[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1645-S1646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING FUNDING

  Mr. SIMPSON. Finally, a comment on family planning funding. I want to 
express my serious concerns about the severe restrictions this Congress 
has imposed on U.S. funding for international family planning 
assistance.
  My colleagues will recall that the Senate successfully avoided a 
partial Government shutdown on January 26 by passing H.R. 2880 on a 
bipartisan vote of 82-8. At the time we faced a midnight deadline for 
passing legislation to avoid yet another Government shutdown. Because 
no one in this Chamber wanted another shutdown to occur, we passed this 
measure in the exact form it came to us from the House without amending 
or striking any provisions which we considered to be objectionable. We 
had no choice in the matter. It was a frustrating and vexing experience 
for many of us.
  I was and continue to be deeply troubled by a provision of H.R. 2880 
that prohibits funding for international family planning assistance 
programs until July 1 unless a foreign aid reauthorization bill is 
enacted prior to that date. After July 1, funds will be provided at 
only 65 percent of the fiscal year 1995 level, with a requirement they 
be spent in equal amounts over the following 15 months.

  I believe that policy to be very shortsighted. It is preventing the 
U.S. Agency for International Development [AID] from increasing access 
to family planning services for millions of citizens in the developing 
countries around the world. The ultimate result will be more unwanted 
pregnancy and even higher population growth in the poorest, most 
heavily populated nations of the globe.
  Ironically, this policy, if it is not corrected, will also inevitably 
lead to more abortions, many of which will be performed under unsafe 
conditions that will surely result in infection, infertility, and 
death. This outcome deeply concerns me.
  The people who so often resist these programs are talking continually 
about abortion, unwanted pregnancy, population and so on. I strongly 
urge all of my colleagues, whether they be pro-choice, pro-life, 
Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, moderate, to consider the 
tragic consequences of what we have done. Restricting access to family 
planning services--I did not say ``abortion,'' and it is not there, 
either--restricting access to family planning services will assuredly 
result in more abortion. If anyone can refute this I welcome them to do 
so and come forward.
  The harsh reality is that this misguided policy is contributing to a 
scenario where abortions are or will be the only form of birth control 
in some of the most impoverished places on Earth. This outcome sharply 
collides with the stated views of the very people who support it. Of 
all the issues the religious groups may consider when they compile 
their scorecards--I know where my scorecard is because I happen to be 
pro-choice, and I have always been pro-choice; always. In fact, I do 
not even think men should vote on the issue. So mine is rather clear 
and has been. So when they are compiling their scorecards on the 
performance of Members of Congress, I think this is surely one of the 
most important because it might be that they would show that these 
people somehow were in favor of abortion because of the misguided way 
they try to distort the issue.
  The abortion issue alone offers a compelling reason for the Congress 
to reconsider the current restrictions on international family planning 
funding.
  But we should also contemplate the consequences of unrestrained 
worldwide population growth. One study by the United Nations Population 
Division has estimated that if the world population trends of 1990 
continue indefinitely into the future, worldwide population will 
increase to 694 billion by the year 2150. This is the equivalent of 
12,100 people for every square mile of land on the Earth's surface. The 
possibility of this occurring is self-evident. The real issue is 
whether we will take thoughtful, rational steps to prevent this 
scenario or will we do nothing and simply allow nature to prevent this 
outcome in its own less civilized way?
  Since the beginning of mankind to the year 1940 was a segment of 
population growth, and since 1940 to this

[[Page S1646]]

day it has doubled. The population of Earth has doubled since 1940. It 
is now 5.5 billion, and this study shows in the year 2150 it will 
increase to 694 billion. And where is the most rapid population growth 
occurring? Desperately poor countries that have to cope with poverty 
and malnutrition and ill health and lack of education and environmental 
damage and famine.
  These countries simply do not have the resources to effectively solve 
all of these problems on their own, or maybe any of them, any more than 
they are able to stabilize their population growth. It continues to 
compound and exacerbate so many of the other difficulties. Fertility 
rates, lack of education for women, these things lead to grievous 
problems.
  I am not suggesting the United States bear the sole responsibility 
for addressing this problem. Nor is the rest of the world suggesting 
this. In September 1994, I and Senator John Kerry attended the 
International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. Mr. 
President, 179 nations participated in that conference, and the final 
``programme of action,'' which was adopted by acclamation, estimated 
that the nations of the world would have to spend $17 billion annually 
by the year 2000 in order to meet the needs of developing countries for 
basic reproductive health services, including family planning and the 
prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
  This ``programme of action'' estimated that up to two-thirds of these 
costs would be met by developing countries themselves--two-thirds; 
self-determination--with the other one-third coming from ``external 
sources.'' To put that in perspective, consider the United States 
Government's expenditures on international family planning in fiscal 
year 1995 represented less than 10 percent of what is needed from these 
external sources by the year 2000. To retreat from this modest 
commitment would be a grave mistake.
  So, as this legislative session continues, I believe we should 
restore a more appropriate level of funding for international family 
planning programs. Senator Hatfield has previously advised the Senate 
of his desire to rectify this situation, and here is a man who holds a 
view different than mine on abortion, but a very sensitive, sensible 
human being. I richly commend my friend Mark Hatfield for his 
commitment to this cause, and I stand ready to assist him in any way 
possible. He does his tasks so very well, and we should not impede him.
  It is not too late for us to reverse our course and embrace a more 
sane, rational and sensible policy.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire of the chair if we are in 
morning business?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is technically still on a motion to 
proceed with the Whitewater investigation, but we have been proceeding, 
in essence, as if in morning business.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
proceed as in morning business for a brief period of time on another 
matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________