[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.

                          ____________________