[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4388-S4390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MAKING CORRECTIONS TO PUBLIC LAW 104-134

  Mr. SIMPSON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar item No. 387, Senate Joint 
Resolution 53.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 53) making corrections to 
     Public Law 104-134.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the joint resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.


                International Voluntary Family Planning

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this resolution makes several 
adjustments to the Omnibus appropriations bill which the President has 
signed. I would like to take this unexpected opportunity to express my 
disappointment, and some astonishment, at the way the funding issue on 
international voluntary family planning found its conclusion.
  Though I wrote the language on family planning that this resolution 
repeals, despite what misgivings I and others may have about this 
action, we made a deal in conference and will stick to it.
  Since we are all a little battle-weary from consideration of the 
omnibus bill, I will forego a reiteration of the history of the family 
planning provision, or a reassertion of what has already been stated on 
the merits of the issue. A few points that were lost in the din of 
debate, however, deserve a brief note.
  It is axiomatic that reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in 
the world will reduce the number of abortions. Conversely, where there 
is no access to family planning, and this will be the case in more 
regions of the world now, the number of abortions and maternal deaths 
will quickly rise.
  Through the 85-percent cut in AID's voluntary family planning program 
which regrettably is now in the law, we are going to find this out the 
hard way. Of the many ironies which have dogged this matter from the 
outset, among the most painful is that hundreds of thousands of women 
and children are going to die because prolife Members of Congress, many 
of whom understand basic biology, failed to apply their understanding 
to this issue.
  A related irony is that voluntary family planning has become hostage 
to the politics of abortion. Though AID is prohibited by law from using 
any U.S. money for abortion, the fungibility argument, a slim reed at 
best, is being used to deny family planning services to millions of 
poor couples overseas. While prolife Members continue to engage in 
fungibility discussions, millions more abortions will occur. This 
offends both decency and common sense, but for now it appears that we 
can do no better.
  We all care about vulnerable families, particularly women and 
children. I will remind my colleagues, especially those who would fund 
child survival programs but cut family planning, that UNICEF's ``State 
of the World's Children'' report states that ``Family planning could 
bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single 
`technology' now available to the human race.''
  I assure my colleagues that this matter will not go away. It is my 
hope that Members on both sides of this issue will avoid the temptation 
to let rigid

[[Page S4389]]

ideology stand in the way of compassion and common sense in the next 
round of debate, which will surely occur on the fiscal year 1997 
foreign operations appropriations bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the technical 
correction bill to the continuing resolution which the Senate is about 
to consider.
  It is my understanding that the legislation passed last week 
inadvertently included the text of the Hatfield amendment, which 
provided that the harsh restrictions on the operations of the 
international family planning program could be waived if the President 
determined that they would interfere with the delivery of such services 
and result in a significant increase in abortions than would otherwise 
be the case in the absence of such restrictions. That amendment had 
been adopted by the Senate by a vote of 52 to 43, but the conferees 
nevertheless evidently decided to abandon the Senate position. That was 
a very unfortunate decision, in my view, that will have an adverse 
impact worldwide on efforts to provide family planning services to 
individuals in developing countries.
  It is not my intent, nevertheless, to take advantage of what was a 
clerical error in the actual text of the continuing resolution. I 
recognize that the comity of the Senate requires that both sides of the 
aisle work in good faith in these areas.
  However, I do want to note for the record, that this courtesy was not 
extended by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee majority to the 
minority when a somewhat similar drafting error occurred during 
consideration in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the 
international family planning authorization legislation on the foreign 
aid authorization bill. At that time, we were advised that although the 
intent of our amendment was clear, a drafting error occurred which did 
not reflect the intent of the Committee in adopting, by a vote of 11 to 
5, an amendment relating to the international family planning program, 
and that a technical correction would not be permitted without the 
entire committee revisiting the issue. My staff was advised that this 
comity, which is routinely provided when committee staff are authorized 
to make technical and conforming amendments, would not be extended in 
this case because the issue involved family planning and abortion which 
were important to the chairman. Unfortunately, there were other 
incidents involving population issues during the Foreign Relations 
Committee's deliberations that also damaged the sense of comity that 
has traditionally characterized the Senate.
  Mr. President, these issues are very important to me and to many 
Members of the Senate. Indeed, a majority of the Senate repeatedly 
voted in favor of the international family planning program in a number 
of votes taken on the foreign operations appropriations bill. The 
position taken by the conferees on the continuing resolution does not 
reflect the Senate's position on this issue and I very much regret that 
the Senate conferees did not uphold the Senate's position. I must say I 
am confounded why the anti-abortion movement would try to dismantle the 
very program that does more to prevent abortions than any other 
campaign.
  However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to take advantage of 
a clerical error to regain our position. I hope that in the future 
similar courtesy will be extended when the shoe is on the other foot--
even when the issue is of great importance to individual Members or is 
as sensitive as population policy is.
  I also hope that now that the population program is resolved for this 
year, that the program--however small it is--be allowed to go forward. 
There are currently over 50 population program actions that the 
administration has notified the Congress of, but which cannot proceed 
since the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee routinely 
puts a hold on all population programs. Even those of us who fervently 
oppose these reductions accept we need to live with them; I wish that 
opponents of the program would also try to abide by this compromise, 
and allow what is left of the program to proceed.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, once again I come to the floor about an 
issue of vital importance--international family planning funding.
  In the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations appropriations bill, a 
draconian provision was enacted that is decimating our family planning 
programs worldwide. Under that provision, no new funding can be used 
for population assistance until July 1, 1996--a full 9 months into the 
current fiscal year. Beginning in July, the program will be funded at a 
level reduced 35 percent from the 1995 funding level, to be allocated 
on a month-by-month basis for the next 15 months.
  Mr. President, in dollar figures, the effect of this provision is 
catastrophic. The net result is to cut funding for family planning 
programs from $547 million in fiscal year 1995 to $72 million for this 
fiscal year. This is an 86-percent cut in just 1 year. This is 
indefensible. This is foolish. This is wrong.
  Recognizing the damage being done by these restrictions, Senator 
Hatfield sponsored an amendment to the last continuing resolution [CR] 
which would have allowed funding for these programs to resume. Senators 
Dole and McConnell tried to defeat that amendment but their effort was 
overwhelmingly rebuffed by a bipartisan majority in the Senate. 
Unfortunately, the Hatfield language did not survive in conference. 
Once again, the Republican majority in the House, which opposes these 
family planning programs, refused to accept the Hatfield amendment, or 
in fact any other compromise language offered by the Senate conferees 
to deal with this issue responsibly.
  In a strange twist of fate, however, the conferees left in Senator 
Hatfield's language by mistake. The final bill that was passed by the 
House and the Senate would, in other words, remove these intolerable 
and destructive limitations on family planning programs.
  Now we are being asked to correct that mistake--in effect, to put 
back into place those very restrictions that a majority of us voted 
against and which we have worked so hard to overturn. I understand that 
this is merely the correction of an unintentional mistake. However, I 
would ask: Would the other side do the same for us if they were in our 
shoes? Would they agree to help us eliminate language they strongly 
supported? And sadly, the one recent instance I can remember of a case 
like this in the Foreign Relations Committee is that they did not 
accommodate us. So I think the Senate should be reminded of how far out 
on a limb we are going.
  I will not object to this unanimous-consent request. However, should 
the situation be reversed, and we err at some time in the future, I 
hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will extend the same 
courtesy to us.
  I want to express my strong conviction that international family 
planning programs are in America's best interest. Funding for these 
programs is an investment that will save the lives of thousands of 
women and prevent millions of unplanned births and abortions in the 
future. These programs will help to ensure that newborn babies will be 
more healthy and to avert the problem of overpopulation.
  I joined Senator Simpson in representing the United States at the 
1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, 
where the United States played a leadership role in galvanizing the 
international community to action. The conference called for a global 
effort to address overpopulation and to work together to promote 
maternal and child health care, educational opportunities for women and 
girls, and, most importantly, family planning programs. After pledging 
to provide world leadership in the area of international family 
planning, we cannot abandon our global partners at this juncture.
  Mr. President, let me take a moment to address what I believe is 
clouding the debate about family planning programs. There are some who 
want to equate family planning with abortion. Let me make clear: Family 
planning does not mean abortion.
  In fact, statistics prove that when women have access to voluntary 
family planning programs, the incidence of abortion decreases. Through 
education and contraception, family planning programs help women and 
families living in impoverished countries to begin childbearing later 
in life and to space their children. The issue of helping

[[Page S4390]]

families better plan for children is in the interest of all those 
involved.
  In addition, Federal law prohibits the United States from funding 
abortions abroad. The U.S. Agency for International Development has 
strictly abided by that law. Those who argue that international family 
planning programs fund abortions abroad are simply wrong.
  Mr. President, by denying people access to the family planning 
programs worldwide by slashing their funding, there will be an 
estimated 4 million more unintended pregnancies every year, close to a 
million infant deaths, tens of thousands of deaths among women and--let 
me emphasize to my colleagues who oppose permitting women to choose 
abortions in the case of unwanted pregnancies--1.6 million more 
abortions.
  These programs provide 17 million families worldwide the opportunity 
to responsibly plan their families and space their children. They offer 
a greater chance for safe childbirth and healthy children, and avoid 
adding to the population problem that hurts all of us and hurts the 
unborn generations even more severely.
  In order to spend the population money the administration will have 
to send the required notifications to the appropriate congressional 
committees. When that process begins, I hope that those on the other 
side of the aisle who oppose family planning programs will remember 
that supporters of family planning programs, on both sides of the 
aisle, allowed this technical correction to be made and that they will 
not use the notification process to prevent the funds from flowing.
  The Senate has voted time and time again in favor of international 
family planning programs. Soon we will begin consideration of the 
fiscal year 1997 budget. Make no mistake about it. Family planning will 
be an issue and the Senate will continue to fight for its position on 
this issue. The time is long overdue for the House majority to start 
acting responsibly on an issue that will affect generations to come.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint 
resolution be considered read for a third time and passed, the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating 
to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the joint resolution was considered, deemed read for a third time, 
and passed; as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 53

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That:
       (a) In Public Law 104-134, insert after the enacting 
     clause:

                  ``TITLE I--OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS''.

       (b) The two penultimate undesignated paragraphs under the 
     subheading ``Administrative Provisions, Forest Service'' 
     under the heading ``TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES, DEPARTMENT OF 
     AGRICULTURE'' of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, as contained in section 
     101(c) of Public Law 104-134, are repealed.
       (c) Section 520 under the heading ``TITLE V--GENERAL 
     PROVISIONS'' of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1996, as contained in section 101(e) of 
     Public Law 104-134, is repealed.
       (d) Strike out section 337 under the heading ``TITLE III--
     GENERAL PROVISIONS'' of the Department of the Interior and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, as contained in 
     section 101(c) of Public Law 104-134, and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``Sec. 337. The Secretary of the Interior shall promptly 
     convey to the Daughters of the American Colonists, without 
     reimbursement, all right, title and interest in the plaque 
     that in 1933 was placed on the Great Southern Hotel in Saint 
     Louis, Missouri by the Daughters of the American Colonists to 
     mark the site of Fort San Carlos.''
       (e) Section 21104 of Public Law 104-134 is repealed.

                          ____________________