[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14787-H14796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H14787]]


  DISPOSING OF SENATE AMENDMENT 115 TO H.R. 1868, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, 
    EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                              (Continued)

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 296, I call 
up from the Speaker's table 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 
Senate amendment numbered 115 thereto, and to consider the motion 
printed in section 2 of the resolution.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The Clerk will designate the 
Senate amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment 115:
       Page 44, line 19, after ``lizations'' 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''.


                     motion offered by mr. callahan

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Callahan moves that the House recede from its amendment 
     to the amendment of the Senate numbered 115, and concur 
     therein with an amendment, as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:
       ``Authorization of Population Planning
       ``Sec. 518A. Section 526 of this Act shall not apply to 
     funds made available in this Act for population planning 
     activities or other population assistance pursuant to section 
     104(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision 
     of law, or to funds made available in title IV of this Act as 
     a contribution to the United Nations Population Fund 
     (UNFPA).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 296, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].

                              {time}  1115


                             general leave

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the disposition of Senate amendment number 115, and that I 
be permitted to include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). 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. I do not want to take any more time on this matter than 
what is necessary. We have already had this matter, population 
assistance and abortion, before the House four times previously this 
year. I want to be sure, however, that all Members understand what the 
motion does and does not do.
  The motion provided for by the rule does not cut population funding. 
It freezes obligations under the fiscal 1996 bill for population 
funding until it has been authorized or a further waiver of the 
statutory authorization requirement has been enacted. It does not halt 
the hundreds of millions of dollars of population funding from prior 
year bills that has not yet been spent.
  This motion does not ask the Senate to agree to enact a funding 
cutoff for foreign private groups that decline to comply with the 
Mexico City policy restrictions. The Senate does not have the votes to 
do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I want the Members to be aware of another proposal that 
I offered to the Senate managers of the foreign assistance bill several 
weeks ago.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Members may be aware, we have had various 
differences with the Senate on this proposition. As a matter of fact, 
the original bill that was sent to the Senate came back with 193 
amendments. We were able to resolve 192 of the differences between the 
House and Senate. The only one that could not be resolved is the issue 
on abortion. We have tried, and tried with frustration, to look at a 
possible way to pass the foreign operations bill for 1996, to satisfy 
those that are concerned about abortion worldwide, that are concerned 
about planned parenthood, to no avail. We simply have been unable to 
get the votes in the Senate to make this reality come true for the 1996 
foreign operations bill.
  We are in a situation now that we will send another bill to the 
Senate and ask that they, with their great wisdom, find a way to pass 
something that can pass through the Senate and that also can be 
acceptable to the House. I, for example, have offered what I think was 
a reasonable compromise to the pro-life forces in the House, and that 
was to cut the funding capability of any organization to 50 percent of 
its 1995 level until they sign the Mexico City policy language. In my 
opinion, that is a fair resolve in this House of compromise.
  If we do not get something to the Senate and get something from the 
Senate that we can concur on, that will satisfy us, we are not going to 
have a 1996 appropriation bill for foreign operations.

[[Page H14788]]

  Instead, we are going to be dealing in a continuing resolution, a CR 
that more than likely will not include any protection for those of us 
that are concerned about abortion worldwide. A CR may not protect 
anything that has to do with child survival. We could lose many things, 
including the prohibition of USAID from moving into a Taj Mahal 
downtown and paying each month hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
unnecessary rent. A CR will not reduce funding to USAID. It will not 
cut the funding that we were successful in passing through this House, 
unless we get something realistic that both sides can work with.
  In a sense, Mr. Speaker, I chastise those Members of Congress who are 
so hell-bent and determined to have their way that they are 
interfering, in my opinion, with the due process and with the 
compromise that this body must occasionally represent.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure is another vehicle going back to the 
Senate. We do not expect the Senate to accept it. I would not think 
that the President would sign the bill if they Senate passed it, so it 
is futile, in a sense, to think that we are going to enact this 
legislation with this language in here, but it is the only opportunity 
we have to send this train back to the Senate and ask them to look at 
it and to take into account those of us who are concerned about 
abortion being funded or encouraged by any American moneys.

  I want Members to be aware of another proposal that I offered to the 
Senate managers of the foreign assistance bill several weeks ago. I 
suggested that they accept what I call an incentive program for private 
groups to accept the Mexico City policy language.
  Under my proposal, which is not in this rule, all groups which now 
receive A.I.D. population money could continue to receive up to 50 
percent of current funding. However, there would be no funding limits 
on foreign private groups which agreed to comply with Mexico City 
principles. That would be the incentive for many is not most population 
assistance providers to sign on to the Mexico City principles again, as 
the did prior to 1993.
  I recognize that the gentleman from New Jersey opposes the approach 
that I just described. Yet another pro-life Members of this body and 
the Senate continue to express interest in it. I just wanted the House 
to know that many of us have been working on a compromise that will 
enable us to send this appropriations bill to the President for his 
signature.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, again we are here because the committee has 
still not finished its work. We are here because there are still six 
appropriation bills which have not yet crossed the finish line and 
become law. The foreign operations bill which we are discussing today 
is one of those bills. We are going to be in a big fight over whether 
or not we should pass the CR come Friday, a continuing resolution to 
prevent the Government from closing down. And we are going to be in 
that fight because we have not yet finished our appropriations work. I 
would think that under those circumstances what we would be looking for 
is ways to find compromise between the House and Senate so we can move 
more of these bills forward.
  That is what I very much want to do on this bill, but this language, 
as the gentleman who just spoke clearly indicated, this language has no 
chance whatsoever of being accepted by the Senate or becoming law. So 
my question is, why on earth should we do this?
  Mr. Speaker, this proposal meets somebody's strategic idea that what 
we have to do is send another piece of legislation to the Senate which 
we know will not pass. I think all that does is to harden each side, 
rather than make each side more flexible. I would point out, the 
practical effect of this strategy is to ask 221 Members of this House 
from both sides of the aisle who voted against this proposition on the 
Labor-HEW bill to vote for it today.
  What this proposition essentially does is to eliminate all 
international family planning money. This is not an abortion issue. I 
support efforts, for instance, to shut off funding for the U.N. 
population program if it continues to operate in China. I agree with 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] on that issue. However, I do 
not agree with, and I do not think most Members of this House do, and I 
know that many Members on the Republican side of the aisle do not agree 
with the idea of eliminating all authority for any family planning 
programs internationally.
  The following Members voted against this amendment when it was 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, from the HEW 
bill. I am going to read everybody's name:
  Messrs. Abercrombie, Ackerman, Baesler, Baldacci, Barrett of 
Wisconsin, Bass, Becerra, Beilenson, Bentsen, Bereuter, Berman, 
Bilbray, Bishop, Blute, Boehlert, Bonior, Borski, Boucher, Browder, and 
Brown T1of California, Ms. Brown of Florida, Messrs. Brown of Ohio, 
Bryant of Texas, Cardin, Castle, Chapman, and Clay, Ms. Clayton, 
Messrs. Clement, Clinger, Clyburn, and Coleman, Mrs. Collins of 
Illinois, Miss Collins of Michigan, Messrs. Condit, Conyers, Coyne, and 
Cramer, Ms. Danner, Mr. Davis, and Mr. de la Garza.
  I am reading now the names of all Members of the House who voted 
against this proposition last time: Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeLauro, Messrs. 
Dellums, Deutsch, Dicks, Dingell, Dixon, Doggett, Dooley, and Doyle, 
Ms. Dunn of Washington, Messrs. Durbin, Edwards, Ehrlich, and Engle, 
Ms. Eshoo, Messrs. Evans, Farr, Fattah, Fawell, Fazio of California, 
Fields of Louisiana, Filner, Flake, Foglietta, Foley, and Ford, Mrs. 
Fowler, Messrs. Frank of Massachusetts, Franks of Connecticut, Franks 
of New Jersey, Frelinghuysen, and Frost.
  Continuing reading the names of all Members who voted against this 
last time:
  Ms. Furse, Messrs. Ganske, Gejdenson, Gekas, Gephardt, Pete Geren of 
Texas, Gibbons, Gilchrest, Gilman, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gene Green of 
Texas, Greenwood, Gunderson, Gutierrez, and Hamilton, Ms. Harman, 
Messrs. Hastings of Florida, Hefner, Hilliard, Hinchey, Hobson, Horn, 
Houghton, and Hoyer, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Jefferson, Mrs. 
Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnston of Florida, 
and Mr. Kanjorksi, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mrs. Kennelly, Messrs. 
Kleczka, Klink, Klug, Kolbe, Lantos, Lazio of New York, Leach, Levin, 
Lewis of California, and Lewis of Georgia, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Lofgren, 
Mr. Longley, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Luther, Mrs. Maloney, Messrs. Markey, 
Martinez, Martini, and Matsui, Ms. McCarthy, Messrs. McDermott, McHale, 
and McInnis, Ms. McKinney, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Meehan, Mrs. Meek of 
Florida, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, Messrs. Mfume, Miller of 
California, Mineta, and Minge, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Ms. Molinari, Mr. 
Moran, and Mrs. Morella.
  Continuing to read the names of all Members who voted against this 
proposition the last time:
  Messrs. Nadler, Neal, Obey, Olver, Owens, Pallone, Pastor, Payne of 
New Jersey, and Payne of Virginia, Ms. Pelosi, Messrs. Peterson of 
Florida, Pickett, Pomeroy, and Porter, Ms. Pryce, Messrs. Ramstad, 
Rangel, Reed, Regula, Richardson, and Riggs, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Roemer, 
Mr. Rose, Mrs. Roukema, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Messrs. Rush, Sabo, Sanders, 
Sawyer, and Schiff, Mrs. Schroeder, Messrs. Schumer, Scott, Serrano, 
Shaw, Shays, Sisisky, and Skaggs, Ms. Slaughter, Messrs. Spratt, Stark, 
Stokes, Studds, Tanner, Thomas, Thompson, Thornton, Torkildsen, Torres, 
Torricelli, Towns, Traficant, and Upton, Ms. Velazquez Messrs. Vento, 
Visclosky, and Ward, Ms. Waters, Messrs. Watt of North Carolina, 
Waxman, White, Williams, Wilson, and Wise, Ms. Woolsey, Messrs. Wyden, 
Wynn, Yates, Zeliff, and Zimmer.

  All of those Members voted against this proposition when the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] offered language which in 
essence cut off funding for all family planning domestically.
  Mr. Speaker, I would submit that cutting off all family planning 
funds for international programs is even worse, because if you do, you 
know that that will disarm us in our ability to try to do something 
about uncontrolled population growth in many sectors of the world. If 
you are for compromise, you ought to be looking for 

[[Page H14789]]
compromise language. You should not swallow language which the manager 
of the bill himself indicates has no chance whatsoever of becoming law. 
All that is going to do is guarantee that we have to have a continuing 
resolution for this bill. I do not think we ought to be doing that. We 
ought to be trying to find ways to pass this bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I might say that this does not deny funding to Planned 
Parenthood or to any of the agencies. It just simply says what we have 
heard over and over again in this House: that the Committee on 
Appropriations ought not to be authorizing items, so we have 
appropriated the money in this bill. We just simply say that until such 
time as the Congress of the United States authorizes it through an 
authorization bill, that the money cannot be spent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of our committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see the chart from the 
gentleman from Wisconsin once again. In fact, that chart is looking 
better every day. All those black lines mean that the appropriations 
bills are working their way through the process.
  It may take a little bit longer than we might have hoped, but they 
are betting there and that chart is going to be complete someday, 
hopefully within the next week. We will find out at Christmastime, 
either this Christmas or next Christmas, as to whether or not the chart 
is complete.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to buy the gentleman the biggest scotch in 
town if all of those bills are passed by Christmas.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. We will see.
  Actually the fact is the administration is negotiating, or course, 
with the Congress to see whether or not we can come to a package deal 
and complete business on all of these appropriations bills. I want to 
ask the gentleman's indulgence and allow me to draw the lines to 
complete the chart when the package is complete.
  The point is, though, that we have indeed passed seven entire 
appropriations subcommittee bills and they have been signed into law. 
The eighth, the Commerce-Justice-State bill, goes to the President 
today for his signature or his veto. The VA-HUD bill, the Foreign Ops 
bill which is on the floor today and the Interior bill are all working 
their way through various processes and should be complete by, if not 
the end of this week, certainly by the end of next week, we hope.
  the District of Columbia bill, likewise, has one or two issues in 
conference that remain to be dealt with. I think that that bill will be 
on the floor very shortly.
  So the only bill that really is far from passage, and that is because 
the other party as filibustering it in the Senate, is the Labor-HHS 
bill.
  We are working our way through these bills. This bill unfortunately 
has been to the floor twice before. This is the third time. This is a 
conference report that has been hung up on the issue of abortion. We 
have come to an impasse. The Senate does not want to adopt the language 
that the House has offered. So we have offered some new language which 
we hope they will consider and which we hope that they will adopt. They 
may or may not. But we have to move the process forward.
  In the spirit of doing exactly that, I would ask all of our Members 
to join with us, pass this bill one more time, get it to the Senate and 
let them work their will and hopefully let us get this bill to the 
President for his signature.
  There has been some disagreement on exactly what the language was 
that disallowed funding for family planning, international family 
planning. I would say in response to what the gentleman from Wisconsin 
said that that amendment really had little to do with this provision. 
This deals with UNFPA, U.N. family planning operations, and all it does 
is freeze the money in place. It says the money is there but that the 
money will be frozen until such time as the authorization bill is 
passed.

  Frankly, it would be better if the issue of abortion were handled in 
the authorization bills. Because it is policy that should be handled by 
the authorization bills. And so what this does is to remove the issue 
of abortion and transfer it to the place it belongs, to the 
authorization committees for them to consider, for them to assess the 
policy ramifications and for them to ultimately pass the law.
  This is an attempt to take abortion out of the appropriations process 
and say to the authorizers, you do the job, and let us not hang up the 
appropriations bills in this House and in the Senate up any longer so 
that we can get the country's business done and so that we can get the 
functions of government funded and so that we do not have to waste any 
more time and be here at Christmastime.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. I was just going to ask the chairman if he understands 
and remembers that it has been 10 years since we had an authorization 
bill on foreign aid.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has reminded me 
that it has been a very long time, but I am very hopeful and optimistic 
that we are going to pass one this year or certainly within the next 3 
months. Certainly before the gentleman retires.
  Mr. WILSON. I hope so.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. And we do not want him to retire, we hope he decides 
to stay around, but if that is his decision, I hope that by the time he 
retires, he will have confidence and knowledge that the Foreign Affairs 
authorization bill has been passed by both Houses and enacted into law 
so he can take that with him back to Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for 
this bill.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment because it will effectively eliminate funding for 
international family planning. Our colleagues on the far right continue 
to hold up this bill with their extreme legislative agenda. This has 
got to stop. Let us pass this bill.
  After all, this amendment is just another way to masquerade the issue 
and stop all family planning funding. Let us stop it and let us get 
this bill passed today.
  Our chairman, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], has crafted 
an excellent foreign aid bill. This extreme language, I say to the 
chairman, is preventing this critical bill from being enacted.
  Let me tell my colleagues exactly what is happening here. Our anti-
choice colleagues have attempted to place restrictions on the 
international family planning programs in this bill, despite the fact 
that abortion funding overseas has been prohibited since 1973. Their 
restrictions have been rejected by the Senate three times. We have 
heard the message loud and clear.
  Now their solution to the Senate's refusal to accept their extreme 
restrictions is to do something even more extreme, to eliminate the 
programs altogether.
  This bill is already 2\1/2\ months late, and rather than offer a true 
compromise or simply accept that their restrictions have failed 3 
times, our colleagues on the right now offer an amendment that they 
know both the Senate and the administration will reject.
  Why do they insist on wasting our time with this? This is the fourth 
time that we have voted on this appropriations bill. Why do they 
continue to play politics with a bill that contains funding for so many 
vital programs throughout the world?
  Their amendment will effectively end one of the most important forms 
of aid that we provide to other countries, family planning assistance. 
The amendment exempts the family planning program, and only the family 
planning program, from the waiver in the bill that allows funds to be 
appropriated even though the foreign aid authorization bill has not 
passed.
  What our colleagues have not told you is that the foreign aid 
authorization bill has not passed in a dozen 

[[Page H14790]]
years, and I know the chairman is optimistic. The Senate has already 
indicated that it will not pass the authorization bill this year.
  The reality is, it could be years before an authorization bill is 
signed into law. We know that. In the meantime, we will have failed to 
fund vital family planning programs throughout the world.
  No one can deny that the need for family planning services in 
developing countries is urgent. The aid we provide is 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.
  Let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women 
around the world. Complications of pregnancy, childbirth, unsafe 
abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age. 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.
  This amendment will stop us from continuing our fight against these 
tragedies. Simply put, this amendment will end our family planning 
programs. Period. that is what it would do.
  I urge my colleagues, once again, oppose this amendment. We cannot 
let them eliminate international family planning. There is too much at 
stake. Let us pass this excellent appropriations bill. Let us take off 
this extreme amendment. Let us not vote on this again. We need this 
bill.
  I again salute the chairman on this outstanding bill. Let us pass it 
here today. Let us not bow to the right that continues to tack on the 
extreme amendments. Let us not do it. Let us join and pass this bill 
today.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Responding to the kind gentlewoman from New York, let me thank her 
for her help during this past year or so, too, and to tell her that I 
am optimistic that the Senate is going to bring up the authorization 
bill either today or tomorrow under a unanimous-consent agreement.
  I think for the first time in the 10 years that they have not been 
able to pass a bill, they are finally going to have a bill that passes 
the House and the Senate and goes to conference. This is the argument 
that we always hear, those of us who are appropriators: Do not 
authorize, do not authorize, you are appropriators.
  In this bill, we appropriate the money. What we simply say is it 
cannot be spent until it is authorized by the proper committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. If the gentleman will yield, let me just say that I am 
happy the holidays are coming and we all have wishes. I do wish the 
authorization bill would pass as well as you do but it has not passed 
in 12 years and I would rather deal with fact rather than fiction, 
although I wish you and the authorization bill well.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time and appreciate his leadership on this issue.
  Incidentally, and this is not so incidentally, I rise in strong 
support for this conference report and for its passage. But I do want 
to refer to, first of all, the chart that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] brought out. I do like the looks of that chart. It is 
getting better.
  It is because we are working a lot harder to get to a point of 
success. None of this is very easy. The chairman referred to the fact 
that we had 193 amendments in the conference committee. We completed 
and agreed upon 192. The one remaining, of course, is the one we are 
dealing with today.
  This language, I think, ensures that any expenditure of funds for 
population planning or the UNFPA must be, as has been pointed out here, 
specifically authorized by this body, which has not been done.
  Somebody on the other side made the comment about it has not been 
done in 10 years. Well, that is not to say it should not be done. I 
think it should be. We have an opportunity perhaps where that will take 
place.
  We have to be able to debate these things or we will not get 
anywhere. So maybe this is, in the eyes of the gentlewoman from New 
York, an extraneous matter, should be done away with, forgotten about, 
so we can pass this beautiful bill. Well, it is important to a lot of 
us. It is worth debate. It is something that we want to carry on and 
come to some conclusion, a successful conclusion.
  I would not suggest to you that it is guaranteed, as the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] stated, that the Senate will just let this 
thing float and die. We do not know that yet entirely. There is some 
idea here that may be beginning to impress them, that there is perhaps 
more to this and we can come to a conclusion that will satisfy 
everybody.
  As I have said many times before, I strongly support this conference 
report. It balances fiscal restraint and the needs of foreign policy, 
and it reflects the reasoned compromise and considerable cooperation 
that did take place between all of the Members from both sides in 
committee and also in the conference committee. It deserves bipartisan 
support.
  I think we are at a point now where we can get to a position of 
passing a bill that is in dire need of being passed. I agree with the 
sense of urgency but I do not agree that this is an unimportant matter. 
It is very important to may of us, and it does allow for the 
continuation of funding at the appropriate time for the specific family 
planning ideas. It just has to be authorized.

  H.R. 1868 allows us to continue to remain active in world events 
while it reflects our budgetary constraints, and you all know that. 
This conference report reflects, I believe, what is best for this body. 
We will send it to the Senate. They will make their decision. I support 
this conference report and urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reassure the gentleman from 
Michigan that I respect your views on the issues of abortion, just as I 
respect the views of every one of my colleagues. I just think it is so 
unfortunate that every appropriations bill is tied up in abortion. I do 
wish we could isolate that issue, have a real debate, and move this 
appropriations bill now.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we should be very clear. This amendment is 
simply a way to freeze the family planning funds. This amendment 
targets only family planning, that portion of the legislation.
  Family planning works. No one wants abortion to be the only way to 
control pregnancy. Family planning gets us beyond abortion. It allows 
people to control the size of their families and thereby control their 
economies. Family planning is absolutely profamily.

                              {time}  1145

  It is truly the most pro-family thing we can do, because it allows 
families to make the decisions. It is so ridiculous. You know, if I 
asked my constituents, many, many of them say to me, ``You know the 
greatest problem in this world is over population,'' over population 
because of use of resources, because of the stress it puts on 
communities, overpopulation is a great threat.
  Family planning allows us to move beyond. Family planning is one of 
the greatest parts of getting us to peace and prosperity 
internationally, because it allows families to decide on how many 
children they are having. So we really need to defeat this anti-family 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to do that.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. 


[[Page H14791]]
Speaker, the House has voted four times to support the pro-life 
provisions which would ensure that international family planning 
assistance will be abortion neutral. The first provision prohibits tax 
dollars from being used by the United Nations Population Fund--which 
currently helps manage China's brutal one-child-per-one-family policy 
unless it ceases family planning activities in the People's Republic of 
China or unless China's family planning activities in China cease to be 
coercive.
  The second provision would ensure that none of the moneys sent to the 
UNPF may be used to fund any private, nongovernmental, or multilateral 
organizations that directly or through a subcontractor perform 
abortions in any foreign country--except to save the life of the mother 
or in cases of rape or 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 or incest.
  The Callahan motion does not eliminate or even reduce the 
appropriations for population assistance but will leave the 
appropriations levels in H.R. 1868 intact. However it will delay the 
use of these appropriated funds until these expenditures are 
authorized. It will also delink pro-life issues from other important 
provisions such as aid to Israel, child survival programs and other 
foreign aid programs.
  I urge my colleagues Mr. Speaker to support this motion and allow 
this important legislation to move forward and fund vital foreign aid 
programs.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, in the 19th century at the height of the 
Industrial Revolution, there arose a political group which frankly was 
opposed to the change and progress of the Industrial Revolution. They 
were known as the Luddites. The Luddites would try to wreck the 
machinery of the Industrial Revolution to stop the change that was 
taking place. They objected to it, and they used violence and terrorism 
for that purpose. Theirs was a mindless opposition to the reality of 
change, a resistance to accepting the world as it existed.
  What we hear on the floor today is the same mentality when it comes 
to family planning, a mindless opposition to family planning from 
groups which characterize themselves as pro-life. Anyone who has taken 
the time to study the issue understands that the greatest world threats 
to our children are nuclear proliferation and overpopulation.
  Take a look at the expanding population in continents around the 
world, whether in Asia, Africa, South America. You will find that those 
expanding populations not only create human suffering for the people 
living there, but they, in fact, lead to environmental disasters which 
visit themselves on the entire world as well as to military 
confrontations which ultimately drag the United States and other 
civilized nations into the vortex of the conflict. Overpopulation is a 
major problem.
  What we are doing with this motion today is literally shutting down 
America's commitment to family planning around the world. We are not 
talking about abortion. I hold in my hand a penny, one penny; not one 
penny is being spent of Federal money to fund abortions in any country 
of the world. You would never know that from this debate. You would 
think we were setting out to fund abortions and the pro-life people 
wanted to stop it. It has nothing to do with it. Not a penny of Federal 
funds are being used for that purpose. What we are doing, in closing 
down this $450 million of family planning is adding to degradation and 
personal disaster around the world and, sadly, adding to the likelihood 
that move abortion will result.
  Several years ago I traveled with Congressman Mike Synar to 
Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world. Far away in a 
distant, dusty village we met a 19-year-old woman holding a baby. It 
was her third child. Through an interpreter she told us with great 
pride it would be her last child. Because of world health efforts which 
the United States supported, her children were healthy, and she did not 
have to bear any more children and through family planning efforts, 
that we spend pennies on, she was able to control the size of her 
family.
  She and so many other women around the world, given a chance for 
their own personal dignity, will be denied that chance because of this 
terrible motion. I urge my colleagues, do not give in to this 
extremism. Oppose this motion.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Callahan motion, which represents yet another sincere attempt by 
Chairman Callahan to seek a compromise approach to this issue on which 
so many of us feel so very strongly.
  As most of my colleagues know, I have been a very strong supporter of 
the pro-life Mexico City policy which is designed to protect innocent 
unborn children around the world by barring United States family 
planning funds to foreign organizations that perform or promote 
abortion overseas. The House has voted four times, four times, in favor 
of that legislation this year. It should be clear by now, Mr. Speaker, 
that one way or the other pro-lifers will not stand by. We will not 
allow the abortion industry to get an infusion of literally hundreds of 
millions of dollars in foreign aid for the promotion of the killing of 
unborn children in other lands or by lobbying to bring down their 
statutes.
  More than 95, closer to 100, countries of the world have pro-life 
statutes, and these nongovernmental organizations, some, not all, get 
into these countries, begin networking, and they have been working 
aggressively to bring down those pro-life statutes.
  I do not think the U.S. taxpayer should be making these organizations 
the dominant force in these capitals around the world. Family planning, 
yes; abortion promotion, and abortion performance except in the cases 
of rape, incest, and life of the mother, which is what the original 
language had in it, they are the exception; but family planning, yes; 
abortion, no.
  I would also remind Members that I have been a very strong supporter 
of linking UNFPA funding, U.N. Population Fund, to withdrawal of UNFPA 
from the program in China where forced abortion is commonplace and 
prevalent and where the UNFPA has been the dominant cheerleader for the 
population program in Beijing, in the People's Republica of China. 
Again, if the Senate or the White House will not budge on this at this 
time, pro-lifers are not going to cave.
  We will allow the money, we will push the money for family planning, 
but will not allow it to be used in any way, shape, or form for the 
promotion of abortion or for promoting this coercion in the People's 
Republican of China. The pro-life Members are willing to support this 
motion which deletes these two provision, but says we have got the wait 
until the authorizers take it up and then the bill will pass, I 
believe, and will be signed. Otherwise, we go back. We put the language 
back into the appropriations bill. That is fine with me.
  If the Senate will not budge, we stay here until hell freezer over, 
because unborn children are precious and the women in the People's 
Republic of China, who have been victimized by the brutality of that 
program are precious as well.
  I absolutely and categorically reject those who stand on the floor 
and say we are stopping all family planning funding. During the many 
years that the Mexico City program was in effect, 350 plus 
nongovernmental organizations, more NGO's than we had the money to 
fund, accepted the Mexico City clauses of no abortion promotion and got 
their money for family planning in Bangladesh, in Africa, in Central 
America. Planned Parenthood, Western Hemisphere, got, if I remember 
correctly, about $10 million when they agreed they would no longer be 
promoting abortion. The got their 

[[Page H14792]]
money to stay on point, and that is family planning, not abortion.
  We are insisting on very modest language that says we are not going 
to be in the business of promoting abortion or performing it except in 
those very rare cases. We are not going to allow these organizations to 
be lobbying to bring down these anti-abortion statutes around the 
globe.
  The family planning money will then flow. Nobody will object to it, 
and condoms and some of the other things that are disseminated will go 
out without any impediment, but we will not be in the business of 
empowering the abortion industry.
  Vote for the Callahan motion.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This amendment is a gross misuse of the political process to thwart 
the will of the American people who overwhelmingly support family 
planning in this country and around the world.
  Once again, the new majority is attempting to put the radical right's 
agenda ahead of good government and global responsibility. It is clear 
that their actions show little concern for women's health, pre and 
postnatal care, health and nutrition for children, families, and 
stabilizing global population, and the problems that flow from it, 
including the massive increases recently in refugees.
  The Callahan measure would make it illegal to appropriate funds for 
international family planning programs unless they are authorized. We 
need to vote to save international family planning programs. We need to 
vote to protect families, children, and women around the world. We need 
to defeat this politically motivated action by anti-family, anti-women 
Members here. It goes against everything this country agreed upon, and 
I might add, 187 other countries agreed upon at the International 
Conference for Women in Beijing.
  Supporting international family planning programs is socially 
responsible, fiscally sound, and it serves our national purposes.
  Vote to support women and families around the world. Defeat the 
Callahan motion.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, so eloquent is the gentleman from Illinois 
and so knowledgeable of this subject is the gentleman from Illinois, it 
would be immoral to deny him any restriction on time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], but remind him that we are down to about 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I suggest the gentleman correct the Record 
when it comes around for his extravagance in introducing me.
  You know, when you get in this debate, you have to expect to be 
called names, and I have been called some wonderful names, some 
colorful names. Today it was mindless Luddite, and, you know, you can 
play that game. I would call people who think abortion is a good idea 
or an acceptable idea, or something the American taxpayer ought to pay 
for, I would not call them mindless, but I might call them heartless. I 
might call them unthinking. But I do not want to get into that game.
  I want to just try to talk a little reality here. Family planning is 
not abortion, and abortion is not family planning, and when you link 
the two together you have got real problems, because many of us do not 
want to have American tax dollars go to pay for killing unborn children 
even if they are in Bangladesh or if they are in Toledo. We think human 
life ought to be special and ought to be sacred, and killing it, 
exterminating it, however you do it, is wrong and ought not to be paid 
for with tax dollars. That is what the struggle is about, and we are 
entitled to access to the political process to try and make our point.
  But when misstatements are made, we have to wonder who is being 
mindless. For example, family planning flourishes under our program. 
Forty percent of all the dollars that are spent worldwide on family 
planning come from the United States and did under Reagan and Bush.

                              {time}  1200

  It is simply two organizations that will not accept the money because 
they want to continue promoting abortion. So there are 300-some 
organizations that are happy to take our family planning money. 
Meanwhile around the world family planning, properly understood, which 
is either helping someone to get pregnant or keeping them from getting 
pregnant; it is not exterminating the pregnancy once it has occurred, 
and that is what my colleagues are talking about, and we are asking 
those gentlemen from Mount Olympus across the rotunda to please 
understand we are for family planning, we are for foreign aid. It is 
abortion we are not for. We think that is despicable, we think it is 
wrong, and we do not think tax dollars ought to go pay for it.
  So overpopulation; we have heard two speakers bemoan that as one of 
the great problems in the world. I suggest that is an unsophisticated 
look at a serious problem. Density is what we should look at, how many 
people per square mile. There are countries on the globe with a higher 
density than many of these countries that have overpopulation problems 
and yet a high standard of living. Japan, Switzerland, Holland have 
high density, high standard of living. Maybe it is something more than 
the number of people, maybe it is the economy, maybe it is the kind of 
government, maybe it is society. But that is a rather superficial look 
at the problem of overpopulation.
  The money is fungible. If we give the money to the International 
Planned Parenthood of London, and they say, ``We're going to spend our 
money on abortion and not your money,'' that is a bookkeeping 
transaction and does not fool anybody.
  So I suggest that we stand fast, we continue to tell the gentleman 
and gentleladies across the rotunda we do not want to fund abortion.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, please let the Record reflect that this 
gentleman has not called the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] any 
names.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to express my respect for 
my chairman, for the gentleman from New Jersey, and of course for my 
wonderful colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. Speaker, the language of this proposed amendment is simply not 
going to fly. We know, everyone knows, that the Senate will not accept 
this approach. Even if they did, the President would veto the bill. We 
are wasting our time, we are tying up the House, we are tying up this 
legislation. We are delaying programs that ought to be going forward, 
we are delaying our commitment to Camp David that we have always 
observed, and I think it is totally disingenuous to say, as some on the 
opposite side are saying that our side is delaying the bill. They are 
delaying the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Illinois just said family planning is 
not abortion. That is exactly right. It is against current law to spend 
any U.S. funds for abortion, and those of us who are arguing this 
matter are supporters of family planning, and not supporters of 
abortion. To hold all family planning funding hostage to legislative 
language that will not be agreed to by the Senate or by the President 
is to hold this entire bill hostage. And, to hold up other bills over 
this issue is to hold those bills hostage as well.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not fund abortion. We have never funded abortion. 
I have always supported the Hyde amendment both domestically and 
internationally.
  This issue is not going to be resolved with this proposal. This issue 
is simply delaying this entire bill from going forward, and it seems to 
me that we should defeat this proposal and strip all language on both 
sides of this issue out of this bill, and let the legislation go 
forward and become law.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Alabama for yielding this time to me, and I applaud the subcommittee 
chairman for this amendment. I think it is a very reasonable approach 
to dealing with this problem.
  There are a lot of things that go on up here in Washington, and it 
is, I believe, very hard for the American public to keep a watch on 
everything. One 

[[Page H14793]]
of the amazing things that has gone on up here in Washington is 
immediately after this President was inaugurated he started funneling a 
lot of foreign aid dollars into programs that promote abortion on an 
international scale, and the American people, in this environment that 
we are in of huge deficits, a huge national debt, I believe clearly do 
not want taxpayer dollars being used for this kind of a purpose.
  The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has come up with a very 
reasonable approach. He is saying that we can continue to give these 
organizations money but that the ones that are actively out there 
promoting abortion, particularly the forced abortion like we have in 
China, which I would imagine 99 percent of Americans find 
reprehensible, and it is amazing that this administration would want to 
pump money into those kinds of organizations. It is saying that we will 
not do that unless the authorizing committee actually authorizes this.
  Now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who like to put 
money into these kinds of programs know that they can never get 
authorizing language for something like this, so they are going to 
fight this tooth and nail, but I think it is a very reasonable approach 
in the part of the committee, the subcommittee chairman. I applaud him 
for coming up with this solution to the problem.
  We need to get this bill through. I support the bill. I support all 
my colleagues who would stand up and rise in support of this bill, and 
it is a good solution to the problem.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, this is unfortunate that this debate has 
gone along these lines with linkages that should not be made. We should 
not be discussing family planning dash abortion. This is a family 
planning issue. And we are talking about no international funds can be 
appropriated to any international societies unless an authorization 
bill is passed. Well, we have not had an authorization bill for a 
number of years, and if my colleagues want this amendment passed, it 
should be attached to the authorization bill.
  But this is unfortunate, that we have to be doing this, because for 
years and years people around this world understood that the way to 
deal with population problems, health problems, children who are born 
into families where they are not wanted, is through family planning, 
and to do this today means we do not realize that family planning 
works, and eliminating this aid would hurt countless families 
throughout the world and increase the number of unintended pregnancies.
  We do not want abortions; we want pregnancies not to happen. 
Countless women around this world have no access to health care 
screening and do not have information on how to plan a family, how to 
avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Denying U.S. funds for these services does 
not make sense. It is an arbitrary denial, dealing with something that 
we all, as world citizens, should be dealing with.
  Mr. Speaker, right here I have a statement of the administration's 
policy. We are all trying to deal with legislation, we all know we 
should be going forward and not getting into these kinds of 
discussions, and the administration says:

       If the previous House-passed language on population 
     contained in section 518 and the substitute language were 
     dropped, the Secretary of State would recommend that the 
     President sign the bill.

  One more problem eliminated, and we could go for it. We really should 
not be debating the way we are today. We should just be getting on with 
the business of the House.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Callahan 
motion. This motion is worse than the original amendment--it would 
prohibit any funding for family planning until the foreign aid 
authorization bill is approved--legislation which historically has not 
been enacted into law. Thus, this motion effectively kills all family 
planning funding for the rest of this fiscal year.
  One point must be reiterated in this debate--this amendment attempts 
to address a nonissue--foreign aid dollars do not currently pay for any 
abortions and never have. 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 kill family planning programs--
resulting in more abortions.
  Mr. Speaker, this foreign aid bill already includes drastic cuts in 
funding for population assistance overseas. The Callahan motion will 
further endanger 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 this motion.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am not here to call anyone any names. 
I think this is a debate that really is for world health. Family 
planning is good health. It is good for the world's families. It is 
instructive that over the years this type of family planning has saved 
more lives, and it has done so because the world's women and families 
have been eligible for family planning education. It is good health.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not need to encourage these misstatements that 
have been offered about the facts that family planning is promoting 
abortion and forced abortions in China. Mr. Speaker, I have gone on 
record saying that the atrocities in China should not be tolerated. 
None of us are accepting of that.
  But with this legislation, it would be illegal to appropriate funds 
for international family planning programs. That is all, that is the 
bottom line, of what their policy does help implement world family 
planning.
  Organizations like International Planned Parenthood offer 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. The people 
that would be suffering would be millions of women and families across 
this world. One million women die each year as a result of reproductive 
health problems.
  I started out saying this is a health bill, we want to support family 
planning because it is good health. This debate has nothing to do with 
abortion and current law which, as we all know, prohibits for the last 
20 years the use of U.S. funds for abortion. It is time to err on the 
side of families, women, and good health.
  Defeat this legislation. We want to keep what the law says, good 
health, good family planning, and support for our world's family of 
women and our world's families. In this season of caring and giving, 
Mr. Speaker, can we do any less?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion which would 
eliminate all funding for international family planning organizations. 
This motion exempts family planning programs from the waiver in the 
bill that permits appropriations for foreign aid programs without 
passage of the foreign aid authorization bill, a bill that has not been 
passed in 12 years.
  In other words, it would be illegal to appropriate funds for 
international family planning programs--and only international family 
programs--until the passage of the stalled foreign aid authorization 
bill. This new tactic by my antifamily colleagues is even more drastic 
than the restrictions they have been attempting to impose on the bill. 
This new approach will effectively kill the international family 
planning programs at issue by denying them funding.
  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.

[[Page H14794]]

  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 motion would simply eliminate funding for legal, 
and essential, health and family planning services--not abortion. 
Legitimate and effective international health organizations would be 
prohibited from providing valuable and desperately needed family 
planning information to women around the globe. I urge my colleagues to 
defeat this dangerous motion.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

                             {time}   1215

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and for the gentleman's leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete respect, as our chairman knows, for 
his leadership on our Foreign Operations Subcommittee. As a member of 
that subcommittee, I have seen him shepherd our bill through many 
storms. We have this one remaining obstacle.
  As Members know, we have gone back and forth and back and forth on 
the issue of family planning in this bill. Frankly, I do not see any 
reason for us to have to go through this, because this controversy is 
based on a false premise, the premise that $1 in this bill would be 
spent to fund abortions. That funding is not allowed by U.S. law, and 
we do not need any language to further prohibit it.
  Let us all say that we all agree in this Congress that we abhor, we 
abhor the family planning methods used in China. I mention that issue 
because I see my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, rising, and 
I know that issue is a bone of contention in this bill, but shouldn't 
be in this Congress. We all agree that it is a gross violation of human 
rights for the women, indeed, for the families, the people of China, to 
have to be subjected to China's family planning methods. The practices 
are atrocious and I will not go into them, except to say that no 
funding from this bill supports the China program.
  With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, that first, none of the funds would 
be used for abortion, and second, that none of the funds will be used 
to support the family planning program which we all abhor in China, the 
question arises: Why are we holding the poorest of the poor people in 
the world who depend on family planning funds that are provided in this 
bill hostage to the Chinese regime's policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I call this, with all due respect to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Albama [Mr. Callahan], our distinguished chairman, the 
make matters worse amendment. We had a situation which was a challenge 
to us about funding for family planning. We have been fighting that 
fight. Many people who support family planning but do not support every 
medical option available to women to terminate a pregnancy support us 
in oposition to this rule. I am very pleased that staunch anti-choice 
Members, and I do not say that as a badge of honor, oppose this 
amendment. The gentleman from Ohio, Tony Hall, and I have been on 
opposite sides of the choice issue, and he voted against the rule on 
this bill because of the restrictions it places on family planning. 
Restrictions that are not per se in the bill, but restrictions which 
are by way of procedure. If we do not get the funding through this bill 
now and if we have to wait for an authorization at the end of the 
session, as we are, waiting to go out for the holidays, what will 
happen to the family planning funds that are so desperately needed so 
very soon for so many people in the world?
  That is why I call this the make matters worse amendment. It tries to 
resolve a conflict that I do not think should be there in the first 
place, because we all agree that China's policy is abhorrent and none 
of our funds should go to it. And because we all know that there is no 
funding for abortion allowed under United States law. So why can we not 
come to a sensible conclusion which enables as to fund family planning?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith], because although we differ on the issue of 
choice, he has been a champion on funding for child survival issues and 
the like; but as a tactic, I think the way that the chairman has 
decided to proceed on this will present huge obstacles to getting our 
family planning money out there when it is needed.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding. We do work together on a number of other issues, but 
unfortunately, on this one we have a difference.
  Let me reiterate, and make this so very clear to everyone who may be 
listening to this debate, that we will provide family planning funds, 
as we did during the Reagan and Bush years when we provided in excess 
of 40 percent of all the subsidies globally for family planning, but we 
did it in a way that did not promote or perform abortions. That is the 
key.
  Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me 
say, if Members abhor abortion, as we all do, they should support 
family planning and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DORNAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], the 
conscience of the minority party, who is pro-family, pro-defense, and 
pro-second amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that I rise in 
favor of the motion of the gentleman from Alabama, in strong support of 
it, and I urge the House to adopt this motion.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I hope as Missouri goes, so goes the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of what the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is trying to do, and with great respect for 
human rights voices like the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], 
on the other side of the aisle, and to try and clarify here for the 
1,300,000 audience that watches this on C-SPAN that would think we are 
debating two different issues here today. Everybody suddenly gets up 
and says they are all against abortion.
  Now, a gentleman on the minority side from Illinois held up a penny, 
so I will hold up a penny. All pennies today are Lincoln pennies. 
Lincoln, our greatest President from the State of the gentlemen from 
Illinois, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Durbin, finally came to realize that the 
greatest evil in our country since its founding was slavery. We now 
have great religious leaders all over the world talking about the 
culture of death in the womb, of the elderly, of the infirm, of the 
physically challenged.
  Since our country first met with the House of Representatives 206 
years and 9 months ago, two enormous evils have confronted us: slavery 
and the taking of innocent life through abortion. There is a benchmark 
in this House as of November 1: 139 people a few on my side of the 
aisle, stood up and said that execution-style coup de grace to the base 
of the skull, removing the brains, partial birth abortion, was OK. 
Those in the medical profession that do nothing but abort, nothing but 
abort, and in the other Chamber one of our lady Senators objected to us 
calling them abortionists instead of doctors. If that is all they do, 
they are not doctors in this Member's eyes, they are abortionists. So 
we start with a benchmark of 139 who find even a coup-de-grace abortion 
OK.
  Now we have this group that stands up and says: ``I am against 
abortion, but do not listen to the pro-lifers on this side or that side 
of the aisle.'' Money is fungible, down to a penny. If we free up money 
with all sorts of U.S. restrictions and we know they are not going to 
be obeyed, then it is going to drive abortion and the political 
undermining of the laws, and the majority of the 185 nations in the 
U.N., over 100, will have their laws undermined by these people who are 
driven almost as a religious conviction about abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, Dr. James Timothy McMahon, who with Dr. Haskell worked 
out partial birth abortion, is buried near my parents in Holy Cross 
Cemetery in Culver City. I visited that 

[[Page H14795]]
cemetery Sunday. He renounced his whole life to abortion. Money is 
fungible, listen to the pro-lifers.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleagues on the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee for their work on this 
year's Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (H.R. 2666). On balance, 
H.R. 2666 moves us in the right direction as we seek to come to grips 
with the role of the United States in the post-cold war world.
  However, I rise to express my opposition to a specific provision 
adopted by the conference that would impose a moratorium on the use of 
antipersonnel landmines by the U.S. military.
  This provision does nothing to address the problem that led to its 
adoption--namely, the tens of thousands of unexploded non-self-
destructing landmines that are taking a tragic toll on civilian 
noncombatants around the world. Instead, it unilaterally bars the 
United States from using a legitimate weapon in combat for defensive 
purposes while other nations are not similarly restricted.
  Even the administration, which has made a global ban on the use of 
antipersonnel landmines one of its foreign policy objectives, is 
vigorously opposed to this moratorium. No less an authority than the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, has noted 
that ``antipersonnel landmines will be required by U.S. forces for safe 
defense in the foreseeable future'' and that a prohibition on their use 
would place American forces at risk.
  General Shalikashvili expressed his concerns in a letter to me on 
September 12. I find his arguments logical and persuasive, and request 
at this point that a copy of his letter be inserted in the Record.
  Landmines are an integral part of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine 
and an important economy of force multiplier. They played a critical 
role in defending our troops during the decisive final stage of the 
Persian Gulf war by protecting General Schwartzkopf's forces as they 
closed in to defeat Saddam Hussein's army deep within Iraqi territory.
  The U.S. military uses antipersonnel landmines in strict accordance 
with the international laws of armed conflict. This moratorium would 
place unreasonable and unprecedented restrictions on the use of a 
lawful weapon.
  Other countries, most notably China and Russia, have made it clear 
that they consider landmines to be an integral part of their overall 
military posture, and have refused to foreswear their use.
  In summary, a unilateral moratorium on antipersonnel landmines use by 
the United States will diminish the U.S. ability to conduct ground 
combat operations. It would put our soldiers at greater risk and 
require increased expenditures to maintain an equivalent level of 
battlefield protection. The potential cost of this moratorium is likely 
to be measured not only in dollars, but in American soldiers' lives.
  We should all oppose this moratorium, and should instead continue to 
ensure that we provide our fighting men and women in uniform the tools 
they need to accomplish the missions they are called upon to perform.

                          The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 1995.
     Hon. Floyd Spence,
     Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I solicit your support on the topic of 
     landmines during the forthcoming FY96 Authorization Bill 
     Conference. The proposed legislation in the Senate bill would 
     ban use of anti-personnel landmines by US forces except in 
     narrowly defined scenarios. I have significant concerns 
     because, as written, American personnel would be placed at 
     risk.
       The proposed legislation, beginning 3 years after 
     enactment, would prohibit the use for 1 year of anti-
     personnel landmines by US forces, except in marked and 
     guarded minefields along internationally recognized national 
     borders and demilitarized zones.
       The legislation would effectively prohibit the use of all 
     self-destructing mine systems because they employ a 
     combination of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Self 
     destructing anti-personnel mines represent approximately 65 
     percent of the US total anti-personnel mine inventory. Mines 
     were an indispensable component of the coalition's ability to 
     conduct the maneuver warfare that made such an important 
     contribution to victory in DESERT STORM. Significantly, mines 
     secured the right flank of General Schwarzkopf's ground 
     offensive in western Iraq.
       I wish to emphasize that mines used by US Armed Forces 
     self-destruct a short period of time after emplacement with a 
     high degree of reliability and do not pose a significant 
     humanitarian problem. Restricting anti-personnel landmines to 
     ``internationally recognized national borders'' and 
     demilitarized zones effectively prohibits their use by US 
     forces in most combat scenarios. Defensive minefields around 
     sensitive military installations such as Naval Station 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would also be precluded. US forces are 
     heavily dependent upon such minefields for security.
       The US military strongly opposes the illegal and 
     irresponsible use of these mines and is a proponent of 
     humanitarian demining activities to alleviate suffering 
     caused by them. However, anti-personnel landmines will be 
     required by US forces for safe defense in the foreseeable 
     future. Congress and the American people expect us to fight 
     and win conflicts with minimum casualties. That goal requires 
     the retention of the capabilities provided by the advanced, 
     self-destructing mine systems which would be prohibited under 
     the proposed legislation.
       While I wholeheartedly support US leadership in the long-
     term goal of anti-personnel landmine elimination, unilateral 
     actions which needlessly place our forces at risk now will 
     not induce good behavior from irresponsible combatants. As 
     practical solutions are pursued, our priorities must be to 
     maintain warfighting superiority while concurrently 
     protecting the safety of US service men and women. I consider 
     this to be a critical force protection issue and request your 
     support to defeat the proposed legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                            John M. Shalikashvili,
                                                         Chairman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired. Pursuant to House 
Resolution 296, the previous question is ordered.
  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 226, 
nays 201, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 850]

                               YEAS--226

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     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
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     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
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     
[[Page H14796]]

     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     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
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (OH)
     McInnis
     Mfume
     Tucker
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1243

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McInnis for, with Mr. Brown of Ohio against.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York and Ms. DUNN of Washington changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. EWING and Mr. KILDEE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________