[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H552-H564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAMILY PLANNING FACILITATION AND ABORTION FUNDING RESTRICTION ACT OF
1997
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 46 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 46
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
581) to amend Public Law 104-208 to provide that the
President may make funds appropriated for population planning
and other population assistance available on March 1, 1997,
subject to restrictions on assistance to foreign
organizations that perform or actively promote abortions. The
bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by Representative Smith of New Jersey or his
designee and a Member opposed to the bill. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter]
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, as we know from the previous debate, we are here today
as a result of an agreement reached last year between the Congress and
the White House concerning international family planning assistance.
The agreement signed into law stated that no family planning funds
would be released until July 1997 unless the President determined that
the delay was having a negative impact on the program.
We have now debated and voted on a privileged resolution to release
those funds as the law calls for. Having considered the Armey-Gephardt
resolution, we have another option to expedite this funding. That is
H.R. 5881, the Smith resolution, as it is called. The rule for the
Smith bill is very straightforward. It is a closed rule with 1 hour of
debate equally divided between proponents and opponents of the bill.
The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
While the rule is closed, it was the opinion of the Committee on
Rules that a closed rule was appropriate for this alternative to the
Armey-Gephardt resolution, which was completely unamendable. I think we
all agree on the need for a U.S. role in promoting legitimate family
planning services. There are strong humanitarian, economic, and
environmental reasons for this. How taxpayer dollars will be utilized
to support these programs, however, is where the controversy lies.
I tend to agree with many Members who feel that it makes sense
regardless of your view on the issue of abortion, to ensure that
precious U.S. taxpayer dollars are not used either directly or
indirectly to promote or perform abortions. The Smith resolution would
expedite the release of the family planning funds, just like the Armey-
Gephardt resolution. In addition, it would reinstate the Mexico City
policy, as we call it, which worked honorably for 12 years during the
Reagan and Bush administrations.
This policy, as my colleagues will recall, simply states that U.S.
funds will not, repeat, not go to nongovernmental organizations that
either promote or perform abortions. That is the issue. I would urge my
colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the rule. The legislation that is made
in order by this rule is just another transparent attempt to tack
abortion restrictions onto legislation which is peripheral at best to
the issue of abortion. We are talking today about family planning
programs, family planning, not abortion. This is a critical distinction
because effective family planning greatly reduces or even eliminates
the demand for abortion.
Anyone who opposes abortion should be an ardent supporter of family
planning. The bill we will consider on this rule proposes to reinstate
the Mexico City policy and deny critical family planning funding to
international organizations that reserve the right to provide abortions
or abortion counseling with their own funds.
{time} 1315
No one is suggesting that U.S. funding will go toward abortions in
other nations. We have had these prohibitions against such use of U.S.
funds in place since 1973.
The bill proposes to restrict access to family planning in order to
reduce abortions. If reduction is the goal, this bill will be an utter
failure because studies have proved, time and time again, that access
to family planning reduces abortion.
In Russia, where for decades abortion was the primary form of birth
control, contraception first became widely available in 1991. Between
1989 and 1995, abortions in Russia dropped from 4.43 million a year to
2.7 million a year, a 60 percent decrease. That should be compelling to
anyone.
Why would anyone who wants to decrease abortions want to restrict
access to family planning? How can they justify probably defunding
organizations like the one in Russia? These statistics are repeated all
over the world, in South Korea, Chile, and Hungary.
Family planning has a wide range of other benefits as well. By
spacing births, women and families can improve infant survival and
ensure that they have the resources to support their children. Spacing
births at least 2 years apart could prevent an average of one in four
infant deaths.
Finally, someone must speak for the millions of women around the
world who desperately want access to family planning. Pregnancy and
childbirth are still a very risky proposition for women in many parts
of the globe that often lack electricity, hot running water, medical
equipment, or trained personnel.
In Africa, women have a 1-in-16 chance of death from pregnancy and
childbirth during their lifetime, and over 585,000 women in this world
die every year from complications of pregnancy and birth. For each
woman who dies, 100 others suffer from associated illnesses and
permanent disabilities, including sterility.
If we could meet just the existing demands for family planning
services, we could reduce the number of maternal deaths and injuries in
the world by up to 20 percent. Many of these are women with families,
who leave their children motherless. We cannot, in conscience, abandon
them by cutting off what may be their only access to birth control
information.
This bill would impose personal beliefs on family planning
organizations throughout the world. How dare we, blessed as we are with
practically information overload, the best health care system in the
world, attempt to deny the only source of information services to
families in the developing world?
Who are we to dictate the terms under which these groups provide
essential services across the globe? We would be outraged, and rightly
so, if the legislative body of any nation had the audacity to impose
its will over organizations operating legally in our country by
dictating the terms under which they would continue to receive the
financial support they need to operate.
It is inhumane to restrict access to family planning in areas where
it is desperately needed. We must not expose more women and families to
the risks associated with unintended pregnancies. I urge my colleagues
to vote against the rule and against the Smith bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York for her kindness and her leadership and the gentlewoman from
California.
Although I did not want to rise to the floor of the House today to
say that
[[Page H553]]
this is one more vote on abortion, I simply have to say that, because
for 30 years the United States led an international effort to reduce
the toll of maternal deaths and unwanted pregnancies by providing money
and pregnancy assistance for family planning throughout the
international arena. It did it quietly and effectively. This was a vote
for poor women across the Nation.
Now we come to legislation and the closed rule, which I rise to
oppose, as well as the actual resolution, that would interfere with
that quiet diplomacy helping women internationally have the safety and
security of being able to protect themselves and their children.
The National Council for International Health estimates that cuts in
1996 family planning funds will result in approximately 8,000 women
dying during pregnancy and childbirth and 134,000 infants dying from an
increased number of high-risk births.
Do my colleagues realize in this coming year there will be an
estimated 4 million unwanted pregnancies without family planning that
will result in 1.6 million abortions?
This is not a discussion or a vote on abortion for those of us who
believe in family planning. It is for those who constantly want to
remind us that this is a decisive issue. I ask them to consider the
poor women of this world, those women who, unlike those in America who
also suffer sometimes from lack of good services, cannot even access
the information to understand how to protect their children that are
there with them and yet their unborn children.
I would ask that we understand that what we did just prior to this
particular rule is the right way to go, to vote for family planning,
unscrambled, unattacked, and ready to be presented, as America has
always done, in a kind and loving way. Let us stand up for the women
across the world. Let us oppose this rule and oppose the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I am providing for the Record a copy of my complete
statement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to H.R. 581. I
support release of the already appropriated international family
planning funds at the earliest possible date.
Family planning helps to improve the health and increase the survival
rate of women and children during pregnancy, in childbirth, and in the
years after. The National Council for International Health estimates
that cuts in 1996 family planning funds will result in approximately
8,000 women dying during pregnancy and childbirth and 134,000 infants
dying from an increased number of high risk births.
Family planning allows parents to control the number of children that
they have and the timing of those births. And in so doing it allows
women the opportunity to reach beyond the walls of their homes, to get
an education, and to work outside of the family. A recent report of the
Rockefeller Foundation argued that devoting less time to bearing
children, reducing family size, and improving the health and survival
of women and children results in better economic prospects in
developing countries.
Representative Smith and his supporters have attempted to
mischaracterize this vote. They have misguidedly tried to recast a vote
for international family planning as a vote for abortion.
What Representative Smith neglects to consider is the fact that not a
penny of these funds will be spent to either perform or promote
abortion. That is against the law.
What Representative Smith does not realize is that withholding these
funds will reduce access to contraception and in so doing increase
unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Experience demonstrates that as
unintended pregnancies increase, so does the abortion rate.
The National Council for International Health estimates that the
reduced funding will result in approximately 7 million couples in
developing countries losing access to birth control methods. They
estimate that 4 million unwanted pregnancies will result and that this
could lead to as many as 1.6 million abortions.
What Representative Smith does not discuss is the fact that
withholding family planning funds, denies moneys to all countries even
those such as Trinidad and Tobago where abortion is illegal.
My colleagues, this is not a vote on abortion. This is a vote to
provide more options and opportunities for the people of developing
nations around the world.
Representative Smith's bill is not only ill advised, but it stands in
violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the compromise on
international family planning funds that my Republican colleagues made
with President Clinton last year.
For these reasons, I call upon each Member to signal their support
for the health and welfare of women, children, and families in voting
for House Joint Resolution 36 and against H.R. 581.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York, [Ms. Velazquez].
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
and this bill for one basic reason: It is antiwoman and it is
antifamily.
It is not enough for our women here in the United States to be
harassed and intimidated and to have family clinics bombed and burned;
now we are considering restricting the human rights of women in other
countries to control their bodies.
International family planning assistance has been responsible for
reducing maternal deaths and unwanted pregnancies. Contrary to what
antiabortion forces tell you, these Federal funds cannot be used to pay
for abortions. If we truly want to decrease abortions, then we should
release this assistance now without restrictions.
Two hundred twenty-five million women worldwide need family planning
services to allow them to make informed decisions. We should be
striving to empower poor women around the world, not denying families
living in poverty this survival assistance.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding me this time.
This is a vote on the rule to allow H.R. 581 to be considered by the
House. This is legislation that would provide additional monies
beginning March 1 for family planning, and it would front-load $385
million, metering, which is an 8-percent-per-month payout that is in
the current law, and would be continued even if the Clinton resolution
is adopted by the Senate. This gets rid of metering completely. So all
of the money would be available.
Importantly, this legislation will also provide important pro-life
safeguards so that the entities and the organizations that we
contribute to do not continue their crusade with our money in one
pocket and their money in the other pocket to bring down the right-to-
life laws in the various countries.
Let me again remind Members that almost 100 countries around the
world protect their unborn babies from the cruelty of abortion on
demand. And let me remind Members again, abortion takes the life of a
baby, whether it be suction abortions or dismemberment, where the
babies' arms and legs are torn off. These are unpleasant realities, but
they are the reality of what abortion does to unborn babies.
We have to make the world abortion free, not provide free abortion.
The pro-abortion organizations, like the International Planned
Parenthood Federation, based in London, and others, are absolutely
vociferously committed to providing abortion overseas on demand. It is
against the cultural values and the moral values of these countries.
That does not matter. Their own literature is replete with
admonishments, and it pushes and promotes their organizations to try to
bring down these laws regardless of what the local populace thinks.
It is the ugly American all over again when we are part of that,
trying to impose our cultural values upon these particular people.
Human rights ought to be for the unborn and for all people.
It seems to me that birth is an event that happens to all of us. It
is not the beginning of life. Human rights are indivisible. Life is a
continuum. To say that everyone after birth has human rights and those
before do not is contrary to reality and science. And again, these
organizations are trying to promote an antithetical view with regard to
human rights.
Let me also remind my colleagues that the Organization of American
States has a human rights document that recognizes the right to life
from the moment of conception. These organizations are working against
that basic human right, and I think we should be very careful about to
whom we contribute.
This rule allows H.R. 581 to come up for a vote. It is fair. Then we
can have our debate on the merits. I think that is as it should be.
Vote for the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to take a moment to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey.
[[Page H554]]
Frankly, I think the cruelest form of birth control is the fact that
600,000 women die in the world every year from complications, not
understanding how to space their families. And it does not happen to
all of us, it happens to the women in the world.
It is very important, if we want the emerging world, the developing
world, to have a chance to be able to feed, to take care, to provide
health care for their population. Part of that equation, without any
doubt, is the ability to space and plan one's family.
To take that essential right away from the women of the world because
we may believe that some organizations do not always believe what we
think is the proper thing, we nonetheless know in this House that those
organizations are prohibited from using any of these funds for abortion
information or abortions.
What more can we say? Nobody has accused them of going ahead and
using it. The fact of the matter is, what we are trying to do is save
lives. It is as important as that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine, [Mr.
Baldacci].
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
closed rule we are considering that would provide for consideration of
H.R. 581 introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
I believe that consideration of this legislation breaks the agreement
that was reached between the President and Congress last year with
respect to international family planning.
That agreement provided for a clean up or down vote on release of
funds beginning on March 1 if President Clinton notified Congress that
the delay in releasing the funds was having a negative impact on
international family planning funds.
The agreement has resulted in a nearly 5-month delay in the release
of international family planning funds and, as President Clinton has
determined, has had a detrimental effect around the world.
The legislation introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Smith] continues to draw a mistaken connection between international
family planning and abortion.
As we have already heard countless times on this floor today, current
U.S. law prohibits use of any U.S. funds to pay for an abortion in
international family planning. Regular independent audits of USAID have
found absolutely no evidence that a single penny of U.S. money has ever
been misused.
The only way to reduce the number of abortions around the world is to
reduce the number of unintended and unwanted pregnancies. The best way
to do that is to continue to fund voluntary family planning initiatives
worldwide.
One study has shown that the reduction in funds for international
family planning for fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1997 will deny 7
million couples in developing countries access to modern contraceptive
methods. This will result in 4 million unintended pregnancies. Based on
historic patterns, this will lead to almost 2 million more unplanned
births and 1.6 million more abortions than would have occurred already.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and vote against
H.R. 581.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say that certainly we do not want to get the rule mixed up with the
controversy of the debate.
This is a good rule to bring the debate forward, and I would hope we
would all support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon], my colleague and friend.
{time} 1330
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time, and I rise in support of the rule and in support
of the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Smith].
Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a certain amount of confusion
introduced regarding the real debate that we are discussing here. The
legislation of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] actually
increases the amount of money for family planning and makes it
available earlier. It simply places some restrictions in there that are
consistent with the Mexico City restrictions, restrictions that do not
allow organizations that actively promote abortion services to have
access to the funds.
One of the organizations that the President of the United States
would like to distribute this money to, the International Planned
Parenthood Federation, has a Vision 2000 document that they have made
available, and I do not know if my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have read this thing, but not only do they want to promote the
availability of abortion services, they actually want to work to
advocate the overturning of existing law in these countries that do not
make abortion available.
I do not think it is wise use of the U.S. taxpayers' dollars to take
taxpayers' money to go and give it to an organization that is going to
essentially lobby to have abortion laws overturned in foreign
countries. I have people in my district who have trouble making ends
meet. I have people in my district who have no health insurance. We
shouldn't be taking their tax dollars and giving it to an organization
that is pursuing this kind of an agenda.
So we have a very reasonable rule here and a very reasonable bill
that it supports, that says you can have even more family planning
money but we are just not going to give it to these certain groups that
pursue this certain radical, left-wing, pro-abortion agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I highly encourage all my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support the rule and to support the legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
rule. The need for family planning services in developing countries is
urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable and worthwhile.
Our international family planning programs promote economic and
social development, improve basic standards of health and actually
reduce the number of abortions worldwide. Nevertheless, securing
funding for these critical programs continues to be a battle. In an
effort to resolve this issue and pass the omnibus appropriations bill
last year, the White House and the Republican leadership reached an
agreement to hold a clean vote this month on the resolution that we
just passed, fortunately.
We agreed to release these funds 5 months into the fiscal year
instead of 9 months. Alternate legislation was never a part of this
agreement. We never agreed to give opponents of family planning one
last opportunity to gut these programs. But if H.R. 581 is considered
by the House today, that is exactly what will happen. Allowing
consideration of this bill will raise serious concerns about our
ability to negotiate in good faith during this year's budget process.
That is really the key. An agreement was made. Promises made should
be promises kept. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I urge Members to
defeat this rule.
The restrictions on population funds in H.R. 581 are not new to us.
We have faced these program gutting provisions several times before and
we will undoubtedly face them again.
Today's vote should be the one vote we just took on the resolution
and that one only. Anything else is a deal breaker. Again, promises
made should be promises kept. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I urge
Members to defeat this rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to take just a minute if I could to say that if I had my
druthers, this bill would not go forward. This is an unreported bill
and a closed rule, and I find that fairly egregious, particularly given
the fact that we have just voted to support the President's privileged
resolution.
However, we will not be calling for a vote. I simply want to voice my
objection to the process by which this has happened. We are just
beginning this process, and we hope we will not see it again.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the reason we are
here is
[[Page H555]]
because of deliberative democracy, a representative form of government
that we have. I think that indeed instead of breaking promises, we are
living up to promises here, promises to all parties who are interested
in the full measure of this debate.
It is remembered, of course, that the previous item that we dealt
with, that was brought forward earlier today, was unamendable, it was
closed, and to round out this issue it was necessary to come forward
with a second piece of legislation. This rule I think does it in a way
that is entirely fair, and I believe it is in the best interests of
deliberative democracy that we do this. I would also point out that
there is a motion to recommit attached to it, so we have given an extra
measure of fairness, we believe.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
46, I call up the bill (H.R. 581) to amend Public Law 104-208 to
provide that the President may make funds appropriated for population
planning and other population assistance available on March 1, 1997,
subject to restrictions on assistance to foreign organizations that
perform or actively promote abortions, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 581 is as follows:
H.R. 581
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family
Planning Facilitation and Abortion Funding Restriction Act of
1997''.
(b) Amendments to Public Law 104-208.--Section 518A of
subsection 101(c) of Public Law 104-208 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by deleting, ``July 1, 1997'' and
inserting ``March 1, 1997'';
(2) in subsection (c), by deleting ``Such funds may be
apportioned only on a monthly basis, and such monthly
apportionments may not exceed 8 percent of the total
available for such activities.'' and inserting ``Subjects to
the provision of subsection (b), such funds may be made
available in such amounts as the President shall determine to
be most conducive to the proper functioning of the population
planning program.''; and
(3) by adding the following new subsection:
``(f) Restriction on Assistance to Foreign Organizations
That Perform or Actively Promote Abortions.--
``(1) Performance of abortions.--
``(A) Notwithstanding any provision of law, no funds
appropriated for population planning activities or other
population assistance may be made available for any foreign
private, nongovernmental, or multilateral organization until
the organization certifies that it will not, during the
period for which the funds are made available, perform
abortions in any foreign country, except where the life of
the mother would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried
to term or in cases of forcible rape or incest.
``(B) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to apply to the
treatment of injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal
abortions or to assistance provided directly to the
government of a country.
``(2) Lobbying activities.--
``(A) Notwithstanding any provisions of law, no funds
appropriated for population planning activities or other
population assistance may be made available for any foreign
private, nongovernmental, or multilateral organization until
the organization certifies that it will not, during the
period for which the funds are made available, violate the
laws of any foreign country concerning the circumstances
under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or prohibited,
or engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or
governmental policies of any foreign country concerning the
circumstances under which is permitted, regulated, or
prohibited.
``(B) Paragraph (a) shall not apply to activities in
opposition to coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
``(3) The prohibitions of this subsection apply to funds
made available to a foreign organization either directly or
as a subcontractor or subgrantee, and the required
certifications apply to activities in which the organization
engages either directly or through a subcontractor or
subgrantee.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Pursuant to House Resolution
46, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and a Member opposed each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, during the last session of Congress, the House voted six
times to restrict aid to foreign organizations that perform or promote
abortions overseas. We also voted to restrict aid to the U.N.
Population Fund unless the UNFPA, the U.N. Population Fund, ended its
participation in the forced abortion program in the People's Republic
of China.
Mr. Speaker, there is evidence, I think, looking at today's vote and
talking to a large number of Members, that there still are a large
number of Members who are still committed to the sanctity and
preciousness of human life and said that they would vote yes--yes.
I happen to disagree that that was the way to go, but we now have
H.R. 581 on the floor and there is an opportunity to manifest ourselves
and put on the record very clearly and unambiguously that we want to
release the funds for family planning, we want to release the $385
million that otherwise would wait until July 1, but we want to do it
with principle. We want to make sure that the money only goes to those
organizations that will erect a wall of separation between family
planning, which is preventive, and abortion, which takes the life of a
baby.
Mr. Speaker, I think more and more Members in the partial birth
abortion debate that we had last year began what I truly believe to be
an awakening about the gruesomeness of abortion. Abortion takes the
life of a baby, whether it be dismemberment of an unborn child's body
or chemical poisoning by way of injection or the suction machines which
decimate the infant, abortion is violence. It kills babies. Whether it
be illegal or legal abortions, the net effect on the child is always
the same, one dead baby.
I think our aim in Congress and our aim in humanitarian efforts ought
to be to eradicate abortion, to make the world abortion free. Family
planning certainly plays a part in that. That is why my legislation and
Mr. Oberstar's legislation and Mr. Hyde's legislation, H.R. 581, makes
it very clear that we front-load the family planning money.
There is no waiting for it. The Clinton administration can have every
dime, $385 million, and that is a lot of money, to be used for family
planning on March 1. The President will actually get more in our
legislation, not more in the cycle of the appropriations, but more
quicker as a result of this legislation if he accepts this rather than
the resolution just passed.
What is the Mexico City policy? Just let me remind my colleagues that
yes, there is such an amendment known as the Helms amendment. It says
that we will not directly fund abortion overseas. But we found in the
early 1980's, and I have been here for 17 years, I would remind my
colleagues, we found in the early 1980's that that law was not
preventing the promotion and performance overseas of abortion by these
international organizations. They very simply took our money which we
were providing, put it in one pocket, provided an accounting saying
that if they did not spend it, then it freed up megadollars in their
other pocket to be used for the performance of abortion.
Paper and accounting tricks does not, if you are talking about human
life being destroyed, really does not cut it. We are fooling ourselves
if we think we are mitigating the promotion of abortion with this
approach. It has not worked. It is only half a loaf. We need, if we are
serious about making the world abortion free and not promoting
abortion, take that other step and reestablish the Mexico City policy.
In sum, what the Mexico City policy will do is say we will not
contribute to those organizations that perform abortion except in cases
of rape, incest, and life of the mother. It also says that we will not
provide moneys to those organizations that lobby for or against
abortion. It is abortion neutral in that regard.
If you are doing family planning, you should not also be wearing that
other hat of being the abortionist organization in that given country.
This is very, very significant, Mr. Chairman, in light of what these
groups are actually doing on the ground day in and day out.
In the last debate I pointed out that there is a document, and this
is one of many, but this document in particular is the abortion
manifesto of the family planning groups. It is called Vision 2000: A
Strategic Plan. This Vision 2000,
[[Page H556]]
adopted in 1992 and agreed to by the 140 Planned Parenthood affiliates
around the world, states, and I quote, and it says it throughout the
document but this is one direct quote: The IPPF will ``bring pressure
on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove
restrictions against abortions.''
This is the abortion lobby in the developing world. We ought to be
very careful about to whom we contribute if that is what they are
doing, if we care about abortion promotion. If we do not care about it,
if we think that is fine and dandy, then you should not be for our bill
but if you do care about abortion promotion, look at the consequences,
giving money to these organizations means that, yes, they provide
family planning, but they also promote abortion very, very
aggressively.
Let me also point out that this particular policy known as the Mexico
City policy, where did it gets its name, at a conference on population
at Mexico City in 1984, has worked, and worked extremely well. During
the 9 years that it was in operation, more than 350 family planning
organizations and providers accepted the Mexico City clauses and said
that they would divest themselves of abortion and be exclusively family
planners.
That is what we are all about here, honesty, transparency, no hidden
agendas. If family planning is your game, that is what you get the
money for, that is what your organization should be all about. But
these organizations like to fudge that line of demarkation and say that
abortion is just family planning after a conception has occurred and
they try again to make no distinction, or very little distinction,
between the two.
I urge Members, because this will be the beginning of a long fight in
the 105th Congress on this. Yes, the Clinton resolution passed today.
That will not be the end of it, I can assure you. We will be back on
the authorizing bills, we will be back on the appropriations bills when
the fiscal 1998 and the 1999 funds come up, and again we are going to
continue with this 1997 effort as well. I hope that by the end of this
Congress, every Member of this Chamber whether they are pro-abortion or
pro-life will be fully aware of what these organizations are doing.
The Trojan horse is this. They say they are all about family
planning, they get into the country, they start networking, their real
agenda is abortion. They say it in Vision 2000. I urge Members to
become acquainted with it intimately so that they know to whom we are
giving. They are acting as surrogates for the Clinton administration in
bringing down the right-to-life laws.
We need to stand up for those innocent children in these developing
countries, provide humanitarian aid. And I take a back seat to no one
on providing child survival aid and all kinds of other aid. I offered
the amendments in the mid-1980's to provide money for immunizations,
oral dehydration, and other kinds of helps. That is what it is all
about. Family planning is a part of that, but not when it is linked
with abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]
is recognized for 30 minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill but with the highest
respect for the maker of the legislation. I want to reiterate what I
said earlier on the debate on the privileged resolution, that I have
the highest regard for the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and
he is quite correct. He takes a back seat to no one on child survival
issues in this Congress.
{time} 1345
In fact he and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] have been the
champions for poor children throughout the world. On this issue,
though, of whether the Mexico City language should apply to
international family planning, I respectfully disagree with him, and I
emphasize the word ``respectfully.''
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take some time later to make my
remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Waters], the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and the fact
is that Ms. Maxine Waters is a great leader on these international
family planning issues.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for
yielding time to me on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 581.
This bill would reinstate a gag rule on foreign organizations that
receive U.S. family planning funds. It would forbid them from
discussing abortion with women even if the procedure is legal in their
own country and if the organization uses its own money, not U.S. funds,
to provide counseling.
If this bill were to pass, countries which immensely benefit from
U.S. planning aid, such as India, Bolivia, Jordan, and South Africa,
where abortion is legal, by the way, could be disqualified from
obtaining U.S. funds for contraceptives simply for complying with their
own country's law on abortion.
Thus, an Indian or South African woman seeking advice on family
planning would not be told of all of her options.
This is unacceptable.
Further, there is no evidence that the so-called Mexico City policy
has decreased abortion at all.
The real issue at stake here is maternal and child health. If the
United States continues to decrease international family planning
funding, money which has been slashed and whose disbursement has been
delayed, we will be hurting millions of men and women who seek or rely
on modern contraception to delay or postpone childbirth. We are
punishing responsible people.
In funding year 1996, funds were effectively cut by 85 percent, and
this is at a time when, internationally, 1 in 6 women of reproductive
age are still in need of contraception to postpone or avoid future
childbearing. Almost 600,000 women die during pregnancy and childbirth
each year; 75 percent of these women die from attempting to abort an
unwanted pregnancy themselves.
That is why family planning is so crucial. It saves lives.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to stop pretending that restricting
discussion on abortion will stop it altogether. We need to continue to
work with people to prevent unwanted and unsafe pregnancies in the
first place.
I ask my colleagues to please reject the Smith bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith
resolution.
The Mexico City restrictions which this bill would impose will have a
devastating impact on international family planning services throughout
the world.
Here we go again. Every time we discuss international family
planning, Mr. Smith offers these restrictions. I certainly respect his
views, and we have worked on many other issues together; however, his
insistence on imposing these restrictions held up the foreign
operations appropriations bill last year and could derail our efforts
to get lifesaving family planning money released this year.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] claims this resolution is
not antifamily planning, just antiabortion. That just does not make
sense. Currently no U.S. dollars are spent on abortion services
overseas. In fact it has been illegal since 1973. These restrictions
are stringently enforced by USAID.
In addition, as has been stated today on this floor time and time
again, family planning services reduce the number of abortions
worldwide. The Smith resolution will not stop abortions. It will only
increase them.
One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other
countries is family planning assistance. We have heard countless
stories today about the critical work done throughout the world by
international family planning programs. These programs improve the
health and well-being of men, women and children, they strengthen the
economy, protect the environment, enhance the quality of life in
developing nations, and most importantly save lives.
The Smith resolution is dangerous and extreme. It would defund family
[[Page H557]]
planning organizations that perform legal abortions with their own
money, not United States money. It would also impose a gag rule on U.S.
based organizations and nongovernmental organizations that provide U.S.
family planning overseas.
I would like to explain that to my colleagues. Doctors from USAID
have told me personally about the horribly chilling effect of the gag
rule. They have interviewed doctors in small villages who turned away
women from botched illegal abortions bleeding to death, and they were
afraid to refer this woman. They did so because they feared losing
their U.S. funding if they helped the women or even gave her the name
of another doctor.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith resolution. It is an extreme
piece of legislation that no matter how it is disguised, it is
ultimately intended to end U.S. family planning overseas.
A vote for the Smith resolution is a vote against sensible, cost
effective family planning programs. My colleagues, it is a vote against
lifesaving services.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume
Mr. Speaker, just let me remind Members that, when Mr. Clinton sent
up his 1994 rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act, he intended and it
was in the bill to absolutely repeal the Helms amendment so that direct
funding would be used to pay for abortions overseas. So the
administration on numerous occasions has signaled that they are every
bit in favor of promoting abortion overseas.
As I said earlier in debate when they failed in that effort, we did
not do plan 2, and that was to enlist the support of surrogates, namely
groups like International Planned Parenthood Federation, based in
London, and others to promote abortion for that under this subterfuge
of saying that it is not our money. Well, we are giving to a group that
is again promoting aggressively the abortion on demand.
And just to show how far down it gets, we recently came across a
manual that was put out in the Dominican Republic by the affiliate of
the IPPF, which is based in London, and it said this. It is called the
Sex Education Manual, and the chapter on abortion makes it clear to the
teachers at the end of the lesson that the students should, quote,
become aware of the need to change the Dominican Republic's legislation
on abortion.
So not only do they lobby legislators and governments and health
officials again, and we empowered this group to be the bully on the
block, but they also get into the schools and try to indoctrinate these
children to bring down their right-to-life laws, and this is being
replicated in every one of these countries.
Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the manual if anybody wants to see it.
Let me also point out and use this chart to do so that the
legislation that is pending before the House will provide more family
planning money than the resolution just passed, not more over the cycle
of an appropriations, but more up front. And that is very important.
The Clinton finding earlier this month essentially said that, if the
money does not come now, it is money denied, and that means terrible
things will happen.
Mr. Speaker, if that be true, then the more up front the better. Our
legislation, the Smith-Oberstar bill, provides $410 million in fiscal
year 1997 for family planning. Three hundred and eighty-five is for the
family planning account, 25 for the United Nations Population Fund. The
administration's request, 240 in fiscal year 1997. So we push out the
door with our legislation more money for family planning. It is in the
bill.
Please, I urge Members and friends just to read it.
The previous speaker said that the intent of what we are trying to do
is to defund family planning. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The plain language of the bill makes it clear we are putting more
money, not less.
The argument was made back in 1984; I will never forget it, when the
Mexico City policy was first put into effect, that the nongovernmental
organizations, the NGO's, would never accept it. Well, friends, 350 and
upward of 380 family planning organizations signed on the dotted line
and said they would divest themselves from abortion and just do family
planning. Only the International Planned Parenthood Federation of
London and only Planned Parenthood Federation of America stood out and
said we are so committed, so obsessed with promotion abortion overseas
that we would loose the money rather than take the money and divest
themselves of abortion.
So this will be a vote on abortion today. It is pro-family planning,
and it is indeed both pro-life and pro-family planning.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler].
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill, which would
seriously harm our international family planning programs. I strongly
support family planning. I voted for the previous resolution that will
release the funds for family planning without condition because I
believe that these funds will improve women's health, reduce poverty,
and protect our global environment. But I will not vote for this bill.
The supporters of this bill claim that our family planning efforts
increase the number of abortions. This is simply not true. By law and
by practice, U.S. funds cannot be used to provide abortion services
either in the United States or abroad. AID has implemented procedures
that carefully monitor the spending of these funds, and independent
audits confirm that not $1 of U.S. funds is used to perform abortions.
I disagree personally with this policy, but it is the policy and the
law nonetheless.
The real problem with this bill is that, by saying to clinics that
they may not use other funds to perform abortions, it will force many
health clinics which will not accept such conditions to close for lack
of funding. These closed clinics will no longer help women receive
prenatal care, will no longer prevent more women from dying during
childbirth, will no longer help prevent unintended pregnancies and
therefore will no longer help reduce the number of abortions. The
number of abortions will increase, not decrease, if this bill were to
pass.
So if my colleagues support family planning and want these clinics to
remain open, then they must oppose this completely unnecessary bill and
vote against it.
This bill is really about family planning, about closing family
planning clinics and not about preventing the use of Federal funds from
being spent on abortions, which is already against the law, which does
not happen. This is an unnecessary, pernicious, and harmful bill that
will simply result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among
women, and more abortions.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I come forward today to express my
strong support for a bipartisan alternative to President Clinton's
resolution. The President's resolution will release an additional $123
million for population control programs for fiscal year 1997 without
any pro-life safeguards, and that is what our debate is all about. We
need pro-life safeguards.
My colleagues, we object to giving the administration more money to
spend this year unless the White House agrees to ensure that these
family planning funds will not support organizations which perform or
promote abortion.
Mr. Speaker, abortion should not and need not be interjected into the
population assistance program as the Clinton administration has done.
The President's resolution does not increase funding for international
family planning. Rather, what it does is permit the U.S. Agency for
International Development to begin spending certain appropriated funds
for population control at a date earlier than was established by law
last fall. This will result in the promotion and performance of
abortion overseas.
{time} 1400
I urge my colleagues to support the Smith bill, which will provide
international family planning funds with
[[Page H558]]
pro-life safeguards. The Smith bill will increase U.S. spending for
international family planning programs in 1997, which is what we all
want, by nearly $300 million, bringing the total 1997 spending on these
programs to $713 million. It will ensure that foreign nongovernmental
organizations receiving U.S. funds are not performing or promoting
abortions in developing countries, except in cases of rape, incest, or
the eminent endangerment of the mother's life.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot be fooled, and none of us can be fooled, by the
false claims of many international population groups who state that
this is not an abortion issue. It is.
We must be firm and stipulate that no population funds will go to
foreign, nongovernmental organizations that, No. 1, perform abortions
except in the case of rape, incest, or the imminent endangerment of the
mother's physical health; No. 2, violate the laws of any foreign
country with respect to abortion; No. 3, engage in any activity or
effort to alter the laws or governmental policies of any foreign
country with respect to abortion.
My position on abortion has been clear and consistent. I oppose it,
except in certain very specific cases. The White House privileged
resolution will debase the whole medical profession, it debases our
system of law, and indeed it debases our very notion of the concept of
life.
Our system of laws, our American heritage, is based on the idea that
people have certain God-given rights. Those rights are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
Those rights existed before laws were established. In fact, it is
because those rights existed that laws were established in order to
protect those rights.
First and foremost among those rights is the right to life.
As lawmakers we have a responsibility to protect the lives of our
citizens, in this case, the very youngest, most vulnerable of American
citizens. We must also protect those sacred lives in foreign countries
where we are having a direct impact on their international family
planning programs.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. I urge my colleagues to
stand against this hideous, repugnant practice.
If President Clinton believes, as he says, that abortion should not
be promoted as family planning and that international family planning
programs need more funding this year, he should abandon the rigid
stance he has taken in negotiations to date and accept the terms by
Congress.
Let us stand up for a good principle and support additional
international family planning dollars which will go to organizations
which will not perform or promote abortion as a method of family
planning.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Capps], a Member of the freshman class.
Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi] for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the United States as a former teacher of
religion, and I want to speak plainly about H.R. 581. Religious people
representing a variety of traditions and denominations have very strong
feelings on this subject. They know that the number of unwanted
pregnancies is too high. They also know that the estimated 25 billion
unsafe and illegal abortions annually is a moral issue that must be
addressed. Therefore, there is a strong consensus that there should be
voluntary access to family planning services. The evidence confirms
that family planning prevents unwanted pregnancies.
Mr. Speaker, people of faith affirm that human life, human
reproduction are intended by God to be a blessing for the world.
Responsible stewardship of human reproduction dictates that each child
is a blessing for that child, his or her family and the world. Giving
people the tools to take responsibility for their own reproductive
health is vital to achieving this goal.
H.R. 581 will devastate these programs. This bill will severely
inhibit comprehensive reproductive health services by shutting down
many foreign NGO's that provide these services. Because of this the
Mexico City-H.R. 581 restrictions will result in more abortions around
the world, not fewer.
This bill also runs contrary to a fundamental sense of stewardship.
As retired Senator Mark Hatfield from Oregon said, I quote, ``Anti-
abortion speech will not reduce the number of unintended pregnancies as
swiftly or as surely as our support for voluntary family planning.''
Fully supporting international family planning programs is one of the
most humane, moral, and ethical positions that we as a Nation can take.
I vote ``no'' on H.R. 581.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Aderholt].
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 581, a
bill that would literally save the lives of countless children
throughout the world. I commend my colleague from New Jersey [Mr.
Smith] for introducing this important bill which would prevent
international family planning funds from being used for abortion.
I want to make this point very clear. Abortion is not family
planning. I have heard many of my colleagues say that this debate is
not about abortion, but rather about saving lives. How ironic. We have
heard many say that this funding for family planning is essential.
Congressman Smith's bill allows even more funding for family planning,
so long as the funds are not used to promote abortion.
The question we will vote on in a few minutes is quite simply whether
you oppose taxpayers' funds being used to promote abortion in foreign
countries or whether you oppose it, pure and simple. I am proud to
stand today with those who oppose it and to support life.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Smith bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Sherman], also a Member of the freshman class.
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, my predecessor, Congressman Tony Beilenson,
served here for 20 years, and was one of the leading advocates of
international family planning. In recognition of his legacy, my first
speech on this floor is again in favor of international family
planning, and in opposition to unwarranted restrictions on family
planning that would be imposed by this proposal.
International family planning brings together so many things that
both I and many of my colleagues, and I think the vast majority of
those in my district, care about. We care about the environment, and
unless we do something to control the international population
explosion, virtually all of our other environmental controls will
simply be like taking a few buckets out of the ocean. We care about the
dignity of women. Women in Third World countries acquire additional
status, dignity and rights when they gain control of their own bodies
and are afforded a full range of reproductive freedom.
The other side has made this a debate on the choice issue. I do not
think that it is. But to the extent that a no vote is an opportunity to
say that we believe in a woman's right to choose, we have another good
reason to vote lgainst this proposal.
This vote is a chance for us to stand for peace and development in
the Third World, which can occur only if we deal with the population
explosion which so tragically affects so many underdeveloped countries.
It is a chance for us to deal with the illegal immigration problem.
With our support, Mexico has been able to cut its population growth
rate by over one-third through effective international family planning
assistance. We need to continue that effort.
Finally, it is important that this Government operate as efficiently
as possible. We need to contract with the international family planning
agencies that are most effected. We should not impose some sort of
political correctness test and say that we will not contract with this
agency or that agency, and end up instead going to a less effective
family planning organization.
So whether it is control of illegal immigration, enhancing our
environment, working toward government efficiency, defending a woman's
right to choose, promoting the dignity of women, or seeking peace and
prosperity for the underdeveloped portion of the world, a vote against
this alternative is called for.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
[[Page H559]]
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 581,
and I congratulate the sponsors, and especially the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith], for leading the effort on this bill, for presenting
us with a responsible and viable alternative to House Joint Resolution
36.
H.R. 581 allows AID to begin spending international family planning
funds on March 1, and the bill deletes the restriction which releases
these funds only on a monthly basis. Proponents of the previous bill
would certainly support those provisions.
So the debate is on the reinstatement of the Mexico City policy that
this bill mandates. The Mexico City language is straightforward, and I
quote: ``No funds appropriated for population planning activities may
be made available for any foreign, private, nongovernmental or
multilateral organization until the organization certifies it will not
perform abortions in any foreign country except where the life of the
mother would be endangered or in cases of forcible rape or incest.''
From 1985 to 1993, this language protected the American taxpayer from
having their tax payments spent on abortion. For 8 years this language
assured our great Nation would not directly or indirectly support or
promote abortion as a method of family planning throughout the world.
With all of the world's great crying needs, we should not be spending
our scarce foreign aid dollars to subsidize and promote abortions.
The world looks to America for moral leadership. The world looks to
America for justice for the weak and the disenfranchised. We should
respond to this call for leadership, not by promoting abortion in the
poorest nations of the world, but by helping them develop the economic
and political infrastructure that encourages development and progress.
Abortion does neither.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 581.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
vote against the Smith legislation. Since 1973, no U.S. dollars for
international family planning programs have been used for abortions.
Not one. And it is not true that the Smith amendment will not impact
women seeking family planning services, although the money provided is
the same in both resolutions. Cutting off certain clinics because of
how they use their own money does impact women.
In rural parts of the world it is not like Washington. There is only
one health clinic. There is only one choice. Women there are lucky to
have in fact one health clinic providing family planning services. They
do not have a choice of clinics.
This vote is not about abortion, it is about family planning. By any
measure, increased access to family planning decreases the number of
abortions. The use of effective contraception has increased markedly
throughout the world in the last 30 years. The percentage of couples in
developing nations using family planning has increased from 10 to 50
percent, but we still have a long way to go. Nearly 230 million women
worldwide, roughly one in six of reproductive age, are still in need of
modern contraceptive methods in order to plan their families.
As the 20th century draws to a close, by the year 2000, some 800
million people, one-seventh of the world's population, will be
teenagers in 4 years. While this reflects the incredible achievement of
cutting down child mortality by half since 1950, it also has enormous
implications for future population growth.
The U.N. predicts that in the next 50 years, world population, in
just 50 years, will grow by 3.6 billion, the current population of
Asia. Providing women with the power to control the number of children
they have and to space them apart is good for women and children and
for our world, and I urge opposition to the Smith amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Kelly].
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Smith
resolution, H.R. 581, which would reinstate the so-called Mexico City
policy. I find the restrictive resolution to be superfluous.
We all know that in the 1973 Helms amendment, which prohibits any
U.S. funds for abortion in international family planning, it is part of
the permanent foreign aid statute. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that any recipient of the U.S. funds has ever violated the terms of
this Helms amendment.
This unnecessary layering of already restrictive law can only work to
harm women and children worldwide by denying them the various health
services provided by international family planning organizations.
The effects of the Mexico City policy are far-reaching and negative.
According to UNICEF, every year 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related
causes; 75,000 of these deaths are associated with self-induced, unsafe
abortion. Is this the result we want?
In addition, the Mexico City policy serves as a threat, a gag order,
that results in failure to assist women in need. For example, if a
woman is suffering from a life threatening infection that is the
consequence of a self-induced abortion, members of an international
family planning organization might fear that treating such a woman
would result in loss of funds. Is this the result we want?
To say that family planning is abortion is to trivialize a complex
and critical issue. Family planning is prenatal care. Family planning
is child nutrition. Family planning is followup and preventive care,
and the education provided by family planning is often what enables
children to survive their first year and what enables women to survive
their pregnancy.
{time} 1415
Do not impose this gag order. Provide the world with family planning
education that works to eliminate the need for abortion. Let us defeat
the Smith resolution.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], chairman of the
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the
Committee on International Relations.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration keeps
telling us that we do not need to worry about how many hundreds of
millions of dollars go to organizations that perform abortion overseas
or that lobby for pro-abortion laws, because we already have laws on
the books that forbid these organizations from using the actual U.S.
taxpayer dollars to pay for the abortions or for the pro-abortion
lobbying.
But this simply ignores the fact that money is fungible. When we give
these pro-abortion organizations $1 million, we instantly free up other
money that they are free to use for whatever they want, including more
abortions and more abortion lobbying. None of us would run our personal
lives the way the Clinton administration wants us to run our
government.
If one of us had a friend who was doing something of which we deeply
disapproved, perhaps this friend had a drug habit, and asked us to give
or lend him $100 a month to buy drugs, of course, we would have to
refuse. But then suppose that friend said, all right, I understand that
you disapprove of drugs, but suppose you give me $100 a month to help
pay my rent. I promise not to use your $100 for the drugs. I will apply
your $100 toward my rent, and that will free up my $100 to buy drugs.
We would still have to refuse, of course, because we would know that by
giving the $100 we would be enabling and empowering the friend to buy
drugs.
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the same way that the groups that
perform and promote abortions go about their ways. If we give them an
extra $123 million and they remain in the abortion business, it does
not make any difference whether they give us a piece of paper that says
``We used your money to buy contraceptives and our money to perform
abortions.'' By subsidizing and enabling and empowering these groups,
we subsidize, empower, and enable all of their activities, including
abortions.
The Clinton administration is, in effect, urging Congress to spend
U.S. taxpayers' money and not worry too much
[[Page H560]]
about the consequences. But we cannot ignore the way the world works. I
urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I just want to make one point. In the earlier debate it was pointed
out that World Vision wants to release these funds. I think it should
be made very clear, World Vision is a group that I strongly support.
They are into helping to alleviate suffering brought about by famine.
Let me read a letter dated February 7 from the president of World
Vision, and it reads as follows: ``Our organization supports the
release of funds with the so-called Mexico City policy, which prevents
U.S. Government funding from subsidizing foreign organizations which
perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning, and
lobbying to ease or diminish anti-abortion laws--either in the United
States or in foreign countries.''
``We believe,'' the World Vision letter goes on to say, and it is
signed by Robert Seiple, ``We believe these pro-life safeguards are
important to protect the integrity of our efforts and those of many
other humanitarian aid organizations.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the full letter be made part of the Record,
but I would point out that World Vision supports this legislation, they
support the Mexico city policy.
The letter referred to is as follows:
World Vision,
Washington, DC, February 7, 1997.
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Pitts: World Vision has not changed its
position on abortion. I am writing to reiterate our position
to you and other members of Congress following a January 31
letter regarding the release of funding for international
family planning services. I signed the letter, along with the
presidents of CARE and Save the Children.
Since it was established in 1950, World Vision has always
and will continue to oppose abortion as a means of birth
control. Abortion runs contrary to our core beliefs as a
Christian organization. All of World Vision's efforts, both
in the United States and in more than 100 countries around
the world, seek to save, extend and enhance life. Toward our
goals of enhancing and extending life, World Vision supports
programs in developing nations to save children's lives.
These programs include immunizations, disease prevention and
treatment and efforts to improve nutrition. In addition, we
encourage efforts to educate parents about maternal health,
to avoid high-risk pregnancies and to advocate birth spacing.
These strategies help to avoid risky and unplanned
pregnancies both to protect the life of the mother and to
prevent women from resorting to abortion as a means of birth
control. As President of World Vision, I have visited many of
the programs in some of the most difficult places in the
world. I have met with women in Africa, Asia and Latin
America and other regions of the world who personally have
benefited from these services.
We believe these pro-life safeguards are important to
protect the integrity of our efforts and those of many other
humanitarian aid organizations. Serious health concerns for
women, children and families are at stake, including
unintended pregnancies which will likely increase, not
reduce, the number of abortions performed on women in
developing nations.
Should you have any questions on this issue, or on World
Vision's position on abortion, please contact Ken Casey,
Senior Vice President, in Seattle at 206-815-1000.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Seiple,
President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], a cosponsor of our
legislation, H.R. 581.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this is put-up-or-shut-up time for those who are
advocating funding for family planning without abortions. This
resolution reinstates a policy that has been in effect for the past
nearly a decade. Three hundred fifty organizations worldwide have
accepted funds from our Government with the restrictions on abortion
that we have included, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I
have included in this language, which is the so-called Mexico City
policy.
To be very clear and very simple in stating the case, in order to
receive U.S. population control funds, foreign nongovernmental
organizations must agree not to perform abortion, except in cases of
rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger; second, not
to violate the laws of any foreign country with respect to abortion;
or, third, not to engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or
governmental policies of any foreign country with respect to abortion.
If they really believe what they say, that they do not use abortion
as a method of family planning, they do not advocate abortion, they do
not perform abortions as a method of family planning, then why can they
simply not agree to that language? It is straightforward, it is simple,
very clear, makes a wall of separation between the reprehensible
practice of abortion and, on the other hand, helping women who are in
difficult circumstances in any part of the world, particularly in third
world countries, to gain some measure of control over their lives.
Mr. Speaker, we have for years demonstrated the willingness of this
Congress to approve funds for family planning, provided that none of
those funds are used to perform abortion. In the international arena we
have followed the same policy. This language that we include in our
legislation, H.R. 581, makes it very clear that family planning funds
may be available, but that they cannot be used to perform abortion.
There are organizations that are very intent on using abortion,
counseling for abortion, working to change the laws of foreign
countries on abortion. We should not use U.S. taxpayer dollars for that
purpose.
I hear the arguments on the other side about the need for women to
have access to family planning information, plan their lives and plan
their pregnancies. That is fine. But it should not go hand in hand with
abortion.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my
colleague yielding. I think, as he knows, I have long been a vote in
this House interested in preserving life. I feel very strongly that we
ought to do all that we can to see that abortion is not used as a tool.
But could either the gentleman or our chairman answer this question
for me: We do provide, from Federal coffers, a sizeable number of
dollars across the country to the several States in the United States
that has to do with family planning. Does the gentleman know if we
require similar language and limitation upon those funds that flow to
the several States of the United States?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, yes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, foreign nongovernmental
organizations are not governed by the same laws that domestic
nongovernmental organizations are.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I understand that.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Mexico City provisions were litigated.
Planned Parenthood brought a suit, and they were found to be completely
constitutional. Let me make a point.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, does that answer my question?
Does it say that we do not allow--
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No, we do not, because it would be construed
to be unconstitutional. Otherwise, we would like to do it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. So we are essentially saying to foreign
countries, you will follow a line of logic that is unconstitutional?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. We are saying where we can protect an unborn
child and a generation of unborn children from aggressive lobbying by a
non-governmental organization, we are going to do it. If we cannot save
all of the kids, we try to save some.
To say we have to have some kind of equal policy, just because we
like to say everything is the same everywhere, that to me is not
productive. When we can save a child in Kenya or we can save a child in
Central or South America from an assault on the law that protects them,
we ought to do it.
Let me also point out to the gentleman, if the gentleman from
Minnesota will continue yielding, we are talking about discretionary
funding. This is not entitlement funding. We in
[[Page H561]]
this Congress appropriate every year certain amounts of money to be
used for this purpose. It should not be the NGOs to dictate to us that,
we will not take your money unless we do this, that, and the other
thing. We should put simple conditions and say, do family planning; do
not permit abortions.
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield
further, I would suggest for those who are concerned about life that we
might very well consider similar limitations upon discretionary monies
in this country that flow to States if they are not responding
similarly, if we are serious about those limitations. I appreciate my
colleague yielding to me.
Mr. OBERSTAR. As the gentleman well knows, under the Medicaid
language for years that we have debated on this floor, we have had
several dozen votes, maybe several hundred votes on this issue over the
last 22 years that I have served here, we have imposed this restrictive
language that none of the funds may be used to perform abortions.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman's last comment raises just one
more point. I would certainly hope that those of us who are concerned
about the life question would know that sometimes we defeat our purpose
by having several hundred votes, it seems, a session, on this same
issue. Many Members are reacting very strongly to that, including this
Member.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentleman from Minnesota will
continue to yield, the only way, because if language is silent on the
Labor-HHS bill or the Federal employees health benefits program or any
other program, it pays for abortion. It is incumbent upon us, those of
us who do not want our tax dollars being used to subsidize abortion or
the performance of it, to offer amendments. Otherwise it is used to pay
for it. There is no blanket prohibition.
Mr. LEWIS of California. As my colleague can see by the vote today,
sometimes that is self-defeating.
Mr. SMITH of new Jersey. We will be back.
Mr. OBERSTAR. To further respond to my dear friend, the gentleman
from California, we would not have dozens or hundreds of votes on this
subject if, in initiating programs, those who advocate family planning
would stick to their last, and stick to what they believe in, and say
these funds are only used for counseling, they are not used for
changing people's minds about abortion, performing abortion, or
advocating abortion. That is all we are asking.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, [Mr. Lewis] was quite
correct in his line of questioning. Indeed, the Mexico City language,
if it were applied in the United States, would be unconstitutional.
What we are saying with this Mexico City language, otherwise known as
the gag rule, is that we will apply unconstitutional prohibitions to
organizations which receive international family planning funds from
the United States.
Let me be clear: No funds, and I am going to read them, because this
is the existing law, and for Members who voted for the President's
finding in the previous resolution, I want them to understand very
clearly why the Mexico City language indeed is a gag rule, indeed is
unconstitutional, and as other Members of this body have said earlier,
is unnecessary.
First of all, I direct the Members' attention to the chart. Current
prohibitions on use of AID funds for abortion-related activities cannot
be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family
planning or to motivate or coerce any other person to have an abortion.
USAID funds cannot be used to lobby for or against abortion.
These funds cannot be used to purchase or distribute commodities or
equipment for the purpose of inducing abortion as a method of family
planning, and these funds cannot be used to support any biomedical
research which relates, in whole or in part, to methods of or the
performance of abortion as a method of family planning.
To make sure that this Helms language is enforced, there are very
stringent safeguards in place which again I want to call to our
colleagues' attention.
Strict procedures assure that no USAID funds are used for abortions,
including legally binding contracts. USAID funds are provided in the
context of legally binding contracts and grant agreements that include
standard clauses, specifically listing prohibited activities. Violators
are subject to heavy fines and loss of future AID funding.
USAID closely monitors how its funds are used through requiring
detailed annual work plans, numerous detailed reports on all project
activities, site visits, management reviews, and review and concurrence
on project publications, and regular audits. Contracts and agreements
with foreign or private organizations are subject to regular,
independent audits, as defined by the Federal acquisition regulation
system. USAID grantees are required to maintain extensive documentation
of expenditures of foreign subcontractors who are subject to audit.
I go into this level of detail to emphasize once again that what we
have proposed here today and what this House approved has nothing to do
with abortion, and that the Mexico City language again would be
unconstitutional in the United States. Why should we subject our
grantees abroad to that gag rule, which as I say again, is
unconstitutional in our country.
A couple of more points that I want to make, because comments that
were made here on the floor beg for clarification.
{time} 1430
It has been repeated over and over again, certain critics of the
International Planned Parenthood Federation and of government funding
of international family planning programs have recently, they are
stepping up this campaign citing IPPF, International Planned Parenthood
Federation, as promoting abortion around the world. Let me state, the
International Planned Parenthood Federation does not accept or promote
abortion as a method of family planning. IPPF believes that
contraception is the first line of defense against unwanted pregnancy.
Access to family planning service is the most effective way to reduce
abortions and the mortality caused by them. I have more information on
that if Members have questions about that.
Another point that I want to reference the Smith bill, again with the
greatest respect for the gentleman, in his bill, the Mexico City
language, the gag rule, states that, notwithstanding any provisions of
the bill, no funds appropriated for population planning activities may
be used by an organization to engage in any activity or effort to alter
the laws or governmental policies of any foreign countries governing
the circumstances under which is permitted, regulated or prohibited.
Among other things, that is what this language does, which would
change current law if it were passed and signed into law, which the
President will not sign. So we have an exercise in futility at this
hour of the day, and I will try to be brief. But I believe that it is
necessary to protect the vote of our Members who voted in favor of the
President's finding earlier.
Why are we subjecting organizations engaged in family planning
internationally to conditions and standards which first of all are
unconstitutional in the United States but do not apply here either? Our
colleagues used the termed fungibility. If you give your money for
this, it frees up your other money to do that. That is exactly what
happens every time we grant a contract or a grant.
Are we subjecting the defense community to the scrutiny of its
spending on what it does with its own money because they receive
defense contracts from the Federal Government? The list could go on and
on. It just does not seem fair to me that we should gag organizations
from using their own funds for their own purposes. And if that includes
making information available to women, it has nothing to do with the
Federal funds that we vote in this body, and it does nothing with the
constitutional approach that we take to our grantees in the United
States.
What is further at issue here is this subjects that same scrutiny to
the subcontractors, to these international family planning
organizations. So all of this presents a gag, a hindrance, an
[[Page H562]]
unnecessary encumbrance. I urge our colleagues to follow this issue
closely and to reject it on this vote today, as I have said over and
over again. The highest regard for the maker of the motion, this gag
rule has no place in our country. It should not have any place in our
funding for international family planning.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Smith] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi] has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith] reserves the balance of his time and reserves the
right to close.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation, which
would kill American support for the international family planning
programs.
I oppose this bill for several reasons. First, it is a bill to
correct a problem which does not exist. Right now, no American aid, I
repeat, no American aid pays for abortions overseas.
Since 1973, Mr. Speaker, it has been illegal for American aid dollars
to support abortion services in any way.
I also oppose this bill because the attempt to reinstate the Mexico
City policy will have a chilling effect on family planning services. We
know that the other body will not pass this legislation, and the
President has vowed to veto it. This bill will only continue the
current delay in services which will lead to real human misery and
environmental degradation.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that to delay is to devastate.
Listen to what the National Council for International Health has had to
say on this matter. They say: Last year's reduced aid for family
planning is resulting in 7 million couples losing contraceptive
services.
That is 7 million couples.
This will result in 4 million unwanted pregnancies. It could mean 1.6
million abortions and 8,000 maternal deaths. Passage of the Smith bill
would make this worse.
Oppose this bill. Oppose further restrictions to family planning. Let
us release urgently needed American aid.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
If the other Members of the body are like myself, they are receiving
calls from their constituents who are regrettably very confused about
this issue. They are calling and saying, do not vote for the
President's resolution because it promotes abortion and vote for this
Smith bill because it stops abortion.
And of course nothing could be further from the truth. What this is
about is very simple. This is about somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa
where the population rates are just crushingly explosive, there is a
little clinic somewhere and that little clinic is attached to a
hospital. And the clinic provides birth control so that women do not
become pregnant and do not have to have abortions. But maybe 100 miles
away from that hospital, abortion is legal. A woman comes in with her
own money, not American taxpayers' money, and might avail herself for
whatever her reasons may be of a legal abortion.
My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] wants to say,
then let us not give that hospital any money even to run its family
planning clinic. The result of that is very, very straightforward. That
little clinic out in the hinterland somewhere will not have any IUD,
will not have any birth control pills. More women by the thousands will
become pregnant. And where will they end up? They will end up back at
that hospital, and they will be doing more abortions there than ever
before.
It is time we got logical about this issue. If you are against
abortion, if you want to see the number of abortions on this planet
decrease, then you have to be for family planning and you have to trust
the women of the world to make the right decisions.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, Mexico City is nothing more
than an international form of gag rule on providers, severely
restricting the way legitimate helpful organizations use their own
funds. Restricting use of money will not decrease the number of
abortions performed in developing countries. Rather, lack of access to
family planning facilities will likely lead to an increase in unwanted
pregnancies and therefore more abortions.
We have seen in our own country how simple family planning education
can work to solve problems of overpopulation and reduce the number of
unplanned pregnancies. Again, family planning means education. It is
not a means of doling out abortion dollars across the globe.
This gag rule has no place in this debate, and I urge my colleagues
not to give in to these tactics. I urge a vote against the Smith bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, to
thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the
issue for this, I think, productive debate this afternoon. All of the
participation, the full participation of Members, I think, has been
very helpful to us. But I want to use my remaining moments to thank and
acknowledge the staff for their hard work on this issue. From the staff
of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], Matt Traub and Sharon
Levin; Lissa Topel from the staff of the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Ms. DeLauro]; Kara Haas, Judy Borger, Mark Kirk, Terri McCullough,
Leslie Patykewich, from my own staff, Carolyn Bartholomew; and from the
subcommittee, Mark Murray, Scott Lilley. As always the staff is the
great untold story of Congress. They are a tremendous resource to us.
They work so hard, and I wanted to give them this recognition on a day
when we are debating this very, very important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I just say once again, let us not hold the children, the
poor children of the world hostage to congressional politics. Vote
``no'' on the Smith amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say again, nobody is holding this policy or
family planning hostage to congressional politics. This has everything
to do with the deep-seated and very strongly held belief that every
human life is precious, born and unborn. We cannot and should never
facilitate a policy that puts the unborn at risk of being killed by
abortion on demand.
Let me also make the point, a clarification: We have heard on the
other side how this is somehow a gag rule. The gag rule is a word that
was coined during the title X debate dealing with abortion counseling.
Abortion counseling is not covered by the Mexico City policy. It was
not during the years that it was in effect, and I am amazed how that
disinformation continues to persist both in the media as well as by
Members who have been offering up positions on the other side of this
issue.
Let me also point out, we do not concede that Mexico City policy
would be unconstitutional if applied to United States domestic
organizations. But a decision was made in the Reagan administration
years ago, and it was fully litigated, that foreign nongovernmental
oganizations would be the ones that would be affected, and it was
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Finally, let me say that H.R. 581 is pro-life but it is also pro-
family planning. One of the speakers on the other side was bemoaning
the delay. OK, let us end the delay. Let us get all $385 million plus
the 25 million for the UNFPA out the door by March 1. Only the Smith-
Oberstar-Hyde bill does that. So if money delayed is money denied, our
bill gets the money there sooner rather than later. But it does so in a
principled way. It says that we are for family planning but we are not
for abortion.
Let me also point out again who we subsidize does matter. We should
not compartmentalize our view and say if they do this with our money
that is OK and who gives a darn what else they do with the rest of
their money. Abortion is child abuse. It kills babies. It is a violent
act. Let us face that reality.
The partial birth abortion ban fight last year at least began forcing
all of
[[Page H563]]
us to look at abortion for what it truly is and at the methods of
abortion for the cruelty that they represent toward children.
Who we subsidize does matter. The IPPF based in London, International
Planned Parenthood Federation, has a strategic plan. They make no bones
about it. It is right here in black and white. They want abortion on
demand in every country of the world. They have action plans for every
country of the world. Vote yes on H.R. 581.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 581, a
resolution which would prevent American international family planning
funds from being used to actively support abortion as a preferred
method of family planning.
The majority of my constituents and I believe that the taking of a
life is totally unacceptable, and we do not support funding for
organizations which support abortion services. Taking a life is a
deplorable act, one which carries grave consequences in our justice
system. How do we reconcile our system of punishing murderers with
providing funding to foreign organizations which support abortion?
H.R. 581 also includes provisions which would ensure that American
aid will not support organizations which work to modify existing
policies regarding abortion in foreign nations, as well as
organizations which disobey foreign nations' laws relating to abortion.
Family planning is the goal of these funds, and there are alternate
methods of family planning which do not condemn a life. By supporting
H.R. 581, the United States can still be at the vanguard of family
planning programs without advocating abortion as an option.
I urge my colleagues to lend their support for H.R. 581. Everyone
knows that the taking of a life is wrong, let us not show the world
that the United States not only accepts murder as a form of family
planning but actively funds organizations who support it.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support Congressman
Smith's bill to make sure that agencies receiving international family
planning funds do not use these funds to promote abortion. Many
Americans believe that their taxes do not support abortion overseas,
but they have been terribly misled. Their money is distributed
generously to groups who actively encourage abortion, seek to overturn
foreign countries abortion laws, and support programs which are tainted
by forced abortion and sterilization of women policies.
Although I do question the necessity of releasing these funds early,
what is really at issue here is how the Clinton administration chooses
to distribute these funds. In 1993, President Clinton overturned the
Reagan-Bush era policy which prohibited U.S. financial support for
international organizations that either promote or perform abortions as
a means of birth control. I find it morally unjust to require U.S.
taxpayers to support the global proliferation of abortion.
Instead of filling clinics overseas with abortion-related equipment,
the United States should stock the shelves with lifesaving drugs which
will help to save the 2.1 million children--according to UNICEF--who
die each year from vaccine-preventable diseases.
The Smith legislation would allow the release of family planning
funds early, as the administration has requested. However, it would
stop rewarding international organizations that promote and perform
abortions with American taxpayer dollars--which is exactly why the
President has threatened to veto the Smith bill and thereby eliminate
any possibility of an early release of these funds.
Yes, the administration has never hidden its support for both
international family-planning services and abortion. The two are
clearly not the same. I urge my colleagues to support the Smith bill
and make that distinction absolutely clear.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of family planning
initiatives, I would like to emphasize my support for the U.S.
International Family Planning Program. This program has been extremely
effective in protecting the health and lives of women and children in
underdeveloped and developing countries throughout the world.
Today, I will be voting for H.R. 581 which was introduced by
Representative Chris Smith. For those who claim to be true supporters
of our family planning efforts overseas, I believe this is the correct
vote to cast. H.R. 581 will release the full $385 million in
international family planning money on March 1, 1997--bringing the
total fiscal year 1997 spending on these programs to $713 million. In
other words, this bill will provide nearly $200 million more in funding
than the resolution which was passed by the House earlier today (H.J.
Res. 36). In addition, it will ensure that this Federal funding is used
only for contraceptive family planning and health care services, not
abortion.
As a supporter of family planning, whether it be international or
national initiatives, I believe we need to examine how the United
States can best support true family planning efforts. Clearly, if we
are talking only about family planning and contraception, rather than
abortion, then the Smith bill before us would provide substantially
more funding for health care services and have a greater impact on low-
income women and children abroad. Supporting H.R. 581 will ensure that
we provide the maximum amount of international family planning money
available, while at the same time ensuring that U.S. tax dollars are
not used to provide or promote abortion.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this
important legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 46, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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 231,
nays 194, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 23]
YEAS--231
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
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
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
[[Page H564]]
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
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.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--7
Carson
Clay
LaFalce
Mink
Nussle
Obey
Young (AK)
{time} 1502
The Clerk announced the following pair:
Mr. LaFalce for with Mrs. Carson against.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado, HUNTER, McDADE and EHRLICH changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________