, family planning is not abortion and abortion is not 
family planning. Whatever dollars we have for family planning are still 
going to go for family planning, but not to organizations that perform 
or council abortion. American tax dollars should not be in the abortion 
racket. We should not pay to exterminate unborn children. That is a 
policy decision.
  Mr. Speaker, everybody who takes the well in opposition to the 
position of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is for the 
abortion license. I do not say they are for abortions, but they think 
abortion is an acceptable answer to an unwanted child, and we think it 
is highly unacceptable. So do not use American tax dollars to advance 
the cause of exterminating unborn children, whether they are in the 
Third World or whether they are in Chicago.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  One of the previous speakers said that this language would completely 
eliminate family planning. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The Mexico City language and the UNFPA anticoercion language was in 
effect for most of the 1980's, since about 1984, and into the 1990's, 
and during that time, the United States, was still the primary donor 
nation to family planning, both to countries and to organizations 
around the world.
  What we said was that coercion is a terrible and heinous thing, and 
that we as a nation will not look askance or look the other way when it 
comes to forcing women to have abortions. All our legislation does 
today is say that we are again serious about the human rights abuse 
that occur when women are forcibly aborted and forcibly sterilized. And 
by our legislation today we say no to those organizations, like the 
U.N. population fund that whitewashes these crimes and coddles those 
who commit these crimes and provides substantial money and other kinds 
of technical supports to programs that sanction these crimes. We are 
telling the world that we are opposed to that and that we are not going 
to allow our money to go to those kinds of crimes and the organizations 
that sanction them.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the language that the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has crafted is a compromise. It is a middle 
ground that has given in a number of areas, and the Senate should take 
it.
  Let me also point out, Mr. Speaker, again, that anyone who says on 
the other side that this completely eliminates, and I say this to the 
press as well, completely eliminate family planning, that that is 
absolutely unmitigated nonsense. It did not happen before, funding 
continued under humane rules.
  Those specious charges were made back in the 1980's on this House 
floor and one provider of family planning services after another agreed 
to the Mexico City clauses, signed on the dotted line--Planned 
Parenthood and others all got their money. However, they did so by 
having a wall of separation between family planning and the performance 
of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say something else. Recently my Subcommittee 
on International Operations and Human Rights had a hearing and we heard 
testimony from women who had been forcibly aborted, who are now in this 
country awaiting to be deported. Right now some of those women are on a 
hunger strike in California.
  This administration, which says that it cares for women, is about to 
send 19 women back to China, women that the INS itself has said were 
credible, had sufficient documentation and information to lead a 
reasonable man or woman to believe that they, indeed, were forcibly 
aborted. Well, these women right now are on a hunger strike because the 
Clinton administration is trying to kick them out of the country and 
send them back to China.
  We heard from those women. They came to our subcommittee. It took 
over 4 months to get them to come, because the administration threw up 
every kind of barrier to prevent us from hearing their story.
  One of those witnesses, Li Bao Yu, told us that when she had an IUD 
that was forcibly inserted into her body by the cadres, when she had it 
removed, she got pregnant. So what did the Chinese Government do? It 
said that that baby that was conceived had to be aborted, and they 
dragged her in and they forced her to have an abortion.
  Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle heard her 
testimony. We heard from another woman, Hu Shuye, who at 6 months had 
her baby ripped out of her body by the cadres, by the family planning 
cadres in the People's Republic of China, and she said, ``I had no way 
out, they forced me, they dragged me to have this abortion done.''
  Mr. Speaker, are we serious about voluntarism? Are we going to look 
the other way and allow and subsidize these terrible crimes against 
women?
  Mr. Speaker, this administration talks out of both sides of its 
mouth. It says they want to help women, but instead it is sending those 
women back; it wants to give money to those organizations that do this 
kind of thing and assist those countries that do this kind of human 
rights abuse.
  We will see, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the 
rest of the committee will confirm, that there is money in this bill 
for family planning. We just say that human rights criteria ought to 
have sway. Coercion? Or voluntarism? When it comes between the two, let 
us come down on the side of voluntarism and not on the side of 
coercion.
  Finally, let me just say that we have made some concessions. The 
Mexico City policy worked, and it will work again.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] said a 
couple of minutes ago that anyone who opposes this amendment is for the 
abortion of an unwanted child. That is absolute baloney. The gentleman 
is perfectly entitled to describe his own motives. He certainly by no 
means has any right to describe mine.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to abortions period. I just do not happen 
to think that I ought to be making the decision for every woman in this 
country. That is a distinction which I think the gentleman from 
Illinois is bright enough to understand.
  I also want to say that with respect to the China issue, I want to 
read the language of the amendment that the gentleman who just spoke 
voted against the last time it was before us on the floor.
  My amendment said in section 518 (a):

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this act or other 
     law, none of the funds appropriated by this act may be made 
     available for the United Nations Population Fund unless the 
     President certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that, one: The United Nations Population Fund will 
     terminate all family planning activities in the People's 
     Republic of China no later than May 1, 1996; or two: During 
     the 12 months preceding such certification, there have been 
     no abortions as a result of coercion associated with the 
     family planning activities of the national government or 
     other governmental entities within the People's Republic of 
     China.

  Now, that language is very clear, and my statement was very clear at 
the time. I wanted us to end funding for the U.N. Population Program if 
it does not pull the plug in China, because I believe, and most of us 
believe on this side of the aisle, that China does have a coercive 
program and we have no business being associated with a program that 
does not recognize that. I feel that very strongly and have felt that 
way for 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] says that he 
thinks the language in this amendment is a compromise. Well, that is 
very nice. The fact is, the Senate does not think it is a compromise, 
because they 

[[Page H12360]]
have already voted against it. All I am suggesting is that if the 
gentleman wants to move this bill forward, the gentleman will find some 
other formulation than the one in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we have already tried this route. The Senate has already 
voted it down, and the hardheadedness that is demonstrated by insisting 
on everyone's first principles is a clear demonstration of why 10 out 
of the 13 appropriations bills still have not become law and we are 
sitting here today with the Government in a situation where it is shut 
down.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if the gentleman wants to 
compromise, it has to be a compromise somewhere other than in your own 
mind. It has to be a compromise which is generally recognized.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. He referenced the hearings that he had, 
and indeed, the gentleman is to be commended for his leadership on this 
issue of the inhumane treatment of women in China. We all agree, we all 
agree. We stipulate to the fact that the program that is being 
conducted in China is not one that we want to be associated with.
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], under his leadership, held 
hearings. We shuddered to hear the testimony of these women who were 
brought into the hearing room in handcuffs. The gentleman is absolutely 
right on this subject about the coercion of abortion in China. The 
gentleman is absolutely right about how these women are treated.
  However, what is happening here today is not about that. What is 
happening here today is that this amendment will curtail the activities 
of organizations that are engaged in family planning throughout the 
world. A poor family in Africa should not be held hostage to the 
coercive programs in China, and that is what this proposal will do. I 
urge our colleagues to respect the attitude of the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] but vote against his proposal.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Construction of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the Callahan motion. The Callahan motion would reiterate the House's 
support for restoring two important pro-life policies in effect during 
the Bush and Reagan administrations.
  These policies will ensure that none of the moneys will be available 
to the United Nations Population Fund unless the President certifies 
that the UNPF has terminated all activities in China or, during the 12 
months preceding, there have been no abortions as the result of 
coercion by government agencies.
  We will also 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.
  Now some may claim that this is a gag rule on family planning 
assistance. However, this is not the case, 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.
  The Mexico City policy prohibits funds to organizations unless they 
certify that they do not perform abortions in any foreign country 
except in the cases cited above. Over 350 foreign family planning 
organizations readily agreed to these terms from 1984 to 1993. Also, it 
is important to note that we are not reducing the funding level for 
real international population assistance.
  In a time when 69 percent of the American public opposes Federal 
funding for abortion we desperately need 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 Callahan motion. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, what is the problem here? We all accept that abortion 
should not be performed with American money, and family planning groups 
have abided by this law.

                              {time}  1115

  But the Smith-Callahan language goes one step further and says that 
these women's health groups cannot perform abortions even in cases of 
serious health problems of the mother or in cases of serious 
malformation of the fetus, even if it is performed with private money, 
money that they raise privately.
  The result? Americans cannot provide money to the most efficient, 
effective family planning groups, because these groups are made up of 
health care professionals. These health care providers find it 
difficult to turn women away from their clinics that have these 
terribly serious health problems.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two problems here. One is China which receives 
money from the U.N. Fund for Population Assistance, UNFPA. We all agree 
that we should give money to UNFPA but restrict it in China. We all 
agree to that. They keep talking about China like it is a problem. It 
is not a problem. We agree with them.
  We just keep talking past each other. We say, give money to the U.N. 
Fund for Population Assistance, restrict it from China, but grant it to 
the rest of the world. Smith-Callahan says take this valuable family 
planning money from all women in the world because there are abuses in 
China. We say, provide money to private family planning groups that are 
widespread and have a presence in the most needy countries in the 
world. Bangladesh, where the average number of children for 
childbearing women is 6, or Rwanda where the average number of children 
for women of childbearing age is 7.
  Smith-Callahan would deny this family planning money to those groups 
that are in the most needy countries in the world. We need to start 
communicating with each other. We need to accept the Senate language 
and accept that family planning money is essential in this world.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Callahan amendment. One 
point must be reiterated in this debate--this amendment has nothing to 
do with abortion. Current law already prohibits the use of U.S. funds 
for abortion. For 20 years, foreign aid policy and law has clearly 
stated that U.S. funds cannot be used to pay for abortion services or 
to lobby on the issue.
  What this amendment does do is gut family planning programs--
resulting in more abortions.
  The Callahan amendment would deny funds to women's health 
organizations which use their own funds to perform abortions or lobby 
their governments on abortion policy. This amendment is antifamily 
planning. I urge my colleagues to recognize that the effect of this 
provision would be to kill family planning programs.
  Let me provide some examples to illustrate the impact of this 
amendment: A university providing contraceptive training to hospitals 
in the former Soviet Union would be ineligible for funding because the 
hospital provides legal abortions funded from other sources. An Indian 
women's health clinic lobbying that nation's health ministry with its 
own funds to provide safer conditions for legal abortion would not be 
eligible for funding. 

[[Page H12361]]

  Ukrainian women average two abortions for every live birth. The 
average woman will have four or five abortions during her lifetime. 
Some will have as many as 10 or more. By making safe and reliable 
family planning information and contraceptives available, a Kiev clinic 
reports that only 25 percent of pregnant women coming to the clinic had 
abortions--a high number, of course, but the average for the rest of 
the country was 60 percent. Sixty percent--and there are many more 
examples.
  There are a number of similar clinics around the world which we are 
helping to fund. By giving women the opportunity to regulate their own 
fertility, we have reduced the number of abortions, while empowering 
women to manage and space their pregnancies to best suit their needs 
and the needs of their families.
  The gentleman from Alabama has argued that family planning funding 
will still be available if his amendment is adopted--and that is true--
but the effect of his amendment will be that the funding will be 
channeled through foreign government health ministries, with all of the 
problems of corruption, mismanagement, and bureaucracy which they 
entail. This approach would also run counter to the philosophy of this 
Congress, which has been seeking to reduce the intrusions into the 
lives of families.
  The Callahan amendment, and international gag rule, endangers women's 
health and will deny women and couples access to family planning 
information. It will increase, not reduce, abortions. Mr. Speaker, I 
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Callahan amendment and 
accept the Senate language.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my 
good friend, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], if she is 
aware that during the course of the Reagan and Bush years when the 
Mexico City policy was in effect that, yes, money went to foreign 
governments but it also went in record amounts to foreign 
nongovernmental organizations, including Planned Parenthood, Western 
Hemisphere, and other organizations that agreed to the Mexico City 
clause.
  So it is untrue that the money will only be funneled through 
governments. It will also continue to go to nongovernmental 
organizations as it has in the past.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One would think there was nothing else in this bill. This is a body 
of compromise. While we should never compromise our principles, I think 
that we have worked in a responsible manner in responding to the 
constitutional requirements and needs of this administration to provide 
them with the vehicles they need to implement foreign policy. There are 
other things in this measure other than this antiabortion debate that 
is taking place today. The Middle East peace accord is at stake if we 
do not get this thing fulfilled today and send it to the Senate and let 
them act more responsibly than they did in the past. We are very 
optimistic that this can take place and this is the reason we are 
sending it back to the Senate. We have indications that they think that 
in this two bodies of compromise that maybe they ought to reconsider 
their vote of two times before.
  I think that we have a good bill. This House has voted favorably for 
it twice before in the past. It is the same identical thing.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion 
which would insist on the House language which prohibits U.S. funding 
to any private, nongovernmental, or multilateral organization that 
directly or indirectly to engage in family planning in a foreign 
country. This language would effectively eliminate all funding for 
international family planning organizations.
  Organizations like International Planned Parenthood offer basic 
health care screening and information on family planning. Denying funds 
to organizations like International Planned Parenthood is nonsensical. 
This language would implement an international gag rule.
  With the world's population growing at an unprecedented rate, one of 
the most important forms of aid that we provide to other countries is 
family planning assistance. As a world leader, the United States must 
work to reduce the complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and unsafe 
abortions, which 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.
  But this debate has nothing to do with abortion itself. Current law 
prohibits--and has for 20 years--the use of U.S. funds for abortion. 
Foreign aid policy and law clearly states that U.S. funds may not be 
used to pay for abortion procedures or to lobby on the issue.
  Thus, the proposed language would simply eliminate funding for legal, 
and essential, health and family planning services--not abortion. 
Legitimate and effective international health organizations would be 
punished under the proposed language simply for providing family 
planning information. I urge my colleagues to defeat this motion.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to the 
Callahan motion to next year's foreign operations appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, just 2 months ago, women from different nations, 
cultures, and religions came together at the U.N. World Conference on 
Women in Beijing.
  At Beijing, women from around the world spoke about the need to 
increase access to family planning, particularly in the developing 
world, where an unwanted pregnancy is often a matter of life or death.
  If you believe that women, rich and poor, should have the right to 
choose safe motherhood, you must vote down the Callahan motion. If you 
believe that women should have the right to choose how many children 
they have and under what conditions, you must vote down the Callahan 
motion. If you believe that the United States has the obligation to 
support the United Nations in its efforts to slow the Earth's exploding 
population, and the misery that comes with it, you must vote down the 
Callahan motion.
  I think that it is an outrage that the House is being forced to 
debate this issues once again. Come on, this is getting ridiculous.
  The House of Representatives needs to get on with its work and send 
the foreign operations appropriations bill onto the President. We have 
a conference report, it is a good conference report, and we should not 
waste the taxpayers' dollars by going back and forth over the issue of 
international family planning.
  I urge my colleagues to support international family planning, 
support the conference report language for the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, and vote down the Callahan motion.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support to Mr. Callahan's 
motion.
  For the fourth time this year, we revisit the issue of future U.S. 
funding of the U.N. Population Fund [UNPFA] and the reinstatement of 
the Reagan-Bush administration's Mexico City policy. This time--just as 
2 weeks ago--the main motivation for the vote is to send a message to 
our counterparts in the Senate that we are willing to meet them halfway 
on these funding issues. We are not willing, however, to back down from 
our stance of allowing the United States to send unrestricted funds to 
the international abortion industry or to those that have no qualms 
with a coercive abortion policy.
  Even though the three previous House votes on this issue were 
overwhelmingly positive, I guess we need to once again reiterate to our 
colleagues in the Senate that we will not weaken language when it comes 
to defending the life of the most defenseless member of the human 
race--the unborn child. So with that, I urge my colleagues to stand 
behind the Callahan motion by voting ``yes.''
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning  of Kentucky). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 183, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 794]

                               YEAS--237

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     
[[Page H12362]]

     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
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     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
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     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
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--183

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown (CA)
     Chrysler
     Dornan
     Fields (LA)
     Goodling
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Lantos
     Mfume
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1144

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

  Mr. Dornan for, with Ms. Kaptur against.

  Mr. FOGLIETTA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________