[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, the Senate was compelled to 
pass H.R. 2880, the Balanced Budget and Downpayment Act, to avert 
another Governmental shutdown. As I observed on the day of 
consideration, we did so under great duress, being forced to set aside 
our right and duty to amend the legislation.
  Of particular concern to me remains the harsh treatment given to the 
Agency for International Development's family planning program. Though 
it was known at the time that the formulation of this account was 
nearly calamitous, closer examination of the provision has revealed 
that the situation is far worse than had been imagined at that time.
  The provisions that passed the Senate and the House halts family 
planning assistance programs until July 1 of this year. Following July 
1, funding may be provided at 65 percent of the fiscal year 1995 level, 
apportioned on a monthly basis for 15 months.
  What this means is that only 14 percent of what was available for 
obligation in fiscal year 1995 for family planning will be available 
for obligation this entire fiscal year--14 percent. None of us would 
normally tolerate a cut of this magnitude, made without the benefit of 
any debate, particularly on a program which enjoys such strong 
bipartisan support. And yet we did it.
  Stated differently, and more important, what we did is bar access to 
family planning services to approximately 17 million couples, most of 
them living in unimaginable poverty. We opened the door to the 
probability of at least 14 million unintended pregnancies every year, 
tens of thousands of deaths among women and nearly a million deaths 
among infants and young children annually. Indeed, we embrace the 
probability of at least 4 million more abortions that could have been 
averted if access to voluntary family planning services had been 
maintained. This is what we did.
  These numbers, which are calculated through statistics from 
organizations like UNICEF and the World Health Organization are as 
disturbing as they are astounding, particularly to those of us who are 
faithfully and assertively pro-life. To doubt these numbers may bring 
temporary relief to people of conscience, but doubters should consider 
the experience of families in the former Soviet Union where family 
planning services have been unavailable for decades.
  The abortion rate in Russia spans from a conservative estimate of 4 
abortions per woman to a shocking high of 12 abortions for some women 
over their reproductive years. Since there have been virtually no, and 
I suggest that you underscore when you are listening as well as when I 
speak, no planning services available in Russia, abortion has become 
the chief method of birth control.
  The framers of the family planning language in H.R. 2880 ensured, 
perhaps unintentionally, that the gruesome experience of Russian women 
and families will be replicated throughout the world starting now.
  In each of the last two foreign operations appropriations bills, I 
have made sure that adequate money has been devoted to starting family 
planning programs in Russia. Similar programs in Hungary have shown a 
60-percent reduction in the abortion rate there, 8 years after the 
introduction of family planning. We had hoped for such success in 
Russia, but now the future is uncertain.
  The family planning language in H.R. 2880 is not prolife, it is not 
prowoman, it is not prochild, it is not prohealth, and it is not 
profamily planning. It inflicts the harm of a profound misconception on 
very poor families overseas who only ask for help in spacing their 
children through contraception, not abortion.
  Some of our colleagues appear unaware that the prohibition on funding 
abortions with U.S. foreign aid money has been in place since 1973. 
AID's excellent family planning program, widely recognized as the most 
efficiently run in the world, has taken a strict and conservative 
interpretation of this prohibition, and seeks instead to prevent 
abortions by offering alternatives. Demand has always exceeded supply, 
and unmet needs continue to grow.
  We urgently need to correct the mistake we made in H.R. 2880. We need 
to restore, with rhetoric and with resources, support to AID's family 
planning program. For those of us who take a prolife position, this is 
the most effective way to reiterate our profound opposition to the 
practice of abortion. All the antiabortion speech this Chamber can 
tolerate will not reduce the number of unintended pregnancies as 
swiftly or as surely as our support for voluntary family planning.
  I intend to do what I can to rectify this situation as soon as 
possible, and urge my colleagues to join in this effort.

                          ____________________