[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAMILY PLANNING FUNDS

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to make available to all my 
colleagues and their staff an article by Wernor Fornos, president of 
the Population Institute, which articulates the importance of a vote 
that Congress will cast in February. This vote will affect the lives of 
thousands of families worldwide. This vote will determine whether 
previously appropriated fiscal year 1997 funds for international family 
planning will be released only 5 months after the fiscal year for which 
they were provided has begun, or 9 months after it has begun. Releasing 
these funds in March as opposed to July is critical--international 
family planning programs have sustained massive cuts over the past year 
and a half. These reductions have been punitive and unprecedented. They 
are, quite literally, threatening the health of women and children.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this article when they cast their 
vote in February. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 22, 1997]

                     Needed: Family Planning Funds

                           (By Werner Fornos)

       By Feb. 1, President Clinton is expected to present to the 
     new Congress a finding that the current method of dispensing 
     international population assistance is harmful and 
     counterproductive to US program efforts, and unquestionably 
     it is.
       In an outrageous attempt to watch United States family 
     planning efforts overseas die a slow death, Congress last 
     year approved $385 million for these vital humanitarian 
     programs in 1997. Congress further specified that the money 
     could not be dispensed until July of this year, and even then 
     at a rate of no more than 8 percent a month.
       Since the 1997 fiscal year began on Oct. 1, 1996, and ends 
     on Sept. 30, 1997, it is obvious that the legislation was 
     calculated to undermine US efforts to assist developing 
     countries with their family planning needs. The measure is an 
     especially cruel hoax considering that some 500 million women 
     need and want to regulate their fertility but lack access to 
     contraceptives.
       Moreover, 585,000 women die annually from causes related to 
     pregnancy and childbirth. The World Health Organization 
     believes that the provision of family planning to those who 
     need and want it will reduce maternal mortality by one-fifth.
       Sources at the Office of Population in the US Agency for 
     International Development (AID) say the funding restrictions 
     and delays are adding up to millions of dollars in 
     administrative costs. The result is that fewer family 
     planning services are being provided, the health of a great 
     number of women is jeopardized, and government funds are 
     wasted because of unwarranted micromanagement by Congress.
       Meanwhile, other development programs--such as child 
     survival, championed by Rep. Chris Smith (R) of New Jersey, 
     Congress's leading opponent of international family planning 
     aid--will be adversely affected because their administrative 
     costs are derived from AID's overall operations budget.
       Perhaps the most reprehensible element of the Byzantine 
     metering of international population funds is that it is 
     expected to increase abortions in the world's poorest 
     countries, though its principal architects, Congressman Smith 
     and House Appropriations chairman Bob Livingston (R) of 
     Louisiana, purport to be abortion opponents.
       It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 
     reducing family planning funds is a sure-fire way to increase 
     abortions. A 35 percent reduction of population spending last 
     year was estimated to have caused 1.6 million additional 
     abortions, and a nine-month moratorium plus metering may lead 
     to an even greater number.
       If both the US Senate and House of Representatives concur 
     with Mr. Clinton's findings that the strange disbursement 
     schedule for international population funds is detrimental to 
     our family planning efforts overseas, the money can be 
     released starting as early as March 1, rather than July 1.
       Though it still will be squeezed out at the rate of 8 
     percent a month, at least the funds would be delayed five 
     months rather than nine. Neither the federal budget nor the 
     national deficit will be increased by the earlier release 
     date. Congress has already agreed to spend the $385 million 
     on family planning programs overseas. The question is when.
       In a world where the population is climbing toward 5.9 
     billion and increasing by nearly 90 million annually, with 95 
     percent of the growth in the poorest countries, playing a 
     legislative shell game with human lives is unworthy of a 
     country that prides itself on its humanitarianism. Members of 
     this Congress should take the opportunity to at least 
     partially erase the shame perpetrated by the strident 
     congressional henchmen of the antichoice movement in the last 
     Congress.

                          ____________________