[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H530-H551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 APPROVING THE PRESIDENTIAL FINDING REGARDING THE POPULATION PLANNING 
                                PROGRAM

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of section 
518(A)(e) of an act making appropriations for foreign operations, 
export financing, and related programs for fiscal year 1997 (Public Law 
104-208), I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) approving the Presidential finding that 
the limitation on obligations imposed by section 518A(a) of the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
1997, is having a negative impact on the proper functioning of the 
population planning program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1022


                     In The Committee Of The Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 36 with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  By unanimous consent, the joint resolution was considered as having 
been read the first time.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 36 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 36

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     House of Representatives and Senate approve the Presidential 
     finding, submitted to the Congress on January 31, 1997, that 
     the limitation on obligations imposed by section 518A(a) of 
     the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, is having a negative 
     impact on the proper functioning of the population planning 
     program.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to section 518A(e) of the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Act for 1997, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] will control 1 hour in opposition to the joint resolution, 
and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] will control 1 hour in 
favor of the joint resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to yield to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are considering a resolution which would 
endorse a finding by the President that the delay until July 1, 1997, 
in the obligation of funds for international family planning ``is 
having a negative impact on the proper functioning'' of the program. 
This resolution is being considered under expedited procedures as 
called for in section 518A of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997.
  The decision to delay obligations for international family planning 
funds until July 1, but to require a vote to release the funds by March 
1 of this year pursuant to a finding by the President, is the result of 
a compromise struck by the House leadership and the White House during 
negotiations on the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. 
The agreement also calls for a total funding level of $385 million for 
international family planning, instead of $356 million as provided in 
fiscal year 1996. In addition, funds are apportioned on a monthly basis 
of not more than 8 percent.
  We are not dealing directly in this resolution with the so-called 
Mexico City policy, because the House has been unable to get the Senate 
and the White House to agree to it for the past 2 years. The Senate 
only voted once directly on the policy in the past Congress. On 
November 1, 1995, by a vote of 53 to 44, it rejected the Mexico City 
provisions included in the House version of the fiscal year 1996 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. In addition, the White House 
threatened to veto such appropriations acts if Mexico City language was 
included.
  The chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], offered a compromise last year which would have allowed 
organizations that refused to agree to abide by the Mexico City policy 
to receive family planning funds, but at a level not to exceed 50 
percent of the total provided to each such organization in 1995. 
Organizations that agreed to abide by the Mexico City policy would not 
have been capped.
  That compromise was endorsed by the House but rejected by the 
administration. Had it been accepted, we would not be here today and 
international family planning funds would be flowing without delay in 
obligations.
  This is the second year that the obligation of funds for 
international family planning has been delayed. As I stated earlier, 
the House could not reach a compromise with the administration or the 
Senate on the Mexico City policy as part of the fiscal year 1996 
appropriations act and, as a result, delayed obligations until July 1 
of that year as well.
  However, the obligation delay was explicitly intended to encourage 
the authorizing committee to address this issue as part of the pending 
authorization bill for foreign affairs. As passed by the House, the 
1995 foreign aid authorization bill included Mexico City policy 
language. Unable to work out a compromise with the Senate and the 
administration, all language was dropped in the final conference report 
on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that this changes this year. I hope that we do 
not have to debate this anymore. Policy issues surrounding 
international family planning should be addressed by the Committee on 
International Relations, not the Committee on Appropriations. I urge 
the authorization

[[Page H531]]

committee to resolve this issue so that legislative language on the 
Mexico City policy does not continue to have a negative impact on the 
proper functioning of the appropriations process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 36, 
the Presidential finding on international family planning funds. As I 
call on my colleagues to vote for this resolution, I want to remind us 
all why this vote is occurring.
  Our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. 
Livingston, has presented a long version of it and I will do a brief 
one. But, first, I want to commend him for the spirit of fairness in 
which he has enabled this resolution to come to the floor, which is in 
keeping with his great leadership as chair of our committee.
  I also want to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], 
who is in opposition to this resolution, has his own resolution on the 
floor today. I do not think I have ever served with a finer Member of 
Congress. He is a great champion for child survival issues and human 
rights issues throughout the world. I have great respect for him. 
Unfortunately, I disagree with him on this issue, but I want to pay 
homage to his commitment to child survival issues.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today because of an agreement, as our 
chairman mentioned, that was entered into in the fall. In order to 
break an impasse, President Clinton and the House of Representatives, 
the Republican leadership, entered into an agreement on the foreign aid 
bill and, indeed, the entire and continuing resolution for fiscal year 
1997.
  Under the agreement President Clinton agreed to a reduced level of 
funding for population of $38.5 million and to a 4-month delay in any 
obligation to have the funds. The funds would go forward now or March 1 
if the President certified to Congress that the delay is having an 
adverse impact on international family planning programs and the House 
and Senate vote to approve the President's finding.
  Indeed, the President's certification states that further delay will 
cause serious, irreversible and avoidable harm to the lives and well-
being of many thousands of poor women and children throughout the 
world.

                              {time}  1030

  Indeed, the delay undermines U.S. efforts to promote child survival 
and actually increases the number of abortions worldwide. Evidence from 
all regions of the world show increased contraceptive use by reducing 
unintended pregnancies plays a major role in reducing abortions.
  I join with many well-known development organizations, such as CARE, 
World Vision, Save the Children, and some church-related groups such as 
Church World Service, Lutheran World Relief, and the National Council 
of Churches, to name a few, in urging my colleagues to vote yes in 
accepting the presidential finding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take the balance of my time to make three 
points. What do the population funds do, how are they used; second, 
what they do not do, they do not promote abortions, and how do we 
monitor that.
  U.S. support for international family planning programs emphasizes 
voluntary family planning as a part of an integrated approach to 
population and development that includes complementary activities to 
promote health, the status of women, child survival, and strong 
families.
  The goals of U.S. leadership in global population are: To promote the 
rights of couples to determine freely and responsibly the number and 
spacing of their children, improving individual reproductive health, 
and reducing population growth rates to the levels consistent with 
sustainable development.
  I will put more in the Record about the work of our international 
family planning efforts. Time does not permit me to go into more detail 
here. However, I will say that gains made from the delivery of services 
such as immunization, diarrheal control, and nutrition programs for 
children are most effective and sustainable when combined with programs 
for women on child spacing, maternal health services, and access to 
contraceptives.
  In fact, in most instances throughout the developing world by sheer 
necessity the delivery of these programs takes place simultaneously. 
Inaction today not to accept the President's finding would disrupt 
child survival and family planning services and will end up costing us 
dearly both in human and financial terms.
  What the population funds do not do: AID's funds are not used for 
abortion. As this chart indicates very clearly, since 1973, with the 
enactment of the Helms amendment, AID's population program has been 
legally prohibited from supporting or encouraging abortion as a method 
of family planning. I will state these prohibitions specifically, and I 
have the actual statutes with me at the desk if any one of our 
colleagues wishes to inspect them.
  No USAID funds can be used to pay for the performance of abortions as 
a method of family planning or to motivate a person to have an 
abortion. No funds can be used to lobby for or against abortion. No 
funds can be used to purchase or distribute commodities or equipment 
for the purpose of inducing abortions as a method of family planning, 
and no funds can be used to support any biomedical research which 
relates in whole or in part to methods of or the performance of 
abortions as methods of family planning.
  Strict procedures assure that no AID funds are used by contractors 
for abortions, and these procedures in place to ensure that no funds 
are used include, and I have another chart on that, legally binding 
contracts that include standard clauses specifically listing prohibited 
activities. Violators are subject to heavy fines and loss of future 
funding.
  It also includes close technical monitoring for requiring detailed 
annual work plans, regular independent audits according to Federal 
acquisition regulations of both contractors and subcontractors.
  There have been claims that all population funds will be dispersed 
without pro-life safeguards if this resolution passes. This is simply 
not so. It is essential to restart funding for these international 
family planning programs to promote the health and well-being of 
millions of families throughout the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not hesitate to characterize this vote, based on 
the exploding population growth we are experiencing, as vital to the 
future of our planet, and one that is first and foremost about 
providing families with the real means to lift themselves from poverty, 
provide for their children and live with dignity. We must not hold the 
poor children of the world hostage to congressional politics. Let us 
take a step forward today, not backward. Vote ``yes'' on the 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the very distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate really is not about family planning, 
although we will hear that term a lot. This is about abortion. Family 
planning, properly defined, is the matter of getting pregnant or not 
getting pregnant. It has nothing to do with abortion. True, abortion 
will hold down the population gain because you are eliminating people, 
you are killing them, you are exterminating them. But that has not been 
the policy of our Government and our country. And even now we give lip 
service to the fact that none of these funds can be used to pay for 
abortions. But what happens is the money goes to an organization, or 
organizations, that perform abortions, that counsel for abortions, that 
lobby for abortions in countries as a means of family planning.
  Now, that wall between abortion and family planning should remain in 
place. Under the legislation of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith] every penny of family planning money goes to organizations 
engaged in family planning, properly defined. It will only be withheld 
from those organizations that counsel, perform, and promote abortions.

[[Page H532]]

  Now, the idea that none of this money can be spent for abortions, I 
just wish frankly people would understand that we understand money is 
fungible. And if you provide money for purposes A and B, you are 
freeing up other money for C and D. So that really is not an argument.
  The Mexico City policy, which was the policy until this President 
assumed office--and 2 days after he was in office, he reversed it--
provides that we will support lavishly and generously family planning. 
I am not objecting to that. But not subsidize--indirectly, or directly, 
in any way--abortions, and not subsidize organizations that perform 
abortions. That was the policy. Three hundred fifty foreign 
organizations agreed to its terms, including the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation. And they have affiliates in 57 countries. The 
only one that did not agree, and that is what we are fighting about 
here, is International Planned Parenthood Federation of London.
  So I just suggest, if you think abortions are a good idea, and I do 
not know anybody that will admit to that, but I do know a lot of 
policymaking activities that amount to supporting abortion. I hope 
Members will vote ``no'' on the President's finding.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Appropriations and, more importantly, a leader in 
our country on international family planning issues.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the privileged 
resolution to release the funds for international family planning 
programs on March 1. I have personally visited clinics supported by 
this aid, and I have seen firsthand the very critical work they are 
doing for our families, for women, for children, for infants.
  Each year approximately 600,000 women worldwide die of pregnancy-
related causes, leaving 1 million children without mothers. These are 
unnecessary, tragic deaths that could be avoided through access to 
family planning services.
  Recently several of my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations and I visited Misr El Kadima, a maternal and child health 
center in Cairo, Egypt. This center is a success story and is one of 
the many successful facilities supported by USAID worldwide.
  Family planning is just one of the basic health care services 
provided at the center. The doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians who 
spoke with us provide immunizations for children, routine prenatal 
care, treatment for common diseases, general outpatient care, not 
abortion.
  Some of these clinics in Egypt are 5 miles from the nearest city. If 
these clinics are shut down, as would happen if these funds do not go 
forth, what are these women going to do for these vital services? In 
Cairo and in the rest of the developing world, family planning services 
are literally a matter of life and death.
  In Egypt, largely due to USAID support, contraceptive use has doubled 
in the last 15 years and the increase has been directly linked to 
decreases in infant mortality and maternal death. Over the last decade, 
as the rate of contraceptive use in Egypt rose, the infant mortality 
rate dropped 42 percent. As the doctors explained, family planning 
services allow families to plan and space the birth of their children.
  If the funds at issue are withheld until July 1, USAID's main 
contract in Egypt will be suspended. This disruption would force 
clinics like the one that I visited to stop providing these life-
savings services, and would have a devastating impact on thousands of 
men, women and children. So let's be clear--a ``no'' vote closes 
clinics that save lives.
  I urge you to remember what this vote is really about. This vote 
isn't about abortion--the clinic that I visited in Egypt does not 
provide abortions nor do any United States funds go to abortion 
services. This vote is about releasing funds for medical services that 
save the lives of mothers and babies worldwide. Vote for these 
families. Vote for the resolution.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, family planning has clearly proven to 
save the lives of women and infants. Sadly, 1,600 women die every day, 
1 woman every minute, of pregnancy-related causes because they do not 
have access to reproductive health services, including family planning. 
Nearly half of the women today who die from maternity-related causes 
would still be alive today if they could have prevented unwanted 
pregnancy in the first place. Nearly all would be saved if they had 
access to reproductive health care. By giving women the access to 
health services they so desperately need during their childbearing 
years, we will help prevent thousands of maternal deaths. The World 
Bank estimates improved access to family planning can reduce the number 
of maternal deaths that occur annually by 20 percent. In addition to 
that, family planning programs have also helped stop the spread of 
sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Access to contraception 
is not only crucial in avoiding unwanted pregnancies but in fighting 
the spread of the ever-growing HIV virus, and we all know these 
sexually transmitted diseases do not stay within borders and impose 
immense risk to the overall population. To delay the release of funds 
until July will result in increased abortions, unintended pregnancies, 
the further spread of AIDS, and the deaths of thousands of women. 
Seventeen of the 95 programs will have to be shut down, denying 
millions of women access to effective contraceptive services. Doctors 
and nurses will lose access to obstetrical care, and the treatment of 
sexually transmitted diseases and community health workers who teach 
important health intervention, including immunizations and pre- and 
postnatal care, will be eliminated.
  Mr. Chairman, let us give women and their children more control over 
their childbearing and health-related decisions and families the self-
sufficiency they want, the health and the hope that they deserve.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not whether we should 
support international family planning and educational programs. The 
question today is whether or not this Nation or this body supports the 
use of abortion as a means of family planning.
  As far as I am concerned, the terms ``family'' and ``abortion'' are 
totally incompatible. This Nation and this Congress cannot and should 
not subsidize an organization which advocates abortion or which lobbies 
for the legalization or expansion of abortion as a means of limiting 
population growth. We should not allow abortion to become our next 
major export.
  It is true that the Helms amendment prevents the direct use of U.S. 
funds to pay for abortion procedures. But it does not prevent indirect 
funds of programs that promote the legalization or expansion of access 
to abortion as a means of birth control in developing nations. To do 
that, we must defeat this resolution and reinstate the Mexico City 
policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. Help us 
reinstate the Mexico City policy and show the world that we are willing 
to support education and other family practices, but not at the expense 
of the innocent unborn. Vote ``no'' on this resolution and vote ``yes'' 
on the Smith-Hyde-Oberstar substitute.

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Torres], a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs and a leader on this 
issue.
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this resolution 
to release on March 1 the funds that we have already agreed to provide 
for international planning programs.
  This is not a vote on abortion. No U.S. funds can be used to lobby or 
perform abortions; that is already prohibited by law as so well 
explained by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  This is not a vote to increase funding for family planning programs. 
The fiscal year 1997 funding level is already

[[Page H533]]

set. We did that last year as part of the foreign operations 
appropriations bill. This vote is merely to decide when to release the 
funds. We are already 5 months in arrears in providing for this money. 
Not a single dime has been appropriated.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that this is a pro-family vote, 
a vote for women's health and survival. To continue to delay in funding 
will cost, simply, many, many lives. A UNICEF report has found that 
just meeting the existing demand for family planning in the developing 
world would reduce unintended pregnancies by one-fifth, thus reducing 
the 600,000 annual maternal deaths at least by the same amount.
  The counterproductive effects of the delay on international family 
planning programs are detailed in the President's finding. There are 
country programs here in this hemisphere for which the funding delay 
would be especially harmful.
  In Mexico some nongovernmental organization clinics will potentially 
close including those in Chiapas, one of the states in Mexico which has 
tremendous unmet needs for family planning services. Currently, USAID 
is supporting programs that serve 70,000 people there annually.
  In Haiti this May, there will be staff layoffs of thousands of staff 
people that would help to service men and women who without family 
planning would have devastating effects.
  I urge, I urge a yes vote on this resolution.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell].
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the question before us today deals with a 
just and absolutely essential need in the world. I think my colleagues 
have made this clear. But one colleague in particular, my dear friend 
and a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, the gentleman from 
Illinois, said that abortion and family planning are not related; and 
of course that is right. Nobody wants abortion as a means of family 
planning. But that ignores one very important point, and it is true 
from anybody who has visited family planning centers in the United 
States.
  Many, many women come to a family planning center because they think 
they are pregnant, and their first exposure to family planning is 
because they think they are pregnant. That is the truth in the United 
States; it is demonstrably even more so in the Third World. USAID has 
done studies on this.
  In particular, in Tanzania they found that, when women came in for a 
legal abortion, only 19 percent had had any education exposure to, or 
experience with, family planning. And USAID found in Egypt that, when 
women came in, if they had an abortion, they left, 98 percent of them, 
aware of family planning. The other study is in Turkey where the 
realization of family planning doubled.
  So if we say family planning and abortion are not related, we are 
really missing an important point: the woman who comes to seek 
assistance most often is going to a place where she believes that she 
can get an abortion, if that is what she needs, if that is what is 
legal in her country, but leaves, God willing, never to have another 
abortion. And that is just blocked with the Mexico City policy because 
the place where she would go to get the abortion counseling or the 
abortion services would no longer be there to offer the family planning 
assistance either.
  So that point, I think, has been missed in the debate.
  I conclude simply by saying this. My wife and I traveled to India 
within the last couple of months at our own expense. And we just saw a 
country, with 40 percent of the world's poor, 17 percent of the world's 
population. We are our brother's keeper, we are our sister's keeper.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], a member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 36, 
for this is a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate the Members of this 
Chamber into releasing population control funding 4 months prior to the 
date stipulated in the appropriations bill. The Clinton administration 
seems to be under the impression that it can invoke waivers on any law 
or make findings such as these with no concrete evidence to support its 
contentions, just rhetoric. It is simply an attempt to justify breaking 
the compromise reached during last year's debate.
  Supporters of these programs would have us believe that their 
objective is to save lives, that these programs are needed because the 
countries in Latin America and other regions are unable to sustain 
population growth. However, if they are truly concerned about the well-
being of the people of these countries, then why do not they take the 
$385 million they want released and apply them toward vaccination 
programs or better medication to improve child survival rates or better 
nutrition programs?
  The future of all nations is in the hands of today's children who, if 
given an opportunity, will become the leaders of tomorrow. Yet these 
population programs are directly and purposefully advocating abortion 
as a form of birth control, and by doing so they are helping to deprive 
these countries of their potential.
  Abortion should never be promoted as family planning.
  The United States commits a grave mistake in always assuming that it 
knows what is best for others. Are we to be so patronizing of our 
neighbors in the hemisphere and other regions to think that we know 
what their society needs better than they do?
  It seems that the Clinton administration is not content with 
increasing government intervention in the affairs of U.S. citizens. 
Apparently, it now feels the need to run the lives of individuals in 
other countries, dictating what is best for women whose social, 
cultural, and religious backgrounds differ greatly from those of the 
United States.
  But the problem goes beyond this argument and the promotion of 
abortion. These population control programs are also being interpreted 
as licenses to conduct widespread sterilization of women in Latin 
America, in the Caribbean, and in other regions. We have received 
numerous accounts from Central America, for example, of women who have 
been asked general questions about their families, their economic 
situation, and then about whether or not they want more children. This 
then is translated by those involved with the population control 
programs as a request for sterilization without the express consent or 
full knowledge of the women, and these procedures are performed. By the 
time these women realize what has taken place, it is far too late.
  How can we possibly release the funds for such activities?
  In summary: This bill is unjust, offensive, and should not be passed. 
I urge my colleagues to defeat this measure.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the resolution.
  I do so for one overriding reason: it will save lives. In fact, it's 
rare that we get to cast a vote that will result in such direct, 
immediate, tangible and unarguable benefits.
  International family planning agencies depend on this money--money 
which, remember, we have already appropriated.
  The work of these agencies saves the lives of women not only by 
enabling them to prevent life-threatening pregnancies, but by providing 
basic health care services. Their work also helps save the lives of 
children who are born into such grinding poverty that they literally 
cannot survive. And their work helps eliminate misery by stemming the 
over-population that makes life unbearable in so many parts of the 
world.
  Indeed, UNICEF has noted that ``family planning could bring more 
benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology 
now available to the human race.'' That's an extraordinary statement, 
and it is no exaggeration.
  Family planning also prevents abortions. The World Health 
Organization estimates that 40 percent of unintended pregnancies end in 
abortion--40 percent.
  Anyone who wants to prevent abortions--and I think that includes 
those of us who are pro-choice--should vote for this resolution.

[[Page H534]]

None of the funds being released can be used to perform abortions, and 
the services provided with these funds eliminate the demand for 
abortions. In no way can a ``yes'' vote be reasonably characterized as 
a pro-abortion or anti-life vote.
  Indeed, we in Congress are given few such clear opportunities to be 
so affirmatively and truly pro-life. Vote for this resolution and give 
the gift of life.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] a member of the Committee on Appropriations 
and another champion for international family planning.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, today I am asking my colleagues to support 
House Joint Resolution 36, which releases funds which support family 
planning programs all around the world.
  This vote is not about supporting abortion. Not $1 of our family 
planning funds can be used to perform abortions anywhere in the world. 
This vote is about preventing abortion. This vote is about improving 
the health of women and children. This vote is about saving lives. U.S. 
family planning aid saves the lives of women, and each year around the 
world 600,000 women die in childbirth.
  If we fail to pass this resolution today, family planning and health 
clinics across the developing world will close. That means that a CARE 
program giving rural Bolivian women their first-ever pap smears will 
have to shut its doors. Cervical cancer is curable, but it must be 
caught early. I am a cancer survivor. I understand the importance of 
this kind of preventive health care. Women in this region of Bolivia do 
not have any other health care options. If the family planning clinic 
closes, more mothers will die from curable diseases such as cervical 
cancer.
  For 30 years the United States has been an international leader in 
reducing the number of maternal and child deaths through its support 
for family planning. Today we must renew our commitment to these 
important priorities. We must keep the promise that was made to the 
President and release the funds without any qualifications or 
alterations.
  Today's vote does not add more dollars to our family planning budget, 
but by voting yes to this resolution, we vote to add more days to the 
life of a poor mother in the Philippines, we vote for fewer unwanted 
pregnancies in Tajakistan. We vote for fewer abortions across the 
world.
  Support women's health, support children's health, support family 
health by voting ``yes'' on this resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the President's 
resolution on international population control funding, House Joint 
Resolution 36.
  Federal funds, except to save the life of the mother, are prohibited 
to be used to kill unborn children in our country. We do this because 
of the millions of children who are killed each year attacks our 
consciences. It is an attack on our morality. Such killings increase 
infant mortality. We need to stop this form of infant mortality.
  I have had a colleague who stated that we are our brother's keeper. 
From the same source that he brought that to us it says that how we 
treat the least of God's creations we treat him. And that is what I am 
standing here for, is to defend those infants, the defenseless, 
unprotected infants in that respect and for that reason.
  Now, if we do this in our country, we should have no difficulty in 
doing this for the rest of the globe. Even though they are not American 
children, unborn children, who are being killed by abortion, they still 
are children, they are still creations of God. The sanctity of life is 
what needs protecting.
  Americans should not be deceived. This vote on this resolution is not 
about family planning. This resolution is a manipulative maneuver to 
try and overturn the 1973 Helms amendment which prohibits the use of 
foreign aid funds to pay directly for abortions. House Joint Resolution 
36 will make an additional $123 million available for organizations 
that perform and promote abortions.
  Opponents of this resolution, of which I am included, are not against 
foreign aid to developing countries. We will have a chance to vote on 
that later. The United States should not be in the business of handing 
out cash to foreign countries to kill babies to get their population 
numbers in line.
  This is not altruism; this is genocide.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], who probably knows more about this 
issue than any of us in the Congress.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the vote is not about whether we are pro-
choice or pro-life on abortion. This vote is whether life for hundreds 
of thousands of families who choose to plan their families will include 
a real chance to do so, not whether or not abortion will be available 
to that family.
  Some today will vote for both the privileged resolution and for the 
Smith resolution. What Mr. Smith is saying to them is that, without the 
Smith resolution being part of the law, a vote for the privileged 
resolution is a vote for spending U.S. dollars on abortion-related 
activities. That is not--not--correct.

                              {time}  1100

  Since 1973, the Helms amendment has prohibited the use of U.S. 
dollars to perform, support, or encourage abortions overseas, and that 
mandate has been followed in good faith by the U.S. Government. Indeed, 
in order to ensure its implementation, and sensitive to the argument 
about the fungibility of moneys, when I was assistant administrator of 
AID, we instituted in the late 1970's a rigorous system to separate out 
U.S. moneys from other funds spent by organizations receiving American 
funds.
  This practice has been followed assiduously by every administration 
of AID, as indicated by audits certifying that not $1 of American funds 
is being used for abortion-related activities overseas.
  Further, the organizations which have received American funds and 
have been the subject of most controversy, in practice use either no 
funds from any source or in any case a negligible amount for any 
programs related to abortion.
  So this is the question, really: When the United States is fully 
abiding by the Helms amendment, when the Government has taken every 
possible step to separate American funds so no American money is being 
used for abortion-related activities, and when there is no real 
fungibility as to U.S. dollars, do we want to stop the availability of 
critical funds for family planning, for voluntary family planning 
programs desired by millions of families in fast-growing developing 
countries?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that the answer for each of us is to vote for 
the privileged resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the release of 
international family planning funds on March 1, 1997.
  We need to clear up the confusion on this issue and focus on the 
importance of family planning programs. International family planning 
programs save the lives of thousands of women and children across the 
world, prevent unwanted and dangerous pregnancies and reduce the number 
of abortions worldwide.
  Representatives from the Russian Family Planning Association recently 
shared information on the successes of their program. In this 
developing country, they are using these valuable dollars to increase 
access to quality family planning information and services. As a result 
of this program, contraceptive use has risen from 19 to 24 percent 
among women in just 4 years. And, between 1990 and 1994, total 
abortions fell from 3.6 million to 2.8 million.
  Yesterday, Secretary Albright testified before our Appropriations 
Subcommittee. She stated:

       Our voluntary family planning programs serve our broader 
     interests by elevating the status of women, reducing the flow 
     of refugees, protecting the environment, and promoting 
     economic growth. As the President has determined, a further 
     delay will cause a

[[Page H535]]

     tragic rise in unintended pregnancies, abortions, and 
     maternal and child deaths.''

  And, let us be clear--support for family planning programs has, to 
this day, been bipartisan. This program was created in 1969 by 
President Richard Nixon.
  Let me also address some concerns that have been raised by 
individuals who do not want their tax dollars being used for family 
planning overseas. Of the two resolutions that we will vote on today, 
this resolution actually provides less money than does an alternative 
proposal that will be offered later today.
  Finally, let me again reiterate that this is not an abortion issue. 
Current law prohibits any of these funds from being used for abortion.
  I hope that today the House will continue its longstanding and 
bipartisan support of family planning.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has embarked on 
what is no less than a worldwide crusade promoting abortion on demand 
at any time for any reason anywhere. I cannot condemn that policy in 
words strong enough.
  So let me just make a quick point in the short time that I have to 
speak here this morning. Contrary to what some of those on the other 
side have said, this vote is indeed about abortion. It has always been 
about abortion. We simply say to foreign nongovernmental organizations, 
unless you agree not to perform abortions and not to violate the laws 
or lobby to change the laws of other countries with respect to 
abortion, then do not come to this country asking for tax dollars. That 
is what we are all saying. That is what it is all about.
  I have only been in Congress for a little over 2 years now, yet I am 
voting today for the eighth time on the restoration of the Mexico City 
policy. A simple, straightforward pro-life policy initiated by 
President Reagan, carried on by President Bush and eagerly decimated by 
President Clinton in his first days in office.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that this year the Congress will finally do the 
right thing and stop the international abortion.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this vote is so important, and it is about family 
planning and it is against abortion. I would say to my colleagues, to 
reduce abortions we must increase access to family planning. I hear 
that this is an abortion vote. There is no logic to it. So let me just 
try to set the Record straight by quoting some statistics.
  We know from UNICEF that almost 600,000 women die annually during 
pregnancy and childbirth, including 75,000 due to unsafe abortions. We 
know that family planning services will improve the health and the 
status of women and it will help children.
  We know that population experts estimate that the 35-percent cut in 
our family planning programs has led to an additional 4 million 
unintended pregnancies and 2 million additional abortions, 2 million 
additional abortions, as well as 134,000 more infant deaths.
  The World Health Organization estimates that 40 percent of unintended 
pregnancies end in abortion. The World Bank estimates that improved 
access to family planning can reduce the number of maternal deaths 
annually by 20 percent. What statistics, and that is only part of it.
  We had a group here from Russia, and the testimony we had was that, 
with United States help in Russia, contraceptive use has increased from 
19 to 24 percent between 1990 and 1994, and the abortion rate has 
dropped 25 percent. That means the number of abortions annually has 
dropped by 800,000.
  So I would submit that if you want to reduce abortions and you want 
to help children and you want to help families that you vote for this 
resolution.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to say, we must keep the promise that we 
made. So I hope that this body will vote for the resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues know of Oregon's 
Republican Senator Mark Hatfield. He was known and is always known as a 
man of integrity. He never said anything he did not believe in and he 
always researched his information, and that is why it is important for 
Members to hear his words, particularly those who oppose abortion.
  In a letter to Representative Smith, Senator Hatfield said,

       I have reviewed the materials you have sent to my office in 
     response to my request that you provide proof that U.S. funds 
     are being spent on abortion. I do not see anything in these 
     materials to back up your assertion.

  Senator Hatfield goes on in the letter to say,

       Chris, you are contributing to an increase of abortions 
     worldwide because of the funding restrictions you have 
     placed. It is a proven fact that when contraceptive services 
     are not available to women throughout the world, abortion 
     rates increase.

  He says, ``This is unacceptable to me as one who strongly opposes 
abortion.''
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for the resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman 
that the materials that we provided to Senator Hatfield clearly showed 
that the organizations were promoting, performing abortions on demand 
in these developing countries. No one is suggesting that they were 
doing it with U.S. tax dollars.
  The issue here is fungibility. The money that we give to an 
organization frees up other money that then can be used to lobby for 
abortion in the developing world. Let me remind everybody in this 
Chamber that approximately 100 countries around the world protect the 
lives of their unborn children.
  The International Planned Parenthood Federation has made it their 
mission, their goal explicitly to bring down every one of those pro-
life laws. When we give to these organizations, we then empower them to 
be the super lobby to bring down the laws in Brazil, Peru. Poland 
recently flip-flopped and went from a pro-life country to a pro-
abortion country.
  In early February, a new law went into effect in South Africa, again 
a flip-flop from pro-life to pro-abortion. It is the organizations that 
are mounting this offensive against the unborn child. When we 
contribute to them, we are facilitating abortion overseas.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Health, Human Services and Labor.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, let me say that there is absolutely no abortion issue or no 
abortion money involved in this debate. I have always been a supporter 
of the Hyde amendment. I have never supported public funding of 
abortion in any way. Abortion is not a legitimate family planning 
method. We outlawed that in 1973. In audit after audit, it has been 
certified that not one U.S. dollar has gone to fund abortions. Some 
people believe that there is fungibility, of these funds. The same 
argument could be used for any health services funded by U.S. money, 
such as child immunization or family check-up programs. Do we want to 
end those? Of course not. Continuing a delay in funding will 
effectively cut U.S. support for voluntary family planning and 
contraception.
  Now, the Smith bill, if it is passed here, in the House is going 
nowhere in the Senate. Some may feel that by supporting this bill, they 
are simply saying that they are against abortion for organizations who 
use their own money for that purpose in countries where it is legal. 
But, in actual fact, are these people saying no to voluntary family 
planning, no to maternal and child health in countries that are the 
poorest on Earth, no to contraceptives and preventing unwanted 
pregnancies. The truth, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, is that they will 
be saying yes, to more abortions, because the voluntary family planning 
services will not be there that these countries so desperately need.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen], a Member of the freshman class.

[[Page H536]]

  (Mr. ALLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
36 in the hope that this House will recognize that international family 
planning funds are a good investment for America. These funds reduce 
unintended pregnancies, they reduce the number of maternal and infant 
deaths, they reduce the number of abortions.
  All we are asking is that much-needed funds be released on March 1 
instead of July 1. Three months. It seems like a small matter, but it 
is not. It is not to the women and children around the globe whose 
lives will be changed by our vote today.
  Opponents say this is a vote to fund abortions. That is not true. 
This resolution preserves the existing ban on the use of Federal funds 
for abortions overseas. These funds have already been appropriated by 
this Congress. We seek no additional funds. We ask only that the gap in 
services not be extended.
  As David Broder wrote recently, ``The women and children around the 
world who have the most at stake will not have a vote.'' We do. We 
should use it wisely.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], a member of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in 
opposition to President Clinton's request for the early release of 
family planning funds, and I urge my colleagues to instead support H.R. 
581.
  Let me begin by noting that H.R. 581, the proposal by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], would still 
allow early release of these funds, but in a much better way. For more 
than a decade, we had a system regarding family planning funds that 
worked. H.R. 581 would restore that system.
  Under H.R. 581, the organizations receiving these grants must again 
agree to not perform abortions or undermine the laws of their host 
countries. I will remind my colleagues that these grants are tax 
dollars taken from the pockets of hard-working American families. Known 
as the Mexico City policy, these short set of conditions worked for a 
decade and was agreed to by all but 2 of the more than 300 agencies 
which received family planning grants. There were two exceptions: 
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation.
  Mr. Chairman, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation's 
official policy statement includes these goals: Advocate for changes in 
restrictive national laws, policies, practices and traditions, and 
campaign for policy and legislative changes to remove restrictions 
against safe abortions. The IPPF even advises its affiliates to operate 
right up to the edge of what is legal and sometimes even beyond.
  So today's vote is also a test of whether we respect the sovereignty 
and customs of these nations. Using American tax dollars to fund 
organizations overseas that in some manner promote abortions not only 
horrifies those of us who are pro-life, it should also concern every 
American taxpayer and those of us in this body who believe we should 
respect our friends in other nations.
  Sending tax dollars taken from our hard-working citizens to groups 
that promote abortions in foreign nations is wrong in all of these 
ways. President Clinton dropped the Mexico City policy 4 years ago. I 
believe it was a mistake, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to oppose the President's resolution and support H.R. 581.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of House Joint 
Resolution 36.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 36 to 
approve the Presidential finding regarding international population 
planning programs. At issue is whether the money will be released on 
March 1, or whether it will be further delayed by 4 months, until July.
  It is my determination that a delay will cause serious irreversible 
and unavoidable harm. In balance are the lives and the well-being of 
many thousands of women and children, and American credibility as the 
leader in family planning programs around the world.
  The logic behind delaying the release of the funds as agreed to last 
year is convoluted to me and many of my colleagues. Wouldn't the delay 
in support for family planning, even by 4 months, deny safe and 
effective contraception to couples who depend on these programs? Has it 
not been documented that we will surely see a rise in unintended 
pregnancies and maternal deaths, and could we see a return to unsafe 
and unsanitary methods to terminate those pregnancies?
  It seems illogical that those groups and members who oppose the 
proper release of these funds would indeed believe that we are actually 
promoting or funding abortion. We are not, and have been prohibited by 
law since 1973 from doing so. The fact is that a delay in funding will 
have the exact opposite effect of what those who would restrict these 
funds would have you believe. The delay in releasing these funds will 
result in increased abortions, increased overpopulation, and an adverse 
impact on the environment and our resources.
  I urge this body to go about our business of releasing these 
important family planning funds now, as agreed to in last year's 
legislation.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Kelly].
  (Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
36.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the privileged resolution, 
House Joint Resolution 36 and I ask that all Members do the same. Why? 
Because the health of women and children worldwide depends on this 
vote.
  At issue here is maternal and infant mortality. International family 
planning promotes preventive health care, such as prenatal care. It is 
easy for us to take the availability of health care in the United 
States for granted, but for sake of this argument we must remember that 
women and children in developing countries are not so fortunate.
  Furthermore, international family planning educates women and their 
families about sexually transmitted diseases, as well as about the 
dangers of HIV/AIDS. It is our obligation to humanity to use our 
financial support and medical knowledge to prevent the spread of these 
deadly diseases--diseases that often are brought into our own country 
and threaten our own children.
  Some members of Congress will have you believe that international 
family planning results in abortions, but the truth is that only a lack 
of family planning can result in such an unfortunate conclusion. 
Without family planning, we abandon the world's poorest women and force 
them to rely on abortion as their primary method of birth control.
  Let's be clear--current law prohibits the use of any U.S. foreign aid 
funds for abortion services, including lobbying efforts for abortion, 
abortion counseling, and the purchase or distribution of commodities 
for the purpose of inducing abortions as a method of family planning.
  Obviously, this vote is not about abortion. It is about health, plain 
and simple--not misguided and erroneous political statements. Please 
support this resolution and release the already appropriated 
international family planning funds on March 1.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support for the 
international family planning resolution, House Joint Resolution 36.
  Mr. Chairman, at the current rate, the world's population will double 
from 5.8 to 11 billion people during our lifetime. Excluding China, 21 
million of childbearing age in the developing world are added each 
year, equal to the total number of women of childbearing age in 
California, Texas, New York, and Florida combined.
  President Nixon launched our international family planning program in 
1969. That program improves the health of mothers and their children by 
increasing the time between births while reducing unintended 
pregnancies and abortion. After 30 years, this program

[[Page H537]]

helped reduce the average number of children in families in the 
developing world from 6 to 4.
  Contraceptive use has climbed from 10 percent to 35 percent, and 
family planning helps reduce abortion. As contraceptive use in 
countries such as Russia rose from 19 to 24 percent, abortion rates 
fell from 109 per thousand women to 76. The population council 
estimates that without family planning programs, there would have been 
500 million more people in the world today, almost twice the population 
of our own Nation.
  If the resolution required by the law is not passed, the Agency for 
International Development will have to cut vital programs in Mexico, in 
Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Russia, 
the Ukraine, Jordan, the Philippines, Turkey, Mozambique, Uganda, and 
Zimbabwe. AID would also have to cut jobs with its contractors in 
Alabama, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  While another bill, H.R. 581, will be offered, House Joint Resolution 
36 is the only measure that will be given expedited consideration in 
the Senate, requiring and ensuring that this vital program can continue 
to operate.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Sam Farr], a great environmentalist.
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in these hallowed Halls 
to remind us that the debate about this money really does not affect 
us, but it does affect the developing countries of this world.
  I have lived in one of those countries. I lived in one of the poorest 
barrios on earth, without any running water, without any electricity, 
where the birth rate was an average of 15 children per household. I was 
a Peace Corps volunteer in Latin America, in one of the most Catholic 
countries on the earth.
  The women in that barrio, I was working with CARE as a Peace Corps 
volunteer, were requesting every day for information about family 
planning. They wanted to know about how to raise children and how to 
have a proper number of children.
  I also rise today as a father. I think the learned gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman] just pointed out that we are as parents whose 
children will be growing up in a population that will double in our 
lifetime, reaching the world's maximum carrying capacity, maximum 
carrying capacity of this globe.
  If we do not provide information, just information to people about 
how they can properly have children, not too many, we are putting our 
children into a situation in a globe that is unbearable. We will not be 
here arguing about family planning money, we will be here arguing about 
Fortress America, how we will wall ourselves off from the rest of the 
world as supplies diminish.
  Please support this resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the very distinguished ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Transportation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Proponents of this resolution have framed the issue as simply a vote 
on family planning, or a vote about closing family planning clinics 
overseas. That is not the case. It is a vote on using one-half billion 
dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize and to promote abortions, 
and to promote efforts to overturn legal and cultural barriers in 
countries overseas and to promote abortion in foreign countries.
  The position of this House historically has been a position out of 
respect to the millions of women and men who in conscience are opposed 
to abortion, to ensure that our tax dollars do not subsidize or promote 
abortion.
  We have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to approve funds for 
family planning, but we have also ensured safeguards against the use of 
those family planning dollars to promote or encourage in any way or 
advocate abortion.
  In international affairs from 1984 to 1993, 350 foreign organizations 
signed contracts for U.S. family planning funds, which included 
restrictions on the use of those funds, against using them for 
abortion. Only two turned down the funds, because they would not accept 
the House restrictions on abortion subsidy and abortion promotion.
  We should not approve this resolution which will open the door once 
again for use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote abortions overseas.
  I have heard the arguments. I have lived in Haiti. I have seen the 
face of poverty. I have seen the pain in those poor households, if you 
can call them households; little huts.
  I think family planning advice is fair. We should support such 
activities. But we should not allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to be used to 
promote abortion, to change the laws of countries that are against 
abortion. We should be neutral on that issue. That is what the 
resolution of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I will 
offer subsequent to this action does, is to provide $713 million, $170 
million more than the bill before us, for international family 
planning, with the historic House pro-life language.
  If all these groups are so committed to instructing women on 
reproductive freedom, control of futures, control of their family life, 
then they should be willing to agree that they will not promote 
abortion.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. [Price]), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this vote presents us with 
three choices: We can choose between improving and worsening women's 
health; we can choose between increasing and decreasing child 
mortality; and we can choose between preventing and causing more 
abortions.
  International family planning programs provide the only medical care 
many women around the world ever receive. This year those services will 
help prevent the deaths of as many as 8,000 mothers who die because of 
the complications in their pregnancies or in childbirth. Family 
planning services provide health care for children which dramatically 
increases the chances children will grow up healthy. Having children 
about 2 years apart in birth date can increase the survival rate by 
nearly 30 percent.
  Finally, preventing abortions. With U.S. funding, family planning 
programs could prevent as many as 4 million unplanned pregnancies this 
year, which could prevent up to 1.6 million abortions resulting from 
those pregnancies. Recent studies clearly link providing family 
planning services and declining abortion rates in Mexico, Colombia, 
Hungary, Russia, the Central Asian republics.
  Our job today is to sort through the information and the 
misinformation and all the ideological pressures surrounding this 
issue, and to do what we were elected to do, to do the right thing. 
With this vote we can improve women's health, we can improve children's 
lives, and we can reduce the number of abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, there are not too many votes of which we can say that. 
This is clearly a vote of principle. We must do the right thing. Vote 
to release the family planning funds.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), a member of the 
Committee on National Security.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution. The Supreme Court has opined in Roe versus Wade, and its 
erroneous prodigy, that we have to allow the killing of preborn 
children. Clearly, this was a misread of the Constitution by the Court. 
I think this is a good example of a Court more bent on legislating than 
on adjudicating; that is, the Court, in Roe, was more concerned with 
setting public policy than in construing the Constitution.
  In any event, even the Supreme Court has not opined that our 
Government has an obligation to provide for or encourage abortion here 
in America or in any other land. We should not take to this course by 
our own will. Mr. Chairman, can we really call abortion family 
planning? Can we really say

[[Page H538]]

that terminating life creates strong families? Can we say that by using 
taxpayer dollars to finance abortion we are contributing to American 
interests abroad?
  This is not a vote about family planning. This resolution would 
obligate the U.S. taxpayer to promote abortion services and facilities 
in foreign lands. It is this obligation that I believe the House should 
soundly reject. If this resolution passes, there is no question about 
the President's actions. He will sign it into law.
  Before we release any more funds to him for so-called family 
planning, we must see to it that we do not do so without restrictions 
at least as solidly respectful of human life as those enjoyed between 
1984 and 1993. The sanctity of life transcends international 
boundaries. It is time to say no to a careless export; that is, the 
notion that abortion is acceptable as a means of family planning. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, we have to pass this resolution. I do not 
care how many times it is repeated, the assertion that this is about 
making the U.S. taxpayer money available for abortion, to promote 
abortion, or anything close to it, is simply not true. That is against 
the law, a law that is strenuously enforced.
  Does anyone really believe that the way to have fewer abortions is to 
have more unwanted pregnancies? All evidence, all logic, is to the 
contrary. Let us just look at what we have been able to get done in 
Russia over the last several years, in which there has been roughly a 
one-quarter decrease in the incidence of abortion, as there has been a 
one-quarter increase in the availability of funds for contraception and 
family planning. Does anybody think there is not a connection between 
the two? The connection between the two has come because of our 
American family planning assistance program.
  Mr. Chairman, fewer pregnancies come from considered family planning 
decisions made available with these funds and with contraception, fewer 
pregnancies and fewer abortions. Let us get the logic straight.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson], a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the 
President's resolution to make millions of taxpayer dollars available 
for international organizations to promote abortion, in spite of what 
they are saying.
  Frankly, I am disappointed that we are taking the vote on the 
resolution because of a last-minute compromise in the omnibus 
appropriations bill. Do you know what, it was a last minute sellout at 
the expense of the values of the American people. But I am further 
outraged that the Clinton administration has been doing everything in 
its power to make sure that the American taxpayer dollars are made 
available on the international arena for abortions.
  There are no monetary differences in these two measures. Both bills 
release funds earlier than previous. The difference is that one 
prohibits funding to organizations that perform or promote abortions. 
The other does not.
  The funds are supposed to be spent on international family planning. 
I cannot believe that anyone in the administration or any Member of 
this House, for that matter, would list abortion as a method of family 
planning. We should know that in 1996 the White House administration 
rejected a compromise which would have provided even more money for 
international family planning. Why did they reject it? Because it 
included pro-life language.
  I urge this body to stand firm against the funding of abortions 
overseas and to vote no on this resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney], who has worked very hard on this issue.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that family 
planning is about saving lives, not ending them. Almost 600,000 women 
die every year because they are having too many children too close 
together. Not only are women dying, the world population is exploding. 
By the year 2000, there will be 800 million teenagers on this planet, 
one-seventh of the entire current world population. That is 800 million 
people who need family planning information, or the world's population 
growth will literally affect the survival of the planet.
  Again, let me be clear, any family planning is about saving lives. 
This is not a vote for abortion. It is a means of preventing abortion. 
While family planning sounds like a domestic issue, its impact is as 
far-reaching as world peace. Overpopulation leads to unrest.
  Recently I met with Ambassador Wisner to India, and I asked him what 
is the single most important thing we could do to improve relations 
between our two countries. He said release this family planning money. 
Women are lined up for days just to receive information. It is an 
important vote. Vote for family planning.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], a great member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
House Joint Resolution 36. I rise for a couple of reasons. First, I 
think it is morally wrong for us to export abortion under the guise of 
family planning. We have an option that will come up later, the Smith-
Oberstar-Hyde amendment, that will allow us to have actual family 
planning without exporting abortions. Occasionally the Federal 
Government is wrong. I think it is wrong to do that.
  Second, I think it is improper for us to take tax dollars from 
Americans, borrowed money. We are still running a deficit, so it is 
borrowing money from future taxpayers to send overseas to fund 
abortions. Again, I think the Federal Government is wrong.
  If we go back in history and look at the past when we have had 
incorrect decisions, such as the Dred Scott decision, who of my 
colleagues in this Chamber would say that that was a correct decision, 
that African-Americans are not created equal by our Creator. No one. 
That was an incorrect decision by those representing our Federal 
Government.
  In reading the history of the English-speaking peoples by Winston 
Churchill, I came across an incident that occurred in Boston about the 
same time, not long after the Dred Scott decision, where it said a 
Boston mob attempted to rescue a fugitive slave whose name was Anthony 
Burns. It took the Federal Government and a battalion of artillery, 
four platoons of marines, a sheriff's posse and 22 companies of the 
militia to line the streets so that our Government could return Anthony 
Burns, a slave, to the South. Who of you here agrees with that Federal 
decision that we made at that time? It was morally wrong. It was 
incorrect to take American tax dollars to support the institution of 
slavery.
  Once again, we have a situation where the Federal Government is 
morally wrong, exporting abortion under the guise of family planning. I 
think it is very important that we vote against House Joint Resolution 
36 because of the morality, because of misusing taxpayer dollars, 
borrowed dollars that our children will have to pay back. When you 
borrow a dollar today to export abortion, it takes at least $3 to pay 
that dollar back, 3 future dollars that our children have to use to pay 
back just the interest, let alone the usage and the loss because of 
inflation. Every dollar. That is also wrong.
  So I want to encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution 
and to support Smith-Oberstar-Hyde.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand how we as 
the leaders of the most powerful, prosperous Nation on Earth can vote 
to deny the poorest people on Earth their ability to control their own 
lives, to have some hope of one day rising out of the poverty that 
destroys their dreams and severely limits the lives of their children.
  We will leave today for home or for travel, comfortable in the fact 
that we

[[Page H539]]

have control over our lives. We can express our love for our spouses 
without the fear that it might cause even more suffering and 
deprivation of our families and their future. Surely we all understand 
that overpopulation is the most serious crisis facing the 21st century, 
that it is the principal cause of child labor, of the sexual 
exploitation of young girls in Third World countries around the world, 
of the cheapening of human lives. We can empower these lives, give 
those destitute mothers reason to dream that there may one day be hope 
for their children, especially for their daughters.
  Not to release these funds is unconscionable when we have the ability 
to relieve suffering by providing voluntary information, information 
that will substantially reduce the number of abortions performed and 
will reduce the exploitation of powerless people. It is our 
responsibility to know the cause of poverty, to care, and, when we have 
the ability, to do something responsible about it. This is the right 
thing to do. Vote to release these funds today.
  Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not whether we should 
act today to release family planning funds, but whether or not we can 
conscientiously fail to do so.
  I rise today in strong support of the President's resolution to 
release funds to USAID for international family planning programs. Time 
and time again, research shows that family planning programs work. The 
bottom line is that they decrease poverty and improve quality of life 
for families in developing countries.
  We all agree that there should be fewer abortions. This is exactly 
what the President's proposal accomplishes. Not surprisingly, delaying 
the release of this money has resulted in an increase in the number of 
unplanned pregnancies. This will lead to an increase in the number of 
abortions.
  Of the 585,000 maternal deaths which occur each year, 13 percent are 
attributed to unwanted pregnancy and illegal and unsafe abortions. 
According to the Population Institution, of the 22,000 children who die 
every day, many are the result of inadequate family planning, and 
insufficient time between pregnancies. The tragedy in these deaths is 
that they can so easily be prevented with the adequate resources to 
teach men and women how to prevent unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies.
  A poignant example of the impacts this delay in funds has had, is 
seen in Haiti. Haiti is currently in the process of integrating its 
family planning programs into the CARE, the child health and maternal 
care program. If we continue to deny release of these funds this 
program integration will cease. By May of this year, just 3 months 
away, the nongovernment organizations funded by USAID will be forced to 
begin laying off workers leaving thousands of Haitian men and women 
without access to family planning, threatening their health and the 
health of their children.
  Mr. Chairman, let's vote in the only responsible manner we can to 
release funds for international family planning funds, and against any 
attempts to apply unnecessary restrictions on their use.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon], a very distinguished doctor and a member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, and I rise in opposition to House Resolution 36, 
which is the resolution supported by the President, and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on that and to vote ``yes'' on House 
Resolution 581, the resolution introduced by the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Both of these bills, the bill supported by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] and the one supported by the President, will release 
funds for family planning. So what is the debate about? It is about one 
simple issue. Will U.S. tax dollars go to organizations that encourage 
or provide abortions as a means of birth control? In spite of the 
rhetoric, this is the issue before us.
  To those who support the President's plan, I would ask, why are you 
against language that says that none of these funds can be used to 
perform abortions as a means of birth control; do you find abortion an 
acceptable means of birth control? Why do you oppose language that 
would stipulate that these funds cannot be used to violate the laws of 
any foreign country with respect to abortion? Do you support using tax 
dollars, U.S. tax dollars to subvert the abortion laws of foreign 
countries?
  Those who vote ``yes'' on President Clinton's bill are voting to give 
tax dollars to organizations that promote or provide abortion as a 
means of birth control. Those who vote ``no'' on President Clinton's 
bill and ``yes'' on Mr. Smith's bill are saying, U.S. tax dollars can 
go for family planning but they cannot go to organizations that promote 
abortion as an acceptable means of birth control.
  To spend tax dollars on international family planning is an issue for 
debate. However, taking money out of the pockets of hard-working 
Americans to pay for abortions overseas is totally unacceptable. Again, 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the President's plan and vote 
``yes'' on the plan of [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, 
I know we are trying to get our country's financial house in order and 
balance the country's budget. We are also trying to save our trust 
funds for future and present generations and we are looking to 
transform the social and corporate and agricultural welfare state into 
a truly caring opportunity society. I can get really immersed in those 
issues, but as big as those issues are, they pale in comparison to the 
fact that one mouth can eat, two mouths can share, four mouths will 
sometimes go hungry, and eight mouths starve.
  In the Book of Psalms, it said I had fainted unless I believed to see 
the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. What kind of world 
are we seeing; what kind of world is truly living? We have too many 
people, too many children born into abject poverty, young children 
living on the streets begging, robbing, stealing, killing, being 
killed. Young girls and boys sold into sex slavery rings because their 
parents cannot keep them, they cannot care for them. The rich are 
getting richer and richer, and the poor are getting poorer and poorer 
and poorer and poorer and sicker and sicker.
  As a Peace Corps volunteer, I know that some countries have grown. 
Their economies grow but their population outstrips their economies and 
they are truly becoming poorer. Indigenous Indians in this country said 
when they looked at the beautiful lake, it was a smile of the Great 
Spirit. We are losing that smile. I hope and pray we wake up. Release 
family planning funds now. Allow kids to have a future.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose public funding of abortion, but I 
strongly support House Joint Resolution 36 because this is not about 
funding abortions. That is prohibited, clearly, in the law. This issue 
is about saving children. Sadly, there are millions of children across 
the world that wake up hungry every morning. There are millions more 
that live at the very edge of survival.
  For one moment, just one moment, I wish every parent in this House 
would imagine how you would feel if you awoke this morning not knowing 
whether you could feed your child or children. Imagine you lived in a 
country that had no welfare and there were more people than jobs. For 
one moment imagine the emotional agony of watching your children crying 
from hunger or malnutrition. Imagine yourself with just enough money or 
resources to barely feed the children you love and that you have 
already brought into this world.
  For millions of parents around the world, Mr. Chairman, they do not 
have to imagine this scenario. It is an everyday reality.

                              {time}  1145

  Regardless of the intentions, I think it would be unfair and inhumane 
to deny family planning services now to those parents who desperately 
want to feed and nurture the children that they love, just as you and I 
love our children.
  For millions of parents, family planning is the difference between 
providing adequate care and food for the children they have and facing 
the desperation of watching all their children go hungry. Today we can 
make a difference for millions of children.
  This issue is about protecting children, children that are struggling 
to survive and parents that are struggling

[[Page H540]]

to support and nurture those special children. I urge support of the 
President's resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. Paul], a distinguished physician and a member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 36. It is 
very clear to me that we should be doing nothing in the way of funding 
international birth control and family planning. If one were to look 
for the authority for this, it would be very difficult to find it 
written in the Constitution that that would be a proper function for 
U.S. taxpayers to be obligated to participate in such a program. So, 
very clearly, a ``no'' vote on H.R. 36 would be a correct and proper 
vote.
  I have more problems with the second vote on H.R. 581 because if one 
is concerned about being a fiscal conservative and following the rules 
of the Constitution, one might ask how many more dollars of taxpayers' 
money will be used if H.R. 581 passes? The best answer I can come up 
with is that instead of the $215 million that the President would get 
if he has his way, we would add that and have $385 million. In 
contrast, if we did nothing, if we voted down both of these proposals, 
it is my opinion that then the spending would be limited to $92 
million.
  The question arises here, well, what is a couple of dollars doing in 
some program that is unconstitutional if we can get some language in 
there that might do some good? Being a strong right-to-life Member, 
member of the right-to-life caucus, I am very much aware of that and 
very concerned about it.
  Quite frankly, if we did not spend the money we would not be arguing 
over whether or not the prohibition will do any good. Quite frankly, I 
do not believe the prohibition language accomplishes what it really 
intends to accomplish.
  For instance, in the wording of this message it is in there that if 
those who receive the funds do not spend it until the next fiscal year, 
they would not have the restraints on it. Besides, these organizations 
so often are international, they are huge in scope, and if they do not 
use the funds for abortion these funds get shifted around.
  Basically, it is very clear to me that the program should not exist. 
We should vote down the appropriation or keep the appropriation as low 
as possible. And quadrupling it, from where we are today, if we do 
nothing, we spend $92 million; if we pass H.R. 581, with the attempt to 
try to curtail the abortions, we actually quadruple it.
  Quite frankly, I do not believe the language is strong enough to 
really prevent any of this money getting into the hands of the 
abortionists.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey, [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the release of international family 
planning funds on March 1 of this year. We need to clear up the 
confusion on this issue and focus on the importance of family planning 
programs.
  International family planning programs save the lives of thousands of 
women and children across the world, prevent unwanted and dangerous 
pregnancies, and reduce the number of abortions worldwide.
  Representatives from the Russian family planning association recently 
shared information on the successes of their program. In Russia they 
are using these valuable dollars to increase access to quality family 
planning information and services. As a result of this program, 
contraceptive use has risen from 19 to 24 percent among women in just 4 
years. And between 1990 and 1994, total abortions fell from 3.6 to 2.8 
million.
  Yesterday Secretary of State Madeleine Albright testified before our 
appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and 
Related Programs. She stated:

       Our voluntary family planning programs serve our broader 
     interests by elevating the status of women, reducing the flow 
     of refugees, protecting the environment, and promoting 
     economic growth. As the President has determined, a further 
     delay will cause a tragic rise in unintended pregnancies, 
     abortions and maternal and child deaths.

  Let us be clear: Support for family planning programs has, to this 
day, been bipartisan. This program was created in 1969 by President 
Richard Nixon.
  Let me also address some concerns that have been raised by 
individuals who do not want their tax dollars being used for family 
planning services overseas. Of the two resolutions that we will vote on 
today, this resolution actually provides less money than does the 
alternative proposal that will be offered later.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming, Mrs. CUBIN, a member of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the resolution on 
the President's findings on family planning and I ask that my 
colleagues support the Smith-Hyde bill.
  It was stated earlier, and I completely agree, that in the past 
international family planning has been a bipartisan issue. I suggest to 
my colleagues that it absolutely remains that way today.
  I am pro-life but I am also very much in favor of sex education and 
birth control and family planning. In my opinion, it is a contradiction 
to be opposed to abortions and yet be opposed to birth control and 
family planning, and that is why I support the Smith-Hyde bill. The 
Smith-Hyde bill supports international family planning programs in 
foreign countries, but not like the President's proposal to promote 
abortions.
  I do not believe abortion is nor should it ever be promoted as a 
method of family planning or for birth control. The Smith-Hyde bill is 
a bipartisan bill, an alternative approach to the President's 
shortsighted and irresponsible plan, and it actually increases funding 
for international family planning even beyond the President's 
resolution.
  Now, let me repeat that. The Smith-Hyde bill will spend more money 
for international family planning than the President's proposal, and 
the Smith-Hyde bill will not allow any public money to be spent for 
abortions.
  There are many in this Chamber like me who support family planning 
programs. This debate is simply not about family planning, but it is a 
debate about abortion being used as a method of family planning or 
birth control.
  As I said, I am strongly pro-life and I believe that abortion is not 
acceptable for purposes of sex selection, birth control, or 
convenience. Frankly, people must begin accepting responsibility for 
their actions, both domestically and overseas. That is why we must have 
an honest debate about the use of contraceptives and sex education as 
responsible methods of family planning. It is time to take the issue of 
abortion out of the family planning debate.
  The resolution on the President's finding ignores this Congress' 
desire to keep pro-life safeguards in place when providing 
international family planning funds. Let us send a clear message to the 
President that we do not want to send taxpayers' money to foreign 
countries to fund abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to permit a rule on a Smith-Oberstar 
vote and against the resolution supporting the President's finding.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this 
moment to thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], for her 
leadership on this issue, and note that she had to forego going to her 
dear friend Ambassador Pamela Harriman's funeral, so she could carry 
out her duties in relation to this program this morning, and I thank 
the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support for this resolution for 
release of funds for the Nation's international family planning 
programs.
  Make no mistake about it, no matter what we hear on this floor, 
despite attempts by opponents to say differently, today's vote is about 
international family planning. More than that, it is a vote to release 
funds that have already been appropriated to a program that has already 
been authorized. It is also an agreement we are talking about today 
that has already been approved by the majority and the minority.

[[Page H541]]

  International family planning programs work. They work to promote 
sustainable development. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said 
just this week, and as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Frelinghuysen] just mentioned, I too was struck by Secretary Albright's 
words when she noted that these efforts concerning family planning 
further promote U.S. foreign policy objectives by improving the status 
of women, reducing the flow of immigration, protecting our environment 
and, finally, promoting economic growth, which this is very much about.
  I would add, too, that these family planning efforts truly do save 
lives, lives that otherwise might be lost to infection and to 
starvation, and we have to say it, yes, to abortion. To pretend 
otherwise is to ignore reality.
  I urge my colleagues today, whatever thoughts on other debates where 
we do disagree, to vote today for the President's resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the very distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the first 
resolution and in strong support of the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde resolution.
  Second, I want to make clear to people who are listening, I strongly 
support family planning. I am not one, there may be some who are 
opposed to family planning, I strongly support family planning and 
think it is very important.
  Third, the Smith-Hyde resolution moves the money out faster and, in 
some respects, actually more, because by moving it out faster the level 
is actually higher.
  Fourth, I will tell the people that are undecided on this issue there 
are more than enough groups in this country and in this world who are 
strong proponents and supporters of family planning who can use not 
only the money in this bill but double or triple the amount. So there 
are enough family planning groups that can take the money that are not 
connected with abortion and are not involved in controversial 
activities.
  We went through the same thing in Romania several years ago when this 
battle came and the House then sided for family planning but not for 
family planning groups that are involved in abortion. So I will say 
that the Smith resolution puts more money out faster, and there are 
more than enough family planning groups that are strong proponents of 
family planning who are not involved in abortion, to use the money 
under Smith-Hyde but to use double that money.
  Had my will been done, I would have increased the amount of money for 
family planning in the Smith-Hyde thing, although we were prohibited 
from doing that because family planning is important but not family 
planning to groups who are connected with abortion, which in many 
respects in China is one of the most criminal violations of human 
rights.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of releasing the 
already appropriated funds for family planning on March 1.
  With the growing program of overpopulation around the world, access 
to international family planning is crucial. About 1.3 billion people 
subsist on $1 a day, 1.5 billion people lack access to clean drinking 
water, 120 million people are actively looking for work, and 700 
million people are classified as underemployed, working long hours in 
jobs that often fail to come close to supporting their basic needs. For 
many of these people, health care is neither affordable nor even 
available.
  It is clearly in our national interest to address these changes and 
to contribute to international stability and economic growth. It is a 
more cost effective investment to address these problems proactively 
rather than later when they erupt into an international crisis.
  For health reasons alone, quality family planning deserves our full 
support. Only through the use of family planning funds have women and 
couples in poor countries had access to contraceptives, prenatal care, 
and a link to modern health care services. International family 
planning has improved women's health and allowed generations of 
children to grow in safer, more suitable environments.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record two articles which appeared in 
the Houston Chronicle in support of this motion.

            [From the Houston (TX) Chronicle, Feb. 7, 1997]

          Congress Should Release World Family Planning Funds

       Most American couples take for granted their ability to 
     delay starting their families after marriage. They decide 
     when or whether to have more children after a baby's arrival. 
     Or a couple may choose to have no children at all. These are 
     choices that many parents in the developing world do not 
     have.
       The link between access to contraception and healthier 
     babies, better educated children wealthier families and 
     population control is a solid one. Recognizing this 
     connection, the United States has a long tradition of 
     providing poor people the world over with the means of 
     controlling the size of their families and appropriately 
     spacing their children. American family planning aid is 
     credited with reducing birth rates in 60 countries and 
     lowering the average number of children per family from six 
     to three.
       Now, conservative legislators, persuaded by anti-abortion 
     lobbyists, have tied these highly successful programs to the 
     abortion debate. Charging--mistakenly--during last year's 
     budget debate that U.S. family planning aid helps support 
     abortion services abroad, abortion opponents cut the 
     programs' funding by 35 percent and mandated that 1997 funds 
     could not be spent until July, nine months into the fiscal 
     year. After that, spending is restricted to only 8 percent 
     per month of the remaining $385 million allocation.
       These funds, by law, cannot be used to provide or promote 
     abortions, and they should be released immediately. Abortion 
     opponents are working at cross purposes here since a lack of 
     contraception undoubtedly will increase unintended 
     pregnancies, which logically could result in an increase in 
     abortions.
       Furthermore, the action has hurt family planning programs 
     without regard to a country's position on abortion.
       For example, in Trinidad and Tobago, where abortion is 
     illegal, U.S. planning funding has dried up.
       Access to reliable contraception and family counseling 
     services act as deterrents to abortion. Meanwhile, poor 
     parents who can direct the destinies of their families have 
     the ability to improve the quality of life for the children 
     they do have. Congress should act now to mitigate the damage 
     that this funding disruption has already caused.
                                  ____


            [From the Houston (TX) Chronicle, Jan. 31, 1997]

              Congress Ignoring Serious Population Problem

                           (By Werner Fornos)

       For those who question that the world has an overpopulation 
     problem--and yes, there are a few--here are a few facts to 
     keep in mind.
       1.3 billion people subsist on about one dollar a day. 1.5 
     billion people lack access to clean drinking water. 120 
     million people are actively looking for work. 700 million 
     people are classified as underemployed, working long hours, 
     often at back breaking jobs that fail to even come close to 
     meeting their most basic needs.
       These facts are just the beginning.
       In 1993, some 16.5 million people died from infectious 
     diseases. That was one-third of all deaths worldwide that 
     year, or slightly more than all deaths from cancer and heart 
     disease combined.
       A recent report concluded that a resurgence of diseases 
     once thought to have been eradicated stems from a deadly mix 
     of exploding populations, rampant poverty, severe 
     environmental degradation, inadequate health care and misuse 
     of antibiotics.
       And still there are skeptics, people who insist that 
     there's no world population problem. Unfortunately, some of 
     those skeptics are in the U.S. Congress, and they have more 
     than little influence. Not enough influence to terminate the 
     U.S. international family planning program, or at least not 
     yet. But, enough to place that program in serious jeopardy.
       The 104th Congress last year appropriated $385 million for 
     population assistance, but the skeptics added a few bizarre 
     twists: None of it can be spent until July 1--nine months 
     into the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1--and then at a 
     rate of 8 percent of the total per month. For the 1997 fiscal 
     year, which ends Sept. 30, this would result in a 76 percent 
     reduction.
       That's not exactly the way appropriations are made in 
     Washington. But it clearly indicates that some of our 
     lawmakers with sufficient clout have made up their minds to 
     do away with U.S. population spending overseas.
       And that is just about the most untimely notion the 
     national legislature of the last remaining superpower could 
     possibly have. World population is closing in on 5.9 billion

[[Page H542]]

     and it is growing at nearly 90 million a year. Virtually all 
     of that growth is in the poorest countries of the world, and 
     it is seriously hampering any reasonable chance many of them 
     will have for emerging from a cycle of poverty, malnutrition, 
     unemployment and social discrimination.
       An escape hatch was built into the 1997 international 
     population budget. The President will submit findings to 
     Congress to show that the nine-month moratorium will be 
     harmful to family planning efforts for developing countries. 
     If his findings are accepted by both houses of Congress, the 
     appropriation will be released as early as March 1, rather 
     than July 1.
       As this century draws to a close, there is sufficient 
     technology to vastly reduce world population growth. It is 
     possible to insure that world population stabilizes at 8 
     billion or even less, rather than 12 billion and possibly 
     more.
       Virtually every developing country with a problem of rapid 
     population growth recognizes that fact and wants to reduce 
     it. Virtually every industrialized country is trying to do 
     its part to help. But the Congress of the United States, the 
     last remaining superpower has enough recalcitrants to place 
     its present and future overseas population efforts in doubt.
       It is a situation the new 105th Congress can correct by 
     voting in February to disperse international family planning 
     funds by March 1. Then the United States can take its 
     rightful place in the forefront of stabilizing world 
     population in helping to lead our global neighbors toward a 
     21st century of progress, peace and prosperity.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder], a member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to first say, as the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] said, that I believe there is a role for 
international family planning, and as we look around the world we can 
see that need.
  I strongly have concerns about the fungibility and the 
maneuverability of funds not only directly but indirectly from fund-
raising concerns on abortion, and I have a deep heartfelt concern that 
American dollars should not be used to kill innocent little children 
around the world. But also this bill is based on a false premise, and 
those Members and the general public who are still trying to make up 
their minds on this bill should realize that Congress has been very 
generous to international population programs.
  Let us get some of the facts straight. The amount the administration 
already has to spend in fiscal year 1997 in international population 
programs, even if this resolution does not pass, is over $400 million. 
Not $1 million, not $10 million, not $100 million, not $200 million, 
over $400 million.
  This is about 25 percent of the entire U.S. budget for developmental 
assistance to poor countries around the world. It is substantially more 
than the $300 million we spend on child survival programs which pay for 
vaccinations and medicines and save hundreds of thousands of children 
from dying from easily treatable diseases.
  The money we spend on international population control is about twice 
as much as the $200 million we spend on assistance for narcotics 
control. It is about 4 times the amount we spend for microcredit 
programs, which empower poor people, mostly women, by allowing them to 
start small businesses.
  In this $400 million for population control is literally hundreds of 
times more than we contribute to other urgent needs such as the U.N. 
Fund for Torture Victims. Yet the administration still tries to make us 
think that population programs are underfunded.
  They do this by constantly pointing to the fact that under the 
funding compromise adopted last year, only about $92 million of the 
fiscal year 1997 population funding can be spent in this fiscal year 
beginning in July. But they refuse to talk about the additional $284 
million in the carryover funds from fiscal year 1996 which is still 
available in fiscal year 1997, and they somehow forget to mention the 
additional $43 million Congress has appropriated for contributions to 
the U.N. Population Fund.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a total of $420 million. If we reject this 
resolution, the total stays at $420 million. Population programs will 
still have one of their best years in history. Not only is a no vote on 
the Clinton resolution the right vote for those who respect life, it is 
also the only vote consistent with fiscal responsibility and a balance 
of priorities and how we approach international funding.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. McGovern], a member of the freshman class.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, throughout my district in Massachusetts, 
I have spoken out quite clearly that one of my top priorities is 
protecting the health and the lives of children, mothers, and pregnant 
women. But, Mr. Chairman, my concern for the health of women and 
children does not stop at the borders of my district. It extends to all 
women and all children around the globe.
  Over the past 30 years, U.S. support for international family 
planning has been one of the great success stories of our development 
programs. What do U.S. international family planning programs do? They 
protect the health, welfare, and survival of women and children. They 
reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. They 
reduce poverty. They reduce the pressure of human population on the 
environment. And they dramatically reduce the rate of abortion 
worldwide.
  Mr. Chairman, the cuts and delays in releasing current U.S. funds 
have already caused harm to many of these programs. I urge all my 
colleagues to support the President's finding and to release these 
desperately needed funds now.
  Mr. Chairman, USAID international family planning programs have 
earned the support and respect from a broad spectrum of U.S. and 
international nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], along with such 
international agencies as UNICEF.
  The NGOs represent a diverse array of interests, such as religious 
institutions, environmental groups, population and development 
organizations, legal and educational associations, and women's and 
children's advocates. From the National Audubon Society to the 
Religious Action Center on Reformed Judaism, from CARE to the Emory 
University School of Public Health, all have urged the release of these 
already appropriated USAID funds for international family planning.
  The issues that bring together such an annual coalition of interests 
reflect how successful U.S. international family planning programs have 
been over the past three decades. It also reflects how very real is the 
harm to women's and children's lives that has already been caused by 
recent cuts in funding levels and the current delay in releasing 
appropriated moneys for these programs.
  For example, in Bolivia, a CARE program designed to give rural 
Bolivian women access to pap smears for the first time ever will be 
terminated if funding is delayed any further. When diagnosed early, 
cervical cancer can usually be treated effectively. Bolivia is plagued 
with the highest maternal mortality rate of any country in Latin 
America. Without the benefits of early detection through pap smears, 
rates of women's deaths in Bolivia will likely remain high.
  In the Philippines, the USAID program in natural family planning, 
which is carried out by the Georgetown University Institute for 
Reproductive Health, would come to an abrupt halt in the Philippines. 
Because the contract is up for renewal in June 1997, the funding delay 
would close this project down completely.
  In Zambia, more than 100,000 women in Lusaka, Zambia's capital, 
receive family planning support through USAID. Should funding be 
delayed to this project, key reproductive health care training will be 
scaled back dramatically, meaning that condom distribution in this 
country will be reduced significantly. As a result, hundreds of new HIV 
cases will occur in this urban capital that already suffers from a high 
HIV infection rate. The cutbacks in service training will also cause 
thousands of couples to lose family planning information services. This 
in turn will increase the incidence of unwanted pregnancies and 
ultimately abortions in Zambia. Sadly, unsafe abortion has been among 
the top causes of hospital admission in Lusaka.
  As these cases only begin to illustrate, family planning programs are 
truly development success stories. And by making widespread the use of 
contraceptives, they are also one of the most successful means of 
reducing abortion rates worldwide. Indeed, making family services 
available to all who want them should be the common ground on which 
both sides of the abortion debate can agree.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following two attachments 
from the U.S. Agency for International Development, dated January 31, 
1997, which outline some of the impacts of the fiscal year 1997 funding 
delay on specific country programs.

  The Impact of the Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Delay on Country Programs

       The following country programs are among those that would 
     be most severely affected by not being able to receive FY97 
     population funds until July 1 or later:

[[Page H543]]

       Bolivia--Defer ongoing population assistance to the 
     National Social Security Medical System, jeopardizing 
     services to 20 percent of Bolivia's population. Reduce 
     support to local organizations providing family planning 
     services to 30 percent of Bolivia's rural population.
       Haiti--Layoff staff of NGOs serving thousands of poor 
     Haitian couples. Delay and possibly cancel integration of 
     family planning into CARE's maternal and child health care 
     program.
       Mexico--Curtail USAID-funded training of family planning 
     service providers in the public sector and potentially close 
     some NGO clinics, including in Chiapas, one of Mexico's 
     poorest states.
       Guatemala--Reduce services of largest private family 
     planning provider and close rural health promoter program.
       El Salvador--Continue cutbacks and downgrading of services 
     of the leading NGO family planning provider.
       Dominican Republic--Reduce services of leading NGO family 
     planning providers and lose opportunities for initiatives to 
     increase male involvement in family planning.
       Russia--Suspend funding for two of the largest 
     organizations providing assistance, jeopardizing programs to 
     train family planning service providers and provide 1.7 
     million couples with access to modern family planning 
     services as an alternative to abortion.
       Ukraine--Suspend planned extension to major cities of 
     training for service providers in clinical reproductive 
     health, contraceptive counseling and prevention of sexually 
     transmitted diseases.
       The Philippines--Defer a number of programs to train health 
     personnel in natural family planning, introduce voluntary 
     surgical contraception at 200 sites, and work with the 
     commercial sector on provision of oral contraceptives.
       Egypt--Suspend USAID's principal mechanism to provide 
     technical and financial support for the national family 
     planning program, a disruption that would affect thousands of 
     clients now served.
       Jordan--Suspend establishment of model family planning 
     centers and information campaigns on availability of family 
     planning, affecting 500,000 couples who are current and 
     expected users.
       Turkey--Suspend training of nurses and midwives, increasing 
     the shortage of trained providers of family planning and 
     related health services.
       Mozambique--Reduce training and other family planning 
     service delivery activities in four focus provinces with a 
     combined population of over 6 million.
       Uganda--Suspend or curtail a number of training and family 
     planning service delivery programs.
       Zimbabwe--Suspend deliveries of USAID-funded 
     contraceptives, resulting in stock-outs for clinics and 
     community-based distributors.
                                  ____


  The Impact of the Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Delay on USAID Technical 
                 Leadership Through Worldwide Programs

       The following worldwide programs are among those that would 
     be most severely affected if FY97 population funding is not 
     available until July 1 or later:
       Service delivery--Critical service delivery programs 
     supported through US-based private voluntary organizations 
     (PVOs), including CARE, Pathfinder International, and AVSC, 
     would have to suspend or even shut down key activities. AVSC, 
     for example, would shut 70 percent of the family planning 
     service sites it supports in Nepal
       Natural family planning--USAID's planned new agreement with 
     Georgetown University could not begin soon enough to prevent 
     suspension of programs serving over 700,000 annually, 
     including in Bolivia, the Philippines, and Ecuador.
       Contraceptive supplies--There could be serious 
     contraceptive shortages in a number of countries in FY98--Up 
     to 50 million condom, 4.8 million cycles of oral pills, and 
     500,000 intra-uterine devices (IUDs)--as well as loss of U.S. 
     jobs.
       Training--Training of over 4,500 family planning service 
     providers in 10 or more countries would be deferred 
     indefinitely.
       Information and communications--Information campaigns on 
     family planning and maternal and child health designed to 
     reach millions of couples in Bolivia, Ukraine, the 
     Philippines, Kenya, and other countries would be slowed.
       Research--Initiation of a large-scale clinical trial for a 
     new female-controlled barrier method would be deferred, and 
     work on other current contraceptive leads would be slowed, 
     delaying introduction of new and improved methods.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rockefeller Foundation recently published this 
report. It is called High Stakes: The United States Global Population 
and Our Common Future. It is important that we consider what the stakes 
are in this debate because the stakes are indeed high.
  Mr. Chairman, the stakes are about women dying. They are about 
mothers dying. Every day 1,600 women die of pregnancy-related causes 
because they do not have access to reproductive health services, 
including family planning. Around the world, 250 women will die for 
lack of family planning services during the course of this debate; 
585,000 women die for these reasons every year around the world.
  What they die of is called most frequently postpartum hemorrhage. It 
happens most frequently when poor women have undergone many closely 
spaced births, and when these women die, they die because when they 
have their pregnancies they are too young, they are too old, their 
children come too closely together or they have too many children, and 
when they die they leave behind vulnerable orphans.
  It is indeed a tragedy. The stakes are about children dying. Every 
year 7 million infants die on this planet because their mothers were 
not healthy enough for their pregnancies, or they lacked obstetric 
care, when the children most likely to die are those children who are 
born too closely spaced together, into families that are too poor and 
to women who lack access to family planning services.
  We have heard a lot of talk this morning in this debate about 
abortion, and speaker after speaker on the other side of this debate 
have walked to the podium and talked about this program as if it 
enhances the number of abortions in the world. Nothing, nothing, could 
be further from the truth. Each year in this world 50 million women 
have abortions performed; 20 million of those abortions are in unsafe 
conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, when I decided to speak out on this issue, I felt I 
needed to understand how this program works and to see it operating on 
the ground. A few weeks ago I traveled to La Paz, Bolivia, a country in 
which abortion has never been legal and a country until just recently, 
because of this program, family planning services were not available at 
all. I went into the Andean Mountains and I met with the Aymara Indians 
and I met with them in little clinics and little hospitals around the 
country, and I spoke to them about their efforts to go out and talk to 
their neighbors, door to door, using these funds, meager funds, to 
promote family planning services.
  What I found out is that just 8 years ago, the health ministry of 
Bolivia did a survey for health planning purposes. They did not have in 
mind a study about abortion or family planning services. They just 
wanted to know how their hospitals were being utilized. What they 
discovered, to everyone's amazement, is that 50 percent, half, of the 
beds in the country, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere next 
to Haiti, in Bolivia, 50 percent of the beds were occupied by women who 
were suffering the results of botched and illegal abortions.
  Abortion is not legal there. What has changed that, what has reduced 
the number of abortions in poor countries like Bolivia and in poor 
countries all over the world has been this program. This family 
planning program is what reduces abortions. And not one penny, let us 
say this over and over again, not one penny, not one dime of these 
funds are used to perform abortions, to counsel that abortion is an 
option, to promote abortion, not one penny of this money is used for 
that.
  In those few instances where these funds are provided to an 
organization, a hospital, a government organization, a nongovernment 
organization that does exist and operate in a country where abortion is 
legal, these funds are strictly segregated. These organizations sign 
contracts that they will use none of this money for abortion-related 
services, and, in fact, they do not. We are here to prevent abortions.
  We can define our interest in this issue in terms of the humanitarian 
issues I have just talked about, women dying and children dying and 
preventing abortion, or we can think of our more narrow national 
interest, the interest of the United States.
  It took 10,000 generations for the world's population to reach 2 
billion, and that happened just about when I was born, in 1950. Yet in 
the second half of this century, the population has increased from 2 
billion to 5.5 billion. Look where it is headed. It is headed above 10 
billion world population by midway through the next century.
  The population in the industrialized countries has stabilized. But in 
countries that are underdeveloped, and the

[[Page H544]]

poorest nations, India, Bangladesh, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle 
East, Mexico, the population is exploding and it is exploding out of 
control.
  Unsustainable population growth leads to increased demands for 
energy, and in the Third World that energy is produced by burning coal, 
dirty coal. Our scientists are clear about the fact that world 
population explosion means much more greenhouse gases being distributed 
to the atmosphere, it means global warming. Unchecked population growth 
in the Third World means depletion of water resources. It means famine, 
it means suffering. It pushes populations to clear rain forests. It 
pushes populations to go out and graze on land that cannot sustain 
cattle, and that leads to expansion of the deserts worldwide.
  We all have a stake in the global environment.
  When population explosion results in crushing poverty, people will 
work for next to nothing. What this chart illustrates is the growth in 
job seekers, the labor force in the industrialized countries, which is 
relatively stable, versus developing countries. What you see is an 
exponential growth rate in countries that are undeveloped and 
nonindustrialized. And so what happens?
  What happens is what we have seen happen in the last decade or two. 
American workers are competing to produce products that are made 
overseas by people who will work for 25 cents a day or a dollar a day, 
and we cannot compete for those jobs. So in our very, very self-
interest, for the workers of this country, for the future workers of 
this country, it is our job to prevent this great economic leveler, 
population explosion, from making us economically uncompetitive.
  When the local economies cannot provide jobs, poor people migrate. 
They migrate to the industrial nations. Legal and illegal migration to 
this country is coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Whether we 
define our interests as humanitarians committed to saving women and 
children from dying, or whether we define them more narrowly as 
protecting our Nation from global environmental degradation and job 
loss from a wave of migration, legal and illegal, this resolution is 
the right thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds in order to 
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] for his very 
comprehensive statement, indeed a definitive statement, on what is at 
stake here on the floor today. It is about family planning, it is about 
the individual lives of poor women and children and families throughout 
the world, it is about population and our environment, it is about the 
economies of the world, and I commend the gentleman for his courageous 
leadership and on his clear presentation for us.
  I wanted to make a couple comments about what I have heard--is my 
time up?
  Mr. Chairman, I will have to seek more time, but first I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the President's 
recommendation to release the already appropriated international family 
planning funds. Mr. Chairman, America's family planning program reduces 
unintended pregnancies in developing countries; 40 percent of those 
unintended pregnancies end in abortion. So, crippling our family 
planning program clearly leads to more abortions.
  America's family planning dollars help poor women to protect 
themselves from deadly disease, to regulate childbearing when they want 
to do so. So indeed the release of these funds saves the lives of women 
and children. But this decision is about more, because unchecked global 
population growth affects all us in many ways.
  Population pressures cause irreparable environmental degradation in 
fragile areas, and the growing numbers of the unemployed in developing 
nations threaten the economic and political stability of the entire 
globe.
  So I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for the President's 
resolution to release the funds on March 1.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] who is co-chair of the 
Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, progress in family planning is one of the great success 
stories of the world. It is where we are making progress throughout the 
developing world. I am proud of the role my country has played in this 
progress. This is one of the bright stars of American foreign policy.
  I respect the conscientious and religious objections of those who 
oppose abortion, but I cannot imagine what the world thinks of this 
debate that drags abortion into a family planning matter. We must not 
see abortion in issues that allow us to cut off our noses to spite our 
faces. Family planning and contraception in the developing world impact 
three issues of awesome importance: maternal health, children's health 
and AIDS.
  In the early century, graveyards showed more women dying at an 
earlier age than men. We have turned that around almost exclusively 
because of family planning. Let us do for the world what we have done 
for our country. Let this money go.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs, the very distinguished gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] for yielding this time to me.
  I had decided that I would not come to the microphone today to speak 
on this issue. This is an issue that has been cast upon my 
subcommittee, that is not an entitlement of ours. It is the 
responsibility of the Committee on International Relations to handle 
this issue. But in the absence of a bill being passed through the House 
and through the Senate and signed by the President, it has become the 
responsibility of my subcommittee to handle it.
  Last year during the process, we went to great lengths to try to 
compromise, which is what this body is all about, a body of compromise. 
I am pro-life, and I do not apologize for that. But at the same time I 
recognized what the pro-choice people were talking about.
  In an attempt to make this issue go away, to make it fair, to give 
both sides a half-full glass, we adopted what was perceived as the 
Callahan amendment, and I spoke to many of my colleagues about this, 
and I even took the liberty of calling to my office with the assistance 
of a former Member of ours, Charlie Wilson, the leaders of the family 
planning community.
  Mr. Chairman, they could not find one thing wrong with the Callahan 
amendment and they would not accept it because the right-to-life side 
had accepted it. Had they accepted it, they would have more money 
available, not for abortions, but for family planning. But they did not 
want to accept it because of the fact that the other side did accept 
it. That is the only reason they ever gave, the only logical 
explanation.
  So in a desperate attempt, I talked with Secretary of State 
Christopher, and he agreed that it sounded fair to him. But 
nevertheless, the President sent messages that he was going to veto the 
entire foreign operations bill if the language we had proposed was in 
there.
  So I put in a call to the President of the United States to ask for 
the opportunity to come to him and ask him to find one thing that was 
wrong with it. And the President, whereas in the past when he needed 
me, on situations like Bosnia, on situations like Haiti, when he 
summoned me to the White House and begged for my support and I 
ultimately gave it to him, refused to return my call.
  And as a result of my inability to explain to the President to remove 
his veto threat and solve this issue for a long period of time, and to 
provide funding for family planning and at the same time to recognize 
the rights of the unborn, we are here today.

[[Page H545]]

  So we reconstructed the language at the insistence of Mr. Panetta, 
even though Mr. Panetta agreed that maybe I was right. But in order to 
allow the government to continue to operate in order to get the 
Government running and pass the bill that we had to pass, we agreed to 
this, knowing it would come back.
  So as a result of that, I intend to vote ``no'' on the request of the 
President, and I intend to vote ``yes'' on the Chris Smith amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer].
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the measure 
before us.
  Rapid population growth and movement are the primary causes of 
worldwide environmental degradation, dwindling natural resources, urban 
poverty, malnutrition, and social unrest that in too many cases leads 
directly to conflict approaching the level of war. At the same time, 
more than 90 percent of the annual population increase of 100 million 
people is in the developing world.
  This debate is really about giving the people of the world the 
information and resources that Americans take for granted. As the 
Houston Chronicle has pointed out, most Americans make responsible and 
informed choices about when and whether to have children. These are 
choices that many parents in the developing world do not realize they 
have.
  The number of people added to the world's population each year is 
increasing, especially in the world's poorest countries that are least 
equipped to deal with this growth. It is in our national interest and 
in the global interest to support voluntary international family 
planning. Efforts to slow population growth, elevate the status of 
women, reduce poverty, and promote sustainable development will lead to 
a more stable world.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make some points of clarification 
because I think there is some confusion among Members about certain 
points.
  Let me make it clear the President's resolution does not subsidize, 
promote, allow, perform, or in any way condone abortion.
  Second of all, there is no more money in the Smith resolution. The 
money is the same in the Smith resolution as it is in the President's 
proposal. The money is the same.
  Third of all, I once again want to call to our colleagues' attention 
that all I have said first about this resolution not promoting or 
having anything to do with abortion is a matter of U.S. law according 
to the Helms amendment.
  I have the provisions for our colleagues to see, blown up on a 
bulletin board or in handouts, on the very statutes; and also I have 
for them the safeguards to prove and demonstrate how this law is 
implemented.
  In closing I want to say one thing, and I say this with the greatest 
respect for the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the chair of our 
subcommittee on which I am ranking. The President has acted in good 
faith on this issue. He entered into an agreement, he entered into an 
agreement which called for less money, delayed the funding, in order to 
be able to have this House vote at this time up or down, to accept his 
certification that this delay in funding, et cetera, was a hindrance to 
promoting our international family planning goals.
  In further proof of the President's good faith, I call to our 
attention a statement by the President in May 1996 where he accepted 
the Congress' request to strike from legislation, provisions that would 
have allowed the President to go forth with this spending with his own 
certification and without a vote of Congress. Congress said, we put 
that in by mistake; the President said, okay, I will take it out and 
then we will proceed.
  So I urge our colleagues to look carefully at these provisions which 
safeguard any ideals that they have about abortion, but also uphold our 
principle of promoting family planning internationally.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall], whose credentials are unsurpassed in the area of child 
survival. He truly lives and acts by the words of the gospel of 
Matthew, rendering to the least of our brethren as if he were rendering 
to God.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] for yielding this time to me and for her very 
kind remarks.
  There is probably nobody more pro-life in the Democratic Party than I 
am. If my voting record is not 100 percent, then it has got to be 
pretty close. I was the author of the conscience clause on abortion 
which was included in the Democratic platform, and I spoke of that 
issue at the convention.
  I feel myself in a position today that is unusual for me, for I find 
myself opposing the views of the pro-life position. I support Mexico 
City policy, but I believe that the pro-life forces have gone too far 
in their effort to make the release of funds a pro-life issue, and this 
vote would hurt millions of women and children. Because of massive cuts 
to international family planning and very restrictive language that has 
held up other funds related to it, the pro-life forces have caused 
great damage, in my opinion, to poor communities all over the world.
  I am for family planning, which is prenatal care and education to 
women, and breast-feeding and proper nutrition, and spacing of children 
and other child survival activities. I am against abortion. And there 
is a difference between family planning and abortion, but sometimes 
around here we do not separate the two of them from the discussion.
  In quoting a letter from CARE and Save the Children, they have again 
stated current law, and I quote: ``In keeping with the Helms amendment, 
no U.S. funds are used to pay for abortion, nor do our organizations 
use private money to pay for abortions.'' That is the law and has been 
for some time.
  World Vision, an organization that I have great respect for, is for 
releasing these funds. World Vision is a Christian organization, and 
they are pro-life.

                              {time}  1230

  I have traveled with them in many parts of the world to visit the 
poor, I have seen their work, and I have always been very inspired. 
When they speak on this issue, I listen.
  Along with CARE, Save the Children, World Vision, they wrote many of 
us, and I am quoting from a letter that they wrote to me:

       Based upon our knowledge and operational experience, we can 
     assure you that this is not an ideological or partisan issue, 
     but a serious health concern for women, children and 
     families. In addition to more maternal and child deaths, 
     reduced access to family planning services will result in 
     more unintended pregnancies, leading to more, rather than 
     fewer, abortions. By voting to release already limited family 
     planning funds, you will be voting to prevent more of these 
     tragedies from happening.

  I agree with them. In our effort to legislate around here, sometimes 
we become extreme and we become purists, and we hurt the people we are 
trying to help. This should not be an issue between pro-choice and pro-
life forces. Rather, this is an issue of justice and fairness, in my 
opinion. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire, am I correct that 
there is no more time other than the time that remains to my side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana has 12 minutes remaining; 
the gentlewoman from California has yielded the balance of her time to 
the gentleman from Ohio, and that time has expired, so the gentleman 
from Louisiana has 12 minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire, do we have any more time 
left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was in error. The gentlewoman from California 
has 30 seconds remaining and the gentleman from Louisiana has 12 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close and would 
certainly ask the gentlewoman to expend her time.

[[Page H546]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] for his leadership and for his fine statement from the heart 
and from the head to our colleagues. I want to thank Members on both 
sides of the aisle for what I believe is the fine tenor of the debate 
today.
  International family planning is an issue of grave importance, and 
once again I appeal to our colleagues not to hold the poor children of 
the world hostage to the politics of the House of Representatives. Let 
us take a step forward and vote ``yes'' on the privileged resolution 
and approve the President's findings regarding international family 
planning.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. In sharing the expression by the gentlewoman from California 
about the tenor of the debate, I think it has been a fine debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], a member of the 
Committee on International Relations and an outstanding expert on this 
issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my very good friend [Mr. 
Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, just to respond briefly, nobody is holding any funds or 
money hostage. This is all about fundamental human rights and 
protecting the precious unborn children while simultaneously providing 
family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that the House will today 
consider two diametrically opposed pieces of legislation on family 
planning. While each is designed to release fiscal year 1997 family 
planning funds by March 1, that is where the similarity ends.
  The Clinton resolution, introduced by request by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Armey]--and I would note for the Record that Mr. Armey does 
not support the resolution--is strongly pro-abortion in its effect. 
Make no mistake about it, the consequence of approving the Clinton 
resolution is a fat payday for abortion providers. So please be fully 
aware of the unavoidable fact that if you vote for House Joint 
Resolution 36, you further empower, strengthen, and tangibly aid and 
abet the abortion industry overseas.
  Know that a ``yes'' vote on House Joint Resolution 36 pours hundreds 
of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into organizations that have made 
the toppling of pro-life laws and policies in the developing countries 
their mission and their explicit goal. And know that once that they 
have succeeded in overturning those laws that protect the unborn child, 
once they have eviscerated the constitutional protections that are 
currently in place, these are the same folks who jump in with both feet 
to set up the abortion mills.
  Who we subsidize, Mr. Chairman, not just what we subsidize, but who 
we subsidize does matter. It should matter greatly to each of us not 
just what an organization does with our specific donation, but the rest 
of their agenda as well. It is a package deal. This is especially 
important because money is fungible. What we give to a group 
immediately frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be used and in this 
case are used for performing and aggressively promoting abortion.
  In recent months the Clinton administration has said that it does not 
promote abortion overseas. Oh, if that were only true. During Mr. 
Clinton's first term, my colleagues know and I know that his office 
pushed hard for an international right to abortion. At the 1994 U.N. 
Population Conference in Cairo, and especially at the preparatory 
meetings, known as PrepComs, leading up to the conference, the 
administration mounted a full court press for an international right to 
abortion.
  A State Department March 1994 action cable sent to every U.S. 
ambassador and mission abroad prior to that meeting instructed our 
envoys to lobby their host governments with these instructions:

       The United States believes that access to abortion is a 
     fundamental right. The United States delegation will be 
     working for stronger language on the importance of access to 
     abortion services overseas.

  In a speech at the second PrepCom for the Cairo Conference, Tim Wirth 
said much the same thing, how they were going to be pushing abortion. 
And in a keynote address at the 1994 meeting of the Population 
Cooperating Agencies, Brian Atwood, the administrator of AID, said, and 
I quote,

       While obstacles cannot be removed overnight, this 
     administration will continue to stand for the principle of 
     reproductive choice, including access to abortion.

  I say to my colleagues of the House, those so-called obstacles that 
Mr. Atwood was referring to are right-to-life laws and constitutional 
provisions that protect unborn children in approximately 100 countries 
in the developing world. Virtually all of Central and South America 
protect their kids from abortion. These are construed by the 
administration to be obstacles.
  These abortion power plays, these overt pro-abortion initiatives, so 
far have been largely repudiated by the developing world, but they have 
had some successes. Poland and South Africa recently flip-flopped and 
went from pro-life to pro-abortion. So there is now a dual strategy: 
When the overt strategy failed, another strategy was employed.
  For the last 4 years the administration has relied on a parallel 
track, a more sophisticated covert means designed to accomplish that 
end. They have used surrogates, nongovernmental organizations like the 
International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London, and the 
Pathfinder Fund and others to do the lion's share of the dirty work to 
nullify pro-life laws and to set up abortion mills the world over.
  This past Tuesday I asked our very distinguished Secretary of State, 
Madeleine Albright, an official for whom I have great respect, whether 
she was aware of the 1992 International Planned Parenthood Federation 
abortion manifesto called Vision 2000, a global strategic plan that 
Planned Parenthood adopted and have been implementing ever since to 
promote abortion in every corner of the world. The Secretary, known for 
her candor, admitted she never heard of it.
  IPPF, by the way, has received more than $70 million from the U.S. 
taxpayers, courtesy of this administration, so it seems to me that the 
Secretary of State and all of us should know what IPPF is all about. 
Again, it is not just what they do with ``our'' money, it is what their 
agenda is all about.
  I urge Members to look at this document. This is their marching 
orders in the developing world. Do not just say our money is not going 
to be used. Other money then gets used to bring down these right-to-
life laws. Let me just quote briefly from it.
  The Vision 2000 strategic plan says, and I quote, that they will 
``bring pressure on governments and campaign for policy and legislative 
change to remove restrictions against abortion.'' Can anything be more 
clear? Pressure governments. Campaign for abortion on demand. And we 
are providing many, many millions of dollars to this group.
  Fred Sai, who is the former chairman of International Planned 
Parenthood, put it very succinctly when they passed this IPPF strategic 
plan. He said,

       Now, for the first time, the IPPF strategic plan, Vision 
     2000, which was unanimously adopted at the Members' Assembly 
     in Delhi, outlines activities at both the Secretariat and FPA 
     level to further IPPF's explicit goal of increasing the right 
     of access to abortion.

  Who we support and subsidize does matter.
  IPPF has an elaborate plan and plans of action, as they call them, to 
promote abortion in every country of the world, including Central and 
South America where, again, they protect their unborn children. They 
have plans to decimate the pro-life laws in Africa, the Muslim 
countries in the Middle East, and several Asian countries who also 
legally protect their children from the abortionist's knife.
  A vote for the Clinton resolution empowers the abortion industry to 
continue and expand these efforts to eradicate pro-life laws. Eliminate 
a law in Poland and a whole generation of kids are put at risk. 
Eliminate a law that protects them in South Africa or any other 
country, and an entire generation of kids are put at risk of abortion 
on demand.
  I would respectfully submit that the only responsible pro-life action 
today is a ``no'' vote on the Clinton resolution and a ``yes'' vote on 
H.R. 581, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde bill.

[[Page H547]]

  I truly believe that if we stand on the human rights principle of 
safeguarding human life today, the administration will ultimately do 
the right thing, provide family planning money, but do so with pro-life 
safeguards.
  I was very encouraged by the statement made this past December by 
Phyllis Oakley, assistant secretary for population, when she appeared 
before my subcommittee. I chair the International Operations and Human 
Rights Subcommittee. Secretary Oakley, who is the point person for 
population for the administration said, and I quote:

       The United States does not promote abortion and does not 
     support the performance of abortion.'' She said, ``That is 
     clear. We have stated it over and over again. I can assure 
     you that remains our fundamental policy.

  I therefore respectfully submit that the competing resolutions before 
the House today put Secretary Oakley's statement concerning this 
fundamental policy to the test. If the administration persists in 
promoting abortion by way of surrogates, the Clinton denials of 
promoting abortion will be exposed as wholly disingenuous and untrue.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 581 as introduced by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde] and myself. This pro-life, pro-family planning bill releases 
the entire $385 million appropriated for fiscal year 1997 on March 1 
for family planning, but, again, it does it with the pro-life 
safeguards.
  As a matter of fact, in fiscal year 1997 the administration will have 
significantly more to spend on family planning with our bill, not with 
the bill before you or the resolution, but with our bill.
  Total cash on hand for population in fiscal year 1997, as this chart 
shows you, with carryover funds from 1996, will be $713 million with 
our bill. It will be only $543 million with the Clinton resolution. 
That is clear; that is undeniable. Yes, the money will be spent 
eventually, but the issue that the Clinton administration is making is 
that money delayed is money denied. We will frontload the whole thing, 
giving you the entire pot of money for family planning, but do so with 
pro-life safeguards.
  I think it is very, very significant for Members to know that these 
safeguards are nothing new; they were in effect. People have talked 
about the Helms amendment today. The Helms amendment in the 1980's was 
found to be infirm. Yes, it stopped direct funding, but there were 
loopholes. The pro-abortion groups simply took their own money, which 
was freed up by our contributions, and used it for abortion promotion.
  Let me just again say that the pro-life safeguards of the Mexico City 
policy were in effect during the Reagan and Bush years as a way to 
fully fund family planning without promoting abortion. The Mexico City 
policy is both pro-family planning--and we make it clear in our bill--
and pro-life.
  Specifically, the safeguards say this: We will condition funds only 
to those organizations that will not perform abortions except in the 
cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. We restrict funds to 
those organizations that will not lobby, that will not become the 
network in Peru or Brazil or any of these other countries bringing down 
their pro-life laws.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Chairman, they are extensions of U.S. foreign policy. We give 
money to them. When they are talking to a legislator in one of these 
countries they do not say, ``Are you doing that with U.S. money or are 
you doing that with your own money?'' They are an extension of our 
policy. Since we are the megacontributors and donators to them, what 
they do reflects directly upon us here in the United States.
  If Members want to promote abortions, say it. This Mexico City policy 
makes it very clear that there ought to be a wall of separation between 
the two.
  Let me also point out that during the years that the policy was in 
place, in excess of 350 family planning organizations, including 
Planned Parenthood affiliates in 57 States or countries, accepted the 
conditions. Some of the more extreme pro-abortionists in IPPF went 
ballistic over that, and even censured IPPF Western Hemisphere for 
doing that. But I believe they showed that they wanted to do family 
planning. They did not want to be part of this big push for abortion. 
Vote ``no'' on the Clinton resolution, and please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 
581.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, the world's population is growing by 90 
million every year--that is the equivalent of adding the entire 
population of Mexico every year. Family planning is critical for the 
survival of the planet and the people on it. Overpopulation leads to 
the suffering of women and innocent children, poverty, and war.
  There is an unfortunate tendency in this country to reduce important 
debates concerning reproductive issues to the labels ``pro-choice'' and 
``pro-life.'' We will ill serve the citizens of this country and the 
world if we allow this vote today to fall victim to these labels.
  First, there is evidence that without family planning, the number of 
abortions increases.
  And second, today what we are really doing is voting to ensure that 
there will continue to be humane and responsible efforts through 
voluntary family planning services so that the people who live on this 
planet can live with decency and dignity.
  The United States has a moral obligation to lead the effort to 
control population responsibly. And I believe, therefore, that the 
moral vote today is a vote for the President's resolution.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  (Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to those 
that have spoken today in support of international family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no question that funding for family planning 
has promoted the health and survival of women and children in 
developing nations. The United States has taken a leading role in 
promoting child survival in the world, decreasing maternal and infant 
mortality, and ending the spread of deadly disease, including the AIDS 
virus. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we have helped reduce the practice of 
abortion through this program. Today, abortion is widespread in many 
nations--Russian women have on average 7 to 8 abortions in a lifetime. 
Family planning is helping to reverse this epidemic--to end the trend, 
not to begin it.
  We have heard it said on this floor today, and I will say it again: 
not one penny of family planning aid goes to support abortions. Not one 
penny. This vote is not about supporting abortions abroad--it is about 
ending them. It is about about saving the lives of women and children. 
It is about saving the lives of women who, in many cases, are children.
  Family planning is helping to end the spread of the AIDS disease--a 
disease who know no borders. It is helping couples in developing 
nations reduce the size of their families so they can stay out of 
poverty, become educated, survive, and thrive. Family planning has 
limited the number of births in the developing world on average from 6 
to 3.
  And to my colleagues who suggest that family planning funds will 
support abortions, let me say, and let me beg of you--there is enough 
misinformation about family planning in the world today. There is 
enough disease. Enough people have died. Enough women and children have 
suffered. Family planning from the United States is provided for one 
purpose and one purpose only: to end the spread of misinformation about 
family planning--to end the death, poverty, and disease that comes from 
the spread of myths and lies.
  Family planning does not support abortions, It saves lives. I urge my 
colleagues to support the release of family planning funds--funding 
which has already been appropriated and approved. Do it now. Do it 
today. The lives of women and children depend upon it.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to reiterate 
my position on what has been referred to as the Mexico City policy--a 
policy regarding the appropriation of taxpayer funds for the population 
assistance activities of any foreign private, nongovernmental, or 
multilateral organization.
  My position on taxpayer-financed family planning has been well 
established over the course of the previous two Congresses. I believe 
in family planning programs. I believe they help women and children. I 
also believe, however, in placing restrictions on how taxpayer dollars 
are used in pursuit of family planning. Simply put, I believe that the 
use of taxpayer dollars to pay for or promote abortion is 
inappropriate, except under circumstances of rape or incest, or to 
protect the life of the mother.
  The Mexico City policy--that taxpayer funds intended for 
international family planning should not be directed to organizations 
that

[[Page H548]]

perform or promote abortion, except in the instances of rape, incest, 
or to protect the life of the mother--has been raised several times in 
recent years. I continue to support the main thrust of that policy, and 
I continue to hold to the view that our government ought to be neutral 
on the difficult question of abortion. I take the libertarian view that 
government ought not to be involved in this most difficult and personal 
of decisions, and will continue to support legislation which is 
consistent with that view.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration has embarked on 
what is no less than a worldwide crusade promoting abortion on demand 
at any time for any reason anywhere. I cannot condemn that policy in 
words strong enough.
  So let me just make a quick point in the short time that I have to 
speak this morning. Contrary to what some of those on the other side 
have said, this vote is indeed about abortion. It has always been about 
abortion. We simply say to foreign nongovernmental organizations: 
Unless you agree not to perform abortions, and not to violate the laws, 
and lobby to change the laws, of other countries with respect to 
abortion, then don't come to this country asking for tax dollars. That 
is all we are saying.
  I have only been in Congress for a little more than two years yet I 
am voting today for the eighth time on the restoration of the Mexico 
City policy--a simple, straight-forward pro-life policy initiated by 
President Reagan carried on by President Bush and eagerly decimated by 
President Clinton in his first days in office. I hope that this year, 
the Congress will finally bring this debate to an end and do the right 
thing Let's stop the international abortion crusade today.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Gephardt-Armey resolution and support the administration in 
releasing family planning funds immediately.
  Family planning works, it is a proven policy that has helped to 
stabilize the world's population.
  There are only two ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies: sexual 
abstinence and safe and effective contraception.
  By not releasing these funds now and by continuing to keep delaying 
the funds, which the administration has already certified is causing 
irreparable harm to family planning efforts around the world, we are 
harming efforts to get that message out and are, in turn, contributing 
to the increase of unsafe abortions rather than reducing them.
  In fact, the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Hatfield, a strong pro-life advocate, unequivocally disagreed 
with the proponents of the Smith resolution and said that there was no 
evidence to support the claim that U.S. funding was being used to 
provide or promote abortion. The distinguished Senator went on to say 
that efforts to impede the release of family planning funds was not 
reducing abortions, rather it would increase and contribute to unsafe 
abortions.
  This vote is not about abortion, U.S. law already prohibits the 
funding of and promotion of abortion.
  We have already accepted a 35-percent cut in family planning funding 
which in of itself is a significant hit. But it was a bipartisan 
agreement and now we must all honor that agreement.
  By releasing the family planning funds now, millions of women and 
family will have access to family planning counseling prenatal care and 
preventative health care.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support the Armey-Gephardt 
resolution and vote to immediately release these critical funds.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
President's request to release $123 million in foreign aid to support 
an international pro-abortion agenda.
  I have one question for my colleagues today. Why in the world should 
we ask the American taxpayer to provide funding for abortions 
administered overseas when we don't provide Federal funding for 
abortions in the United States? It makes no sense at all.
  We know that in many areas of the world, the population is growing 
out of control and that something must be done to control this massive 
problem. However, a ``no'' vote on the Presidents resolution will not 
jeopardize our status as a world leader in this area. It will simply 
confirm that abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control.
  This body has made it clear on several occasions that we are willing 
to provide funds for international family planning programs if the 
participants will simply promise not to use abortion or lobby for the 
use of abortion.
  Many of the international organizations that benefit from this 
funding are taking part in highly questionable practices.
  We know that the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 
London has a history of cooperating with the one-child abortion 
policies in China. This organization has also been involved in active 
lobbying to convince developing nations in Africa, Asia and the 
Americas to overturn their abortion laws. Is this something we need to 
pay for? I don't think so.
  The question before us today is not whether we should support 
international family planning and education programs.
  The question today is whether or not this nation, and this body, 
supports the use of abortion as a means of family planning.
  As far as I am concerned, the term ``family'' and ``abortion'' are 
totally incompatible.
  This Nation and this Congress cannot and should not subsidize 
programs and organizations which advocate abortion or which lobby for 
the legalization or expansion of abortion as a means of limiting 
population growth.
  We should not allow abortion to become the next major U.S. export.
  It is true that the Helms amendment prevents the direct use of U.S. 
funds to pay for abortion procedures, but it does not prevent indirect 
funding of programs that promote the legalization or expansion of 
access to abortion as a means of birth control in developing nations. 
To do that we must defeat the resolution and reinstate the Mexico City 
policy.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution; help us reinstate the 
Mexico City policy and show the world that we are willing to support 
education and other family planning practices but not at the expense of 
the innocent unborn.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution and vote ``yes'' on Smith-Hyde-
Oberstar.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support House Joint 
Resolution 36 to endorse the Presidential finding and release 
international family planning funds on March 1.
  Family planning programs are common sense. Democrats and Republicans 
ought to put partisan differences aside and come together to support 
population assistance. Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Armey have set an excellent 
example of bipartisanship by cosponsoring this important bill.
  U.S. population assistance aid is critical to our world's future. The 
high rates of population growth in developing countries affect 
Americans through its impact on the environment, immigration, and the 
economy. Unintended pregnancies threaten the society of developing 
countries as well: it can put economic development at risk, it damages 
the health and economic status of families, and increases the abortion 
rate.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to support family planning 
services. It is not a pro-choice or pro-life issue; it is a pro-family 
issue. This vote today is very important. If we don't vote to release 
the funds on March 1, we will reduce this year's total population 
assistance program funding by $123 million. At least 17 worldwide 
programs will need to defer, suspend, or terminate family planning 
health care services. The consequences of the delay would be enormous; 
there would be more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, and more 
maternal and infant deaths, and more economic and environmental strain 
on families and societies.
  Opponents of this legislation argue that we should place extreme 
restrictions on health care providers who receive U.S. aid. I oppose 
this draconian policy: denying families the right to plan their 
childbearing is wrong. Access to birth control is good for children, 
good for families, good for the environment, and good for the society. 
I urge my colleagues to vote to support House Joint Resolution 36 and 
release the previously appropriated family planning assistance funds on 
March 1.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my absolute 
opposition to the President's proposal to send taxpayer dollars 
overseas to promote abortions. We simply cannot allow the 
administration to continue its policy of ignoring the fundamental 
rights of the unborn.
  The argument has been made that family planning funds serve to 
decrease the number of abortions performed in developing countries. If 
this is the case and if we are to ensure that family planning programs 
respect the basic right to life, then the President should not object 
to the pro-life safeguards on four separate occasions in the last 
Congress, standing up emphatically for the rights of the unborn. The 
President's refusal to accept these reasonable safeguards is proof of 
the underlying abortion agenda of this administration and the 
international groups which support a similar position.
  I urge this body to say no to a plan that exports abortion policies 
to developing countries. The right thing to do is to support the 
alternative resolution, offered by Representative Chris Smith, which 
reinstates the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy protecting the unborn.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House 
Joint Resolution 36, which approves the President's finding that 
withholding family planning funds has a negative impact on 
international population programs.
  These funds are crucial to the health of women worldwide, and 
represent the single most effective means our country uses to reduce 
the worldwide rate of abortion.
  A recent Rockefeller Foundation report amply demonstrates the 
importance and success of America's three-decade commitment

[[Page H549]]

to family planning programs: in countries where such programs are 
active, contraceptive usage rates among women have increased from 10 to 
50 percent. This has resulted in lowering the average number of 
children borne by women in these nations from six to three, helping 
millions of women evade poverty and maintain their health. According to 
a UNICEF report, family planning programs, by helping women avoid risky 
pregnancies, can prevent up to 100,000 of the 600,000 annual maternal 
deaths. It's no wonder organizations like CARE and Save the Children 
strongly support this resolution.
  I also stand in firm opposition to the Smith-Oberstar alternative 
resolution, which would reinstate the Mexico City gag order and delay 
the release of already appropriated family planning funds 4 additional 
months. I hope my colleagues will not be fooled by this antifamily 
planning resolution. Under current law, no U.S. funds can be used to 
perform or lobby for abortions. For the past 24 years, no one has 
produced any evidence that one penny of this funding has ever been used 
for abortion. In fact, the Smith bill will, in the words of passionate 
abortion opponent Senator Mark Hatfield, ``contribute to an increase of 
abortions worldwide.'' By some estimates, the Smith bill could result 
in an additional 1.6 million abortions worldwide.
  Furthermore, this resolution, if approved, will merely release funds 
which have already been appropriated--it will not, as opponents of 
family planning have suggested, add a single penny to our foreign aid 
spending.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't provide any new spending. It will help 
save the lives and health of millions of women and keep many more 
children from becoming orphans. And it will decrease the number of 
abortions performed worldwide. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass 
this pro-family, pro-woman resolution.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
House Joint Resolution 36, approving President Clinton's findings 
regarding international population planning programs and instead urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 581, the Family 
Planning Facilitation and Abortion Funding Restriction Act. House Joint 
Resolution 36 would not just allow for the early release of an 
additional $123 million in fiscal year 1997 for international family 
planning organizations. It would also allow these groups to perform 
abortions and promote and lobby for abortion as a family planning 
option within their home country.
  As an alternative, I join Congressmen Smith, Hyde, and Oberstar in 
supporting international family planning while also ensuring that 
organizations that use Americans' tax dollars agree not to either 
promote or perform abortions overseas. Simply put, abortion is not a 
method of family planning.
  Behind the smoke and mirrors of today's debate is the fact that 
supporting the President's resolution (H.J. Res. 36) will result in the 
promotion and performance of abortions overseas. As an alternative, I 
ask my colleagues to join me instead in supporting a bipartisan 
alternative, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde bill (H.R. 581) that will release 
an additional $292.6 million in U.S. funds for international family 
planning programs in fiscal year 1997--bringing the total fiscal year 
1997 spending on these programs to $713 million. But more important, 
the bill will ensure that foreign nongovernmental organizations 
receiving U.S. funds are not performing or promoting abortions in 
developing countries except in the cases of rape, incest, or when the 
life of the mother is in danger.
  The restrictions on abortion in the Smith-Hyde-Oberstar alternative 
are not without precedent. The 1994 International Conference on 
Population and Development held in Cairo reiterated that ``in no case 
should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.'' 
Furthermore, from 1984 to 1993, the United States Government supported 
international family planning programs with these pro-life measures 
known as the Mexico City policy. Under this policy, over 350 family-
planning groups received funding. We should renew our commitment by 
voting for House Resolution 581.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting true family 
planning and not abortion. Vote for the Family Planning Facilitation 
and Abortion Funding Restriction Act. Voting for the President's 
resolution is not just agreeing with his finding that delaying family 
planning dollars has had a negative effect. It also gives the green 
light to the promotion and performance of abortions overseas.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to speak in support of 
House Joint Resolution 36 which allows for the early release of 
international family assistance funding. As my colleagues know, the 
administration and the Republican leadership made an agreement last 
September to allow the funding for international family assistance to 
go forward in July, with the possibility of release of the funds in 
March if the President certifies to Congress that the delay is having 
an adverse impact on the family planning program and both Chambers pass 
legislation to approve the early release. Last week, the President sent 
his certification to us.
  According to the President's report, delaying the release of funds 
undermines U.S. efforts to promote child survival and actually 
increases the number of abortions worldwide. Evidence from all regions 
of the world shows that increased contraceptive use, by reducing 
unintended pregnancies, plays a major role in reducing abortions. 
Reductions in the rate of abortion as a result of increased 
contraceptive use have been documented in countries such as Russia, the 
central Asian republics, Mexico, and Colombia. In Russia alone, an 
increase of only 5 percent in contraceptive use over 4 years led to a 
decrease of 30 percent in the annual abortion rate. Why turn back this 
progress?
  One would think that abortion opponents would rush to support family 
planning assistance since it reduces the number of abortions. 
Unfortunately, this is not the case, considering the permission by the 
Rules Committee to include consideration of House Resolution 581 which 
would allow early release of funds with unnecessary and onerous 
restrictions on the assistance. Contrary to what the supporters of 
House Resolution 581 claim, current law prohibits the use of any 
foreign aid funds for abortion or for motivating anyone to seek an 
abortion. The U.S. agency for international development has followed 
this policy for years and has strict procedures in place to ensure 
compliance.
  Family planning has proven effective in preventing abortions, 
maternal and child deaths. If we delay support for family planning by 
even 4 months, denying safe and effective contraception to couples who 
depend on these programs, we will see a rise in unintended pregnancies 
and maternal deaths and a tragic recourse to unsafe and unsanitary 
methods to terminate those pregnancies.
  This vote is about family planning and releasing delayed fiscal year 
1997 funds; no new or additional funds are involved. This vote directly 
affects the life prospects of countless women and children in 
developing nations. I strongly urge my colleagues to support House 
Joint Resolution 36 and vote ``no'' on House Resolution 581.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the release of family 
planning funds, that have been held hostage to unwarranted anti-choice 
forces in the Congress for more than 4 months now.
  We here today are on a rescue mission. For if we fail to pass this 
resolution, the funds will be held hostage until July 1, 9 months into 
the fiscal year. This is unacceptable.
  This is not about spending more money or new money. It is about the 
previously allocated international family planning funds that have not 
been released. The President has certified that this delay is harming 
our efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies abroad. These funds must 
be released now.
  Releasing these funds will improve women's health, reduce poverty, 
and protect our global environment.
  International family planning promotes preventive health care such as 
prenatal care, helps women to plan and space their pregnancies farther 
apart, and prevents unintended pregnancies that may threaten women's 
health and the health of their babies.
  Do our programs work? As David Broder commented in the Washington 
Post, ``the success of the program is undeniable.'' Studies have shown 
for the past three decades the percentage of women using contraception 
in foreign countries that receive this type of assistance has risen 
from 10 percent to 50 percent, and the average number of children they 
have borne has been reduced from six to three.
  Some say that our international family planning efforts increase 
abortion. This is absolutely false. No U.S. dollars are used to provide 
abortion services either in the United States or abroad. In fact, it 
has been illegal to use U.S. funds to provide abortion services abroad 
since 1973. I happen to disagree with this policy, but it is the policy 
nonetheless.
  Family planning does not increase abortions, it reduces them. Senator 
Mark Hatfield recognizes this, World Vision recognizes this, and I 
believe that even most people in this Chamber recognize this. But you 
cannot claim to support family planning and vote against this 
resolution. Only passage of this resolution will lead to release of the 
international family planning funds.
  Let there be no mistake about it, this is a vote about choice, but it 
is not a vote about abortion.
  It is about a choice between supporting family planning or opposing 
it.
  It is about a choice between protecting women's lives or harming 
them.
  In fact, this is about a choice between right and wrong, and quite 
seriously about a choice between life and death.
  I urge my colleagues to choose wisely, to protect women's lives, and 
to support this resolution.

[[Page H550]]

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, today I voted in support of House Joint 
Resolution 36, a resolution to release funds for international family 
planning on March 1, 1997, which passed the House of Representatives by 
a vote of 220-209 on February 13, 1997. I made this decision after 
careful consideration and deliberation. Former U.S. Senator Mark 
Hatfield of Oregon, who is pro-life, sent a letter last fall to 
Representative Chris Smith expressing his concern about the detrimental 
effect of the delay in funding for these programs.

       * * * Chris [Smith (R-NJ), author of H.R. 581], you are 
     contributing to an increase of abortions worldwide because of 
     the funding restrictions on which you insisted in last year's 
     funding bill. It is a proven fact that when contraceptive 
     services are not available to women throughout the world, 
     abortion rates increase. We have seen it in the former Soviet 
     Union where women had no access to family planning and relied 
     on abortion as their primary birth control method. Some women 
     had between eight and twelve abortions during their 
     lifetimes. This is unacceptable to me as someone who is 
     strongly opposed to abortion.

  Based on this statement and other information from pro-life Members 
of Congress, including Representative Tony Hall, I voted in support of 
House Joint Resolution 36, a resolution to release international family 
planning funds on March 1, 1997. Since it is my objective to decrease 
the number of abortions, this pro-life vote is the only vote I could 
conscientiously cast. Those Agency for International Development [AID] 
international family planning funds are prohibited by law from being 
used for abortion services. This prohibition is carefully monitored by 
AID and by independent audits.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I also voted in support of H.R. 581, the 
Chris Smith resolution, which would release funds as early as March 1 
as long as recipients abide by the Mexico City policy, which prohibits 
these funds from going to organizations that also provide abortion 
services. I have been a long time supporter of the Mexico City policy. 
I also support family planning which reduces abortion--and oppose the 
use of Federal funds for abortion except to save the life of an 
indigent mother. However, since President Clinton waits for H.R. 581 
with his veto pen thus giving the legislation virtually no chance of 
becoming law, I had to support House Joint Resolution 36 in order to 
provide funding for family planning services that are proven to prevent 
abortion.
  KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the resolution, 
House Joint Resolution 36, to release international family planning 
funds beginning March 1, as recommended by the President, and to oppose 
H.R. 581, which would place restrictions on international family 
programs that already exist in Federal law.
  The release of funds contained in House Joint Resolution 36 has been 
delayed 5 months, and a report by the administration states that 
further delay will cause serious, irreversible, and avoidable harm to 
family planning programs. The report further indicates that a delay of 
4 months will increase the incidence of unintended pregnancies, 
maternal and child deaths, and abortions.
  Those who oppose this family planning program assert that U.S. funds 
are being used for abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Current Federal law prohibits the use of U.S. funds for abortions or 
abortion counseling. The Agency for International Development, which 
administers these funds, has strict procedures to assure no U.S. funds 
are used for abortion. These procedures include legally binding 
contract provisions forbidding such activity, staff monitoring, and 
regular audits by nationally recognized accounting firms.
  Even a highly respected pro-life advocate, former Senator Mark 
Hatfield, has found no evidence to suggest U.S. family planning funds 
are used to fund abortions in other countries. In a September 24, 1996, 
letter to Representative Chris Smith, who is offering H.R. 581, Senator 
Hatfield said:

       I have reviewed the materials you recently sent to my 
     office in response to my request that you provide proof that 
     U.S. funds are being spent on abortion through AID's 
     voluntary international family planning program. 
     Unfortunately, I do not see anything in these materials to 
     back up your assertion.

  I have received no evidence to contradict Senator Hatfield's belief.
  Those who say providing funds to family planning agencies increases 
abortions need to review the evidence to the contrary. Here are some 
examples:
  Russia: From 1990 to 1994, contraceptive use increased by 5 percent, 
and the total number of abortions fell by 800,000.
  Hungary: A dramatic increase in contraceptive use from the late 
1960's to 1986 resulted in a drop in abortion rates from 80 per 1,000 
women to about 30 per 1,000 women.
  Chile: From 1960 to 1990, an increase in contraceptive use resulted 
in a drop in abortion rates from 77 per 1,000 women to 45 per 1,000.
  By supporting the expedited release of these family planning funds, 
we in fact will decrease the incidence of abortions internationally. In 
a letter to congressional leadership, Reverend Leo O'Donovan, president 
of Georgetown University, said,

       Your vote to release these funds on March 1, 1997 rather 
     than delaying until July 1, 1997 will make a tremendous 
     difference to countless families. Our program and 
     international efforts in natural family planning are 
     dependent on these federal resources.

  The Smith bill, H.R. 581, would unnecessarily restate the existing 
abortion prohibition and would restrict the expenditure of family 
planning organizations' own funds. We have the right and the 
responsibility to place conditions on U.S. taxpayer moneys, but not on 
all the resources of these groups.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of House Joint Resolution 36 
and to oppose the Smith bill at this time. We will have numerous 
opportunities in this 105th Congress to cast votes on real abortion 
issues. Although H.R. 581 is cast as one, it fails the test.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the 
Presidential finding that family planning appropriations should be 
released on March 1 because any further delay would seriously impact 
this very important program.
  Congress should support family planning programs because they are a 
crucial tool in international efforts to curb global overpopulation. At 
current growth rates, we will add more humans in the next 50 years than 
in all previous 500,000 years of human history. In the next decade 
alone, world population will increase by 1 billion people. This growth 
means more than longer lines at Safeway or at the local drug store. 
Unrestrained population growth devastates environmental resources, 
exacerbates immigration pressures, and raises the specter of worldwide 
malnutrition and the spread of infectious diseases.
  I also support family planning funds because I support healthy 
families. Numerous studies have documented that mortality rates for 
women and children are highest when births are too close together, when 
women have many children, and when women give birth at very young and 
old ages. These family planning funds will enable mothers and fathers 
around the world to raise the healthiest children they can.
  In addition, U.S. family planning aid often goes to families that 
have no other recourse. It is estimated that 77 percent of the couples 
using contraceptives in developing countries, excluding China, depend 
on publicly financed family planning programs.
  We only need to look to Mexico for indices of the success of family 
planning. Due in part to foreign family planning assistance, the 
average Mexican woman now has 2.7 children, a dramatic reduction from 
the average of 6.7 children in 1970. Family planning is about thinking 
ahead. It's about giving families, especially poor families, the chance 
to make choices for their future. Let's not make the choice for them.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of House 
Joint Resolution 36, which provides for the release of U.S. 
contributions to international family planning programs.
  For over 30 years America has been a supporter of international 
family planning. These programs have improved the health of millions of 
women and children, eased the environmental impact of rapid population 
growth, and prevented millions of unwanted pregnancies.
  But in the past 2 years, Congress has withheld, cut or placed 
arbitrary restrictions on these programs.
  Approximately 4 million women, who do not have access to modern 
contraception, medical advice or prenatal care, will have an unwanted 
or dangerous pregnancy, resulting in nearly 2 million more abortions or 
miscarriages. Funding restrictions only add to these numbers.
  Unless we vote today to release the funds already appropriated, we 
will create even greater obstacles to common sense family planning. If 
this resolution is defeated there will be an increase in maternal 
death, there will be an increase in abortions, and there will be an 
increase in malnutrition.
  The support of the United States for international family planning 
has helped families space out the birth of their children and has 
increased the odds that there will be enough food and other essentials 
to be shared among all family members. We've enabled women to bear 
children when they are physically strong and can breast-feed normally--
increasing child survival by as much as 20 percent.
  These funds have not sponsored or supported abortion. For 20 years, 
the U.S. Agency for International Development has prevented any money 
distributed by the Federal Government from being used to perform 
abortions or motivate anyone to have one. This is current law, and 
nothing in this resolution will change it.
  Mr. Speaker, for three decades Republications and Democrats, pro-life 
and pro-choice,

[[Page H551]]

have supported a significant American role in international family 
planning. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm that support today by voting 
in favor of House Joint Resolution 36.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to section 
581A(e) of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for 1997, no 
amendment is in order and the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] having assumed the chair, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, 
Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) approving the 
Presidential finding that the limitation on obligations imposed by 
section 581A(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, is having a negative impact 
on the proper functioning of the population planning program, he 
reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. 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 220, 
nays 209, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               YEAS--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--209

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carson
     Clay
     Obey
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1303

  Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Owens changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''

                          ____________________