[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 20 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1433-S1448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 APPROVING THE PRESIDENTIAL FINDING REGARDING THE POPULATION PLANNING 
                                PROGRAM

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 1:30 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration 
of House Joint Resolution 36, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) approving the 
     Presidential finding that the limitation on obligations 
     imposed by section 518A(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, is 
     having a negative impact on the proper functioning of the 
     population planning program.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 hours of debate evenly 
divided.

[[Page S1434]]

  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the resolution 
that the President has submitted requesting the early release of 
population planning funds.
  Last fall, in the waning hours of Congress, an agreement was reached 
by the White House and the leadership to make $385 million available 
for family planning at a rate of 8 percent a month beginning in July. 
That date was agreed to so there would be no overlap of 1996 and 1997 
funds.
  The effect of the resolution before the Senate would be to virtually 
double the amount made available for population planning for 4 months 
this year. If the Senate passes the President's resolution, $123 
million more in funding will be available for organizations that 
support abortions and lobby to undermine laws which protect the unborn.
  There are those who would like to suggest that this is merely a 
question of shifting dates. We are not arguing over whether money 
becomes available but when, so the argument goes. In fact, this debate 
centers on how much will be available, to which groups, and under what 
circumstances.
  I believe those of us who support the pro-life position made 
significant concessions during the negotiations over the omnibus 
resolution. Not only did we agree to raise the overall level of funding 
from $356 million in 1996 to $385 million, the disbursal rate was 
increased from roughly 6 percent to 8 percent a month. Now the 
President wants to move up the date when disbursal begins.
  Very few of us actually oppose making family planning funds 
available. There is general consensus that a responsible family 
planning policy has a positive impact on a nation's development. 
Everyone appreciates the consequences exploding population rates have 
on every aspect of a nation's well-being, from the availability of 
education, food and jobs, to the condition of the environment.
  So let us all agree that there is no question that U.S. family 
planning funds are extremely helpful in the developing world. But there 
is also absolutely no question that when the United States decided to 
provide resources only to organizations that agreed not--not--to 
perform abortions and agreed not to lobby to legalize abortions, we 
were still the single largest global donor of family planning funds. 
This understanding is the heart of the so-called Mexico City policy, a 
policy that resulted in steady increases in responsible U.S. family 
planning support, a policy that at the end of the Bush administration 
meant the United States contributed 45 percent of all family planning 
funds made available around the world.
  There is a deep irony to this debate. On the one hand, the 
administration argues that the population program is in dire straits 
and beginning the funding in July will cause the closeout or reduction 
of at least 17 projects. Virtually all of those programs could be fully 
funded because they are carried out by organizations which meet the 
criteria of not supporting abortion or efforts to legalize abortion. In 
the misguided interest of protecting a few organizations, the 
administration is withholding support for the many willing to provide 
family planning services consistent with the Mexico City guidelines. 
They complain about the negative impact of cuts on funding yet are 
willing to forego an increase if it is linked to Mexico City. It does 
not make sense.
  I support family planning, but I cannot and will not vote to provide 
funds to organizations which in the name of family planning take the 
lives of innocent, unborn children. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this resolution.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there are several people on this side of 
this issue who will speak, and so I will be brief to retain time for 
them, and I will yield myself now such time as I need.
  All Senators should understand what this vote is. It is really 
whether to approve the President's finding. The President's finding is 
that withholding until July 1 the release of the funds that Congress 
appropriated last September for international family planning would 
result in more unwanted pregnancies and abortions and harm programs to 
protect the health of women and children.
  This is not whether you are for abortions or against abortions, 
whether you are for family planning or against it. We know in many 
parts of the world family planning is abortion because we do not have 
everything from birth control devices to training, so people rely on 
abortion. What this would do would really give alternatives to it. In a 
misguided effort by some foes of abortion last year, the funds were 
held up until now and, if anything, will result in more abortions, not 
less.
  What I would like to see us do is release the funds for family 
planning and give people an alternative to abortion as a form of family 
planning. In fact, 2 weeks ago the House voted by a substantial margin 
to uphold the President's finding. That meant that Republicans and 
Democrats voted to uphold the President's finding, and the Senate is 
going to vote tomorrow.
  Some say that approving the President's finding would result in 
spending an additional $123 million on abortion. Of course, that is 
false, totally, patently false. This vote will not change the amount 
spent on family planning by one dime. And, none of this money can be 
spent on abortion or to promote abortion. Our law prohibits that.
  This is an extremely important vote, and there should be no confusion 
about what it is about. So let me first talk about what this is not, so 
all Senators, no matter on which side of the abortion issue he or she 
is, will understand why they can support this resolution. This vote is 
not about how much we are going to spend on international family 
planning. We already decided that. We decided that, I believe, last 
September when we passed the foreign aid bill. That bill contained $385 
million for family planning, and if we pass this resolution that amount 
is not going to change at all. If the resolution is defeated, the 
amount still will not change. So nobody should think we are voting to 
add or take away money.
  The vote will also not affect how we spend the $385 million. It will 
not affect, for instance, which family planning organizations receive 
the funds. So, no matter which way we vote today, we do not determine 
which groups receive the funds. It does not affect that. Nor will this 
vote decide in any way, no matter which way we vote, if the funds can 
be used for abortion or to promote abortion.
  This vote will decide only one thing. All this vote decides is, what 
date do we start spending the $385 million that we appropriated last 
year in the last Congress? It does not decide whether to spend it or 
how to spend it or what to spend it on, only whether we start spending 
the funds on July 1, 9 months after the start of the fiscal year, or 
March 1, 5 months after the start of the fiscal year.
  You may ask, what difference does 4 months make, March 1, July 1, so 
what? If it did not make any difference, we would not even be here. But 
the difference is, there are tens of millions of people who will not 
have access to family planning services during those 4 months. We are 
talking about modern contraceptives, as well as condoms that protect 
against AIDS. This vote is about whether we should withhold family 
planning services to couples who desperately want to limit the size of 
their families or space the births of their children so their children 
survive past infancy.
  We are not talking about money in a wealthy country like the United 
States. We are talking about money in the poorest of poor countries. We 
are talking about money so people might be able to space their children 
so they do not see, what so many of these countries do, children that 
die in the first year. In fact, a number of these countries do not even 
list a birth until the child is several months old, or even years old, 
because of the high number of infant deaths.
  There is no more effective, practical way to reduce the number of 
abortions

[[Page S1435]]

than family planning. I could cite many examples. Here is one. Before 
1990, a Russian woman averaged at least three abortions in her 
lifetime. From 1990 to 1994, with support from USAID, contraceptive use 
in Russia grew from 19 to about 24 percent. Just that 5-percent 
increase in the use of contraceptives resulted in a decrease in the 
number of abortions during that period by 800,000 abortions.
  I would ask, how many of those who opposed that family planning money 
back during those years because somehow it might be used for abortion, 
how many of them are willing to stand up and say, ``Because we spent 
it, we stopped 800,000 abortions in one country alone''? That should be 
the beginning and the end of this debate. If you are against abortion--
and a number of Senators on this floor have voted for family planning 
money because, and primarily because, they are opposed to abortion, 
because they know this provides alternatives to abortion, just as we 
proved it did in Russia--just that 6 percent increase in contraceptive 
use cut the number of abortions by 800,000.

  I ask unanimous consent a letter from Senator Mark Hatfield to 
Representative Chris Smith be printed in the Record at end of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. I mention this because Senator Hatfield was ardently, 
consistently pro-life for all his years here in the Senate. But I also 
know he is equally passionate about his support for family planning. He 
fully understood that when you limit access to family planning, the 
result is more abortions.
  The other side will argue that since a tiny fraction of these funds 
may go to private organizations that provide abortions in countries 
like the United States where abortion is legal, the resolution should 
be defeated. There is no logic in that. What if the tables were turned 
and I argued that no family planning organization should receive U.S. 
Government funds unless they do use their own funds for abortion? There 
would be a big outcry, ``It's big Government. How dare you tell these 
private groups what to do with their money?'' That is not a road we 
want to go down. AID requires every dime to be kept in a separate 
account. We know how every dime of our money is spent. There has never 
been any evidence that any of these funds have been used for abortion. 
If there were, you can be sure we would have heard about it.
  So let us start spending the money that we appropriated 5 months ago 
so it can do some good. The longer we wait, the more we add to the 
costs of administering the program, the more damage we cause to the 
health of women and children, the more unwanted pregnancies and 
abortions will result. It is that simple.
  I would also say, this has become more of a political argument than 
an argument based on reality. I do not hear any of the advocates of 
this position, of withholding this money, stand up and say, ``Let's not 
send any of our foreign aid to any country that may use some of their 
money, their money in that country, to pay for abortions.'' I challenge 
those who oppose this resolution, if you want to prove that you are 
really sincere, if you want to prove you are not doing this because of 
some other agenda, then pass a law that says that no money, none of our 
foreign aid money, can go to any country that uses any of its money for 
abortion. That make no more sense than voting against this resolution.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 1996.
     Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chris: I have reviewed the materials you recently sent 
     to my office in response to my request that you provide proof 
     that U.S. funds are being spent on abortion through AID's 
     voluntary international family planning program. 
     Unfortunately, I do not see anything in these materials to 
     back up your assertion.
       AID has a rigorous process to make sure that the current 
     prohibition on the use of U.S. funds is adhered to and that 
     no U.S. funds are spent on abortion services. First, all 
     agreements into which AID enters (grants, contracts, and 
     cooperative agreements) include a legally binding and 
     enforcement clause prohibiting the contractee from using the 
     funds for abortion services. Second, AID staff monitor all 
     agreements as they are implemented in the field to ensure 
     that the agreements terms are being met. And finally, all 
     grants with non-governmental organizations require a 
     ``Circular A-133 Audit'' every one to two years. This audit 
     looks not only at the financial aspects of the agreement, but 
     reviews compliance with all terms of the agreement including 
     the prohibition on the use of U.S. funds. The audit is done 
     by an outside Big 8 accounting firm, not AID. According to 
     AID, compliance with the funding prohibition has not been a 
     problem.
       In the meantime, Chris, you are contributing to an increase 
     of abortions worldwide because of the funding restrictions on 
     which you insisted in last year's funding bill. It is a 
     proven fact that when contraceptive services are not 
     available to women throughout the world, abortion rates 
     increase. We have seen it in the former Soviet Union where 
     women had no access to family planning and relied on abortion 
     as their primary birth control method. Some women had between 
     eight and twelve abortions during their lifetimes. This is 
     unacceptable to me as someone who is strongly opposed to 
     abortion.
       It is my hope that we can work together to resolve this 
     issue before AID's international family planning program is 
     destroyed.
       Kind regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Mark O. Hatfield,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 44 minutes and 
24 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding.
  Mr. President, I rise today in total support of sound policies which 
advance and uphold the sanctity of life and family, but in opposition 
to House Resolution 36. The issue, I believe, in fact, is not one of 
family planning but is, in fact, one of funding for abortion, 
organizations which promote and provide for abortions and lobby to 
change pro-life laws in countries where our foreign aid money goes.
  First and foremost, allow me to recognize the importance of the two 
votes that took place in the House of Representatives on February 13. 
The Clinton resolution, which we will be voting on tomorrow--which 
unwisely, I believe, fails to include a ban on American taxpayer 
funding of organizations which provide and promote abortion--was 
successful by a vote of 220 to 209. But there was a second vote that 
occurred that day. The second vote, on H.R. 581, legislation of 
Congressman Chris Smith, of New Jersey, reinstituting the successful 
Mexico City policy and requiring foreign nongovernmental organizations 
receiving U.S. funds to agree not to violate the laws, or lobby to 
change the laws, of other countries with respect to abortion, or to 
perform abortions in those countries except in cases of rape, incest, 
or where the mother's life is in danger, that resolution by Congressman 
Smith was passed by an even larger majority of 231 to 194. So I remind 
Senators that the Smith pro-life resolution passed by a far greater 
margin than did the Clinton resolution.

  This vote certainly illustrates the simple fact that one can be for 
family planning programs while standing for life.
  As the Members of this body might recall, I am the only legislator in 
Congress to have served in the Arkansas House of Representatives when 
President Clinton was Governor of Arkansas.
  In October 1990, in response to written questions submitted by the 
Associated Press, the President, then Governor of Arkansas, said:

       Under the present Arkansas law, abortion is illegal when 
     the unborn child can live outside its mother's womb, I 
     support that . . . I have supported restrictions on public 
     funding and a parental notification requirement for minors.

  I believe the President was absolutely correct when he took that 
position about funding for abortion, and that is the issue before us 
today. Despite President Clinton's repeated sentiments in wanting to 
lower the number of abortions performed, his actions,

[[Page S1436]]

since he took office 4 years ago, has spoken louder than his words.
  In fact, President Clinton has actively fought to lift any and all 
restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions, not with congressional 
approval but by the broad use of the Executive order. Besides refusing 
to reinstate the Mexico City policy, which had been working very 
successfully for a decade before he repealed it, he has also attempted 
to delete the ban on taxpayer funding of abortions and the ban on the 
use of funds to counsel persons on the practice of abortion. Similarly, 
his annual budgets have also proposed striking this pro-life language 
from the foreign operations appropriations bill.
  We all know that congressional appropriations for U.S. population 
assistance have been delayed by the debate over the issue of U.S. 
funding for abortion and coercive birth control measures practiced by 
foreign countries.
  Mr. President, at the second annual U.N. International Conference on 
Population in Mexico City in 1984, the Reagan administration announced 
that it would discontinue U.S. population aid to those nongovernmental 
organizations that were directly involved in voluntary abortion 
activities.
  The Mexico City policy went a step beyond previous legislation that 
had been passed in the 1970's that specifically banned direct funding 
of abortions and involuntary sterilizations. The Mexico City policy 
banned funding to nongovernmental organizations that were indirectly 
involved in abortion-related activities.
  Furthermore, the Reagan administration established a requirement that 
the U.N. Family Planning Agency provide ``concrete assurances that it 
is not engaged in, or does not provide funding for abortion or coercive 
family planning assistance programs.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the original Mexico City 
policy be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Policy Statement: International Conference on Population


                              Introduction

       For many years, the United States has supported, and helped 
     to finance, programs of family planning, particularly in 
     developing countries. This Administration has continued that 
     support but has placed it within a policy context different 
     from that of the past. It is sufficiently evident that the 
     current exponential growth in global population cannot 
     continue indefinitely. There is no question of the ultimate 
     need to achieve a condition of population equilibrium. The 
     differences that do exist concern the choice of strategies 
     and methods for the achievement of that goal. The experience 
     of the last two decades not only makes possible but requires 
     a sharper focus for our population policy. It requires a more 
     refined approach to problems which appear today in quite a 
     different light than they did twenty years ago.
       First and most important, population growth is, of itself, 
     a neutral phenomenon. It is not necessarily good or ill. It 
     becomes an asset or a problem only in conjunction with other 
     factors, such as economic policy, social constraints, need 
     for manpower, and so forth. The relationship between 
     population growth and economic development is not necessarily 
     a negative one. More people do not necessarily mean less 
     growth. Indeed, in the economic history of many nations, 
     population growth has been an essential element in economic 
     progress.
       Before the advent of governmental population programs, 
     several factors had combined to create an unprecedented surge 
     in population over most of the world. Although population 
     levels in many industrialized nations had reached or were 
     approaching equilibrium in the period before the Second World 
     War, the baby boom that followed in its wake resulted in a 
     dramatic, but temporary, population ``tilt'' toward youth. 
     The disproportionate number of infants, children, teenagers, 
     and eventually young adults did strain the social 
     infrastructure of schools, health facilities, law enforcement 
     and so forth. However, it also helped sustain strong economic 
     growth, despite occasionally counterproductive government 
     policies.
       Among the developing nations, a coincidental population 
     increase was caused by entirely different factors. A 
     tremendous expansion of health services--from simple 
     inoculations to sophisticated surgery--saved millions of 
     lives every year. Emergency relief, facilitated by 
     modern transport, helped millions to survive flood, 
     famine, and drought. The sharing of technology, the 
     teaching of agriculture and engineering, and improvements 
     in educational standards generally, all helped to reduce 
     mortality rates, especially infant mortality, and to 
     lengthen life spans.
       This demonstrated not poor planning or bad policy but human 
     progress in a new era of international assistance, 
     technological advance, and human compassion. The population 
     boom was a challenge; it need not have been a crisis. Seen in 
     its broader context, it required a measured, modulated 
     response. It provoked an overreaction by some, largely 
     because it coincided with two negative factors which, 
     together, hindered families and nations in adapting to their 
     changing circumstances.
       The first of these factors was governmental control of 
     economies, a development which effectively constrained 
     economic growth. The post-war experience consistently 
     demonstrated that, as economic decision-making was 
     concentrated in the hands of planners and public officials, 
     the ability of average men and women to work towards a better 
     future was impaired, and sometimes crippled. In many cases, 
     agriculture was devastated by government price fixing that 
     wiped out rewards for labor. Job creation in infant 
     industries was hampered by confiscatory taxes. Personal 
     industry and thrift were penalized, while dependence upon the 
     state was encouraged. Political considerations made it 
     difficult for an economy to adjust to changes in supply and 
     demand or to disruptions in world trade and finance. Under 
     such circumstances, population growth changed from an asset 
     in the development of economic potential to a peril.
       One of the consequences of this ``economic statism'' was 
     that it disrupted the natural mechanism for slowing 
     population growth in problem areas. The world's more affluent 
     nations have reached a population equilibrium without 
     compulsion and, in most cases, even before it was government 
     policy to achieve it. The controlling factor in these cases 
     has been the adjustment, by individual families, of 
     reproductive behavior to economic opportunity and aspiration. 
     Historically, as opportunities and the standard of living 
     rise, the birth rate falls. In many countries, economic 
     freedom has led to economically rational behavior.
       That pattern might be well under way in many nations where 
     population growth is today a problem, if counterproductive 
     government policies had not disrupted economic incentives, 
     rewards, and advancement. In this regard, localized crises of 
     population growth are, in part, evidence of too 
     much government control and planning, rather than too 
     little.
       The second factor that turned the population boom into a 
     crisis was confined to the western world. It was an outbreak 
     of an anti-intellectualism, which attacked science, 
     technology, and the very concept of material progress. Joined 
     to a commendable and long overdue concern for the 
     environment, it was more a reflection of anxiety about 
     unsettled times and an uncertain future. In its disregard of 
     human experience and scientific sophistication, it was not 
     unlike other waves of cultural anxiety that have swept 
     through western civilization during times of social stress 
     and scientific exploration.
       The combination of these two factors--counterproductive 
     economic policies in poor and struggling nations, and a 
     pessimism among the more advanced--led to a demographic 
     overreaction in the 1960's and 1970's. Scientific forecasts 
     were required to compete with unsound, extremist scenarios, 
     and too many governments pursued population control measures 
     without sound economic policies that create the rise in 
     living standards historically associated with decline in 
     fertility rates. This approach has not worked, primarily 
     because it has focused on a symptom and neglected the 
     underlying ailments. For the last three years, this 
     Administration has sought to reverse that approach. We 
     recognize that in, some cases, immediate population pressures 
     may require short-term efforts to ameliorate them. But 
     population control programs alone cannot substitute for the 
     economic reforms that put a society on the road toward growth 
     and, as an aftereffect, toward slower population increases as 
     well.
       Nor can population control substitute for the rapid and 
     responsible development of natural resources. In commenting 
     on the Global 2000 report, this Administration in 1981 
     disagreed with its call ``for more government supervision and 
     control,'' stating that:
       ``Historically, that has tended to restrict the 
     availability of resources and to hamper the development of 
     technology, rather than to assist it. Recognizing the 
     seriousness of environmental and economic problems, and their 
     relationship to social and political pressures, especially in 
     the developing nations, the Administration places a priority 
     upon technologically advance and economic expansion, which 
     hold out the hope of prosperity and stability of a rapidly 
     changing world. That hope can be realized, of course, only to 
     the extent that government's response to problems, whether 
     economic or ecological, respects and enhances individual 
     freedom, which makes true progress possible and 
     worthwhile.''
       Those principles underlie this country's approach to the 
     International Conference on Population to be held in Mexico 
     City in August.


                           Policy Objectives

       The world's rapid population growth is a recent phenomenon. 
     Only several decades ago, the population of developing 
     countries was relatively stable, the result of a balance 
     between high fertility and high mortality. There are now 4.5 
     billion people in the world, and six billion are projected by 
     the year 2000. Such rapid growth places tremendous pressures 
     on governments without concomitant economic growth.
       The International Conference on Population offers the U.S. 
     an opportunity to

[[Page S1437]]

     strengthen the international consensus on the 
     interrelationships between economic development and 
     population which has emerged since the last such conference 
     in Bucharest in 1974. Our primary objective will be to 
     encourage developing countries to adopt sound economic 
     policies and, where appropriate, population policies 
     consistent with respect for human dignity and family values. 
     As President Reagan stated, in his message to the Mexico City 
     Conference:
       ``We believe population programs can and must be truly 
     voluntary, cognizant of the rights and responsibilities of 
     individuals and families, and respectful of religious and 
     cultural values. When they are, such programs can make an 
     important contribution to economic and social development, to 
     the health of mothers and children, and to the stability of 
     the family and of society.''
       U.S. support for family planning programs is based on 
     respect for human life, enhancement of human dignity, and 
     strengthening of the family. Attempts to use abortion, 
     involuntary sterilization, or other coercive measures in 
     family planning must be shunned, whether exercised against 
     families within a society or against nations within the 
     family of man. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights 
     of the Child (1959) calls for legal protection for 
     children before birth as well as after birth. In keeping 
     with this obligation, the United States does not consider 
     abortion an acceptable element of family planning programs 
     and will no longer contribute to those of which it is a 
     part. Accordingly, when dealing with nations which support 
     abortion with funds not provided by the United States 
     Government, the United States will contribute to such 
     nations through segregated accounts which cannot be used 
     for abortion. Moreover, the United States will no longer 
     contribute to separate non-governmental organizations 
     which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of 
     family planning in other nations. With regard to the 
     United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the 
     U.S. will insist that no part of its contribution be used 
     for abortion. The U.S. will also call for concrete 
     assurances that the UNFPA is not engaged in, or does not 
     provide funding for, abortion or coercive family planning 
     programs; if such assurances are not forthcoming, the U.S. 
     will redirect the amount of its contribution to other, 
     non-UNFPA family planning programs.
       In addition, when efforts to lower population growth are 
     deemed advisable, U.S. policy considers it imperative that 
     such efforts respect the religious beliefs and culture of 
     each society, and the right of couples to determine the size 
     of their own families. Accordingly, the U.S. will not provide 
     family planning funds to any nation which engages in forcible 
     coercion to achieve population growth objectives.
       U.S. Government authorities will immediately begin 
     negotiations to implement the above policies with the 
     appropriate governments and organizations.
       It is time to put additional emphasis upon those root 
     problems which frequently exacerbate population pressures, 
     but which have too often been given scant attention. By 
     focusing upon real remedies for underdeveloped economies, the 
     International Conference on Population can reduce demographic 
     issues to their proper place. It is an important place, but 
     not the controlling one. It requires our continuing attention 
     within the broader context of economic growth and of the 
     economic freedom that is its prerequisite.


             population, development, and economic policies

       Conservative projections indicate that, in the sixty years 
     from 1950 to 2010, many Third World countries will experience 
     four, five or even sixfold increases in the size of their 
     populations. Even under the assumption of gradual declines 
     in birth rates, the unusually high proportion of youth in 
     the Third World means that the annual population growth in 
     many of these countries will continue to increase for the 
     next several decades.
       Sound economic policies and a market economy are of 
     fundamental importance to the process of economic 
     development. Rising standards of living contributed in a 
     major way to the demographic transition from high to low 
     rates of population growth which occurred in the U.S. and 
     other industrialized countries over the last century.
       The current situation of many developing countries, 
     however, differs in certain ways from conditions in 19th 
     century Europe and the U.S. The rates and dimensions of 
     population growth are much higher now, the pressures on land, 
     water, and resources are greater, the safety-valve of 
     migration is more restricted, and, perhaps most important, 
     time is not on their side because of the momentum of 
     demographic change.
       Rapid population growth compounds already serious problems 
     faced by both public and private sectors in accommodating 
     changing social and economic demands. It diverts resources 
     from needed investment, and increases the costs and 
     difficulties of economic development. Slowing population 
     growth is not a panacea for the problems of social and 
     economic development. It is not offered as a substitute for 
     sound and comprehensive development policies. Without other 
     development efforts and sound economic policies which 
     encourage a vital private sector, it cannot solve problems of 
     hunger, unemployment, crowding or social disorder.
       Population assistance is an ingredient of a comprehensive 
     program that focuses on the root causes of development 
     failures. The U.S. program as a whole, including population 
     assistance, lays the basis for well grounded, step-by-step 
     initiatives to improve the well-being of people in developing 
     countries and to make their own efforts, particularly through 
     expanded private sector initiatives, a key building block of 
     development programs.
       Fortunately, a broad international consensus has emerged 
     since the 1974 Bucharest World Population Conference that 
     economic development and population policies are mutually 
     reinforcing.
       By helping developing countries slow their population 
     growth through support for effective voluntary family 
     planning programs, in conjunction with sound economic 
     policies, U.S. population assistance contributes to 
     stronger saving and investment rates, speeds the 
     development of effective markets and related employment 
     opportunities, reduces the potential resource requirements 
     of programs to improve the health and education of the 
     people, and hastens the achievement of each country's 
     graduation from the need for external assistance.
       The United States will continue its longstanding commitment 
     to development assistance, of which population programs are a 
     part. We recognize the importance of providing our assistance 
     within the cultural, economic and political context of the 
     countries we are assisting, and in keeping with our own 
     values.


                    health and humanitarian concerns

       Perhaps the most poignant consequence of rapid population 
     growth is its effect on the health of mothers and children. 
     Especially in poor countries, the health and nutrition status 
     of women and children is linked to family size. Maternal and 
     infant mortality rises with the number of births and with 
     births too closely spaced. In countries as different as 
     Turkey, Peru, and Nepal, a child born less than two years 
     after its sibling is twice as likely to die before it reaches 
     the age of five, than if there were an interval of at least 
     four years between the births. Complications of pregnancy are 
     more frequent among women who are very young or near the end 
     of their reproductive years. In societies with widespread 
     malnutrition and inadequate health conditions, these problems 
     are reinforced; numerous and closely spaced births lead to 
     even greater malnutrition of mothers and infants.
       It is an unfortunate reality that in many countries, 
     abortion is used as a means of terminating unwanted 
     pregnancies. This is unnecessary and repugnant; voluntary 
     family assistance programs can provide a humane alternative 
     to abortion for couples who wish to regulate the size of 
     their family, and evidence from some developing countries 
     indicates a decline in abortion as such services become 
     available.
       The basic objective of all U.S. assistance, including 
     population programs, is the betterment of the human 
     condition--improving the quality of life of mothers and 
     children, of families, and of communities for generations to 
     come. For we recognize that people are the ultimate 
     resource--but this means happy and healthy children, growing 
     up with education, finding productive work as young 
     adults, and able to develop their full mental and physical 
     potential.
       U.S. aid is designed to promote economic progress in 
     developing countries through encouraging sound economic 
     policies and freeing of individual initiative. Thus, the U.S. 
     supports a broad range of activities in various sectors, 
     including agriculture, private enterprise, science and 
     technology, health, population, and education. Population 
     assistance amounts to about ten percent of total development 
     assistance.


                   Technology as a Key to Development

       The transfer, adaptation, and improvement of modern know-
     how is central to U.S. development assistance. People with 
     greater know-how are people better able to improve their 
     lives. Population assistance ensures that a wide range of 
     modern demographic technology is made available to developing 
     countries and that technological improvements critical for 
     successful development receive support.
       The efficient collection, processing, and analysis of data 
     derived from census, survey, and vital statistics programs 
     contributes to better planning in both the public and private 
     sectors.


                        The U.S. at Mexico City

       In conjunction with the above statements of policy, the 
     following principles should be drawn upon to guide the U.S. 
     delegation at the International Conference on Population:
       No. 1. Respect for human life is basic, and any attempt to 
     use abortion, involuntary sterilization, or other coercive 
     measures in family planning must be rejected.
       No. 2. Population policies and programs should be fully 
     integrated into, and reinforce, appropriate, market-oriented 
     development policies; their objective should be clearly seen 
     as an improvement in the human condition, and not merely an 
     exercise in limiting births.
       No. 3. Access to family education and services needs to be 
     broadened, especially in the context of maternal/child health 
     programs, in order to enable couples to exercise responsible 
     parenthood. Consistent with values and customs, the U.S. 
     favors offering couples a variety of medically approved 
     methods.
       No. 4. Though population factors merit serious 
     consideration in development strategy, they are not a 
     substitute for sound economic

[[Page S1438]]

     policies which liberate individual initiative through the 
     market mechanism.
       No. 5. There should be higher international priority for 
     biomedical research into safer and better methods of 
     fertility regulation, especially natural family planning, and 
     for operations research into more effective service delivery 
     and program management.
       No. 6. Issues of migration should be handled in ways 
     consistent with both human rights and national sovereignty.
       No. 7. The U.S., in cooperation with other concerned 
     countries, should resist intrusion of polemical or non-
     germane issues into Conference deliberations.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, 2 days after his 1993 swearing-in 
ceremony, President Clinton submitted an Executive order repealing the 
Mexico City policy. This repeal now allows American taxpayer funds to 
be given to the United Nations planning agency in support of coercive 
abortions and involuntary sterilization, commonly practiced in places 
like China, a position which is completely contrary to the desires of 
the American people.
  I sincerely consider these practices of involuntary sterilization and 
coercive abortion to be well outside the boundaries of what can be 
legitimately called family planning.
  Most organizations agreed to the terms of the Mexico City policy, 
even giving up their pro-abortion activities in some cases, in order to 
receive U.S. funds. It did not decrease by even 1 penny the amount of 
funding for international population control assistance programs. 
Rather, it ensured that family planning dollars were sent to 
organizations which neither promoted nor performed abortion as a method 
of family planning.
  Furthermore, since 1973, when Congress passed the Helms amendment to 
the Foreign Assistance Act, Federal law has prohibited direct payment 
of most abortion procedures with U.S. foreign aid funds. The Helms 
language was also included in the annual foreign operations 
appropriations bill last year.
  For most of the years it has been in effect, the Helms amendment has 
not been challenged either in the Foreign Assistance Act or in the 
foreign operations appropriations bill. However, since President 
Clinton has been in office, he has continually sought to repeal the 
Helms amendment ban on foreign abortion funding, thereby subverting the 
will of the vast majority of Americans.
  The American people overwhelmingly oppose the use of taxpayer funds 
to perform or promote abortion. And at one time, I might add, so did 
President Clinton. On September 26, 1986, then Governor Clinton wrote 
the following letter to the Arkansas Right to Life:

       I am opposed to abortion and to Government funding of 
     abortions. We should not spend State funds on abortions 
     because so many people believe abortion is wrong.

  And the logic of the President, then Governor Clinton, was exactly 
right. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to the Arkansas Right to 
Life dated September 26, 1986 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           Arkansas Right to Life,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                              Little Rock, AR, September 26, 1986.
     Earlene Windsor,
     Arkansas Right to Life,
     Little Rock, AR.
       Dear Mrs. Windsor: Thank you for giving me the opportunity 
     to respond to the Arkansas Right to Life Questionnaire. 
     However, most of the questions address federal issues outside 
     the authority of a governor or the state.
       Because many of the questions do concern the issue of 
     abortion, I would like for your members to be informed of my 
     position on the state's responsibility in that area. I am 
     opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. 
     We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many 
     people believe abortion is wrong. I do support the concept of 
     the proposed Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 65 and agree 
     with its stated purpose. As I have said, I am concerned that 
     some questions about the amendment's impact appear to remain 
     unanswered.
       Again, thank you for allowing me to share my position on 
     this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, because of the concerns of the Clinton 
administration's population assistance policy, this Congress added 
language that requires any amount that the United Nations population 
fund spends on family planning programs in China be deducted from its 
total United States appropriation.
  Communist China has one of the worst human rights records in the 
world, promoting forced abortions and sterilizations to limit births. 
It is a country which has little regard for human life and, in 
particular, the lives of little baby girls. Press reports are filled 
with accounts of beautiful female children who are abandoned by their 
families because under China's one-child-per-family rule, male children 
are considered more desirable. This policy is and should be offensive 
to all civilized people.
  If the administration's resolution is passed by the Senate tomorrow, 
the American taxpayer will become an unwilling participant in China's 
outrageous practices because some of the $25 million designated for 
United Nations population fund will go to China.
  Without the Mexico City policy, the United States will be giving 
money to such countries and organizations which blatantly promote and 
support pro-abortion policies and procedures. This should be 
unacceptable to all of us.
  While I believe the United States can provide meaningful assistance 
to countries attempting to control their population growth, I adamantly 
oppose American taxpayer funding for abortion both home and abroad.
  While I will continue to support continued U.S. population assistance 
programs, I also believe that the United States should encourage the 
development of market economies which improve the standard of living 
for growing populations.
  This resolution came about because of the Clinton administration's 
refusal to accept pro-life language preventing AID grantees from using 
foreign aid dollars to promote abortion.
  Mr. President, please remember at the end of the last Congress, White 
House negotiator and former Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, adamantly 
rejected a proposal which would have allowed AID to spend as much as 
$713 million for international family planning by the end of the fiscal 
year. This takes into account $303 million carried over from fiscal 
year 1996.
  The proposal provided $385 million for population control programs, 
in addition to $25 million for the U.N. Family Planning Agency. If an 
organization did not agree to the terms of the Mexico City policy, it 
would only receive up to 50 percent of the population funds it received 
in fiscal year 1995. All the fiscal year 1997 funds would be available 
in fiscal year 1997.
  The administration rejected this proposal because of the nominal pro-
life conditions on the fiscal year 1997 funds. Even without the other 
evidence of the Clinton administration's abortion activities, this 
stand by the administration is a clear admission that family planning 
funds are used to establish, sustain, and build up abortion providers 
and pro-abortion lobbying in developing countries, and the ability of 
AID grantees to perform and promote abortion in developing countries is 
the real priority of the administration.
  It is obvious that this battle will be renewed each year on the 
foreign operations appropriations bill until the pro-life position 
prevails, as it has ultimately prevailed on the Hyde amendment, the ban 
on Federal employees health benefits coverage of abortions, the 
prohibition on abortions in military hospitals, and all other pro-life 
amendments which became law over the President's opposition.
  I cannot stand here today and believe the Clinton administration's 
claim that it wants to reduce the number of abortions when United 
States dollars are given to organizations which actually perform 
abortions and which lobby to legalize abortions in countries like Latin 
America, Africa, and other regions of the world which recognize the 
humanity and the value of the lives of unborn children.
  The Clinton administration continues to emphasize that no U.S. 
funding goes directly to abortion practices. However U.S. funding is 
allocated to organizations like International Planned Parenthood 
Federation, which receives $70 million from the United States. The IPPF 
makes no secret of their pro-abortion commitment, which is apparent in 
their ``Vision 2000 Strategic Plan.''
  With millions of U.S. dollars each year providing funding for the 
IPPF's lobbying campaigns, overhead, and utilities, how can we then say 
that

[[Page S1439]]

American taxpayer dollars are not being used to fund abortions? I 
believe they certainly obviously are.
   Mr. President, we must end this practice of the IPPF and similar 
groups exploiting the hard-earned dollars of every taxpaying citizen 
across this great Nation.
  The will of the American people is being subverted by this policy. 
Americans do not want Federal tax dollars being used for abortions. 
This applies to our foreign aid policies as well as our domestic 
agenda.
   Mr. President, I will leave you today with a quote from Mother 
Teresa of Calcutta. Mother Teresa made this comment on February 3, 
1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast. Many of us were in attendance 
that day. I was there and so was the President. I believe that this 
statement speaks volumes. She said:

       But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is 
     abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct 
     killing of the innocent child.

  The issues in this debate are not just family planning, whether 
millions of pro-life American taxpayers will be required to help foot 
the bill for a practice they find morally reprehensible; but also 
ceding control of taxpayer dollars to foreign governments over which we 
have no control. I believe that is unacceptable. I think it is wrong to 
ask pro-life American taxpayers to foot the bill for that which they 
find morally offensive and morally wrong. I yield the floor.

  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is 
on the floor. How much time does he wish?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Eight minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise today in support of House Joint Res. 36 to uphold a 
Presidential finding regarding the provision of international family 
planning assistance.
  I thank the senior Senator from Vermont for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Let me just briefly clarify a point with regard to the remarks of the 
junior Senator from Arkansas, who indicated his belief that this 
resolution would impact the UNFPA program. My understanding is that the 
resolution is not related to that program at all, that the resolution 
in question today has to do with USAID funds. If there is any error in 
that regard, I would be happy to be corrected, but my understanding is 
that what we are dealing with here is USAID money. So the arguments 
concerning funding for UNFPA do not relate to the topic we are 
discussing today.
  Mr. President, by voting to uphold this resolution, the Senate will 
express agreement with the President that further delays in the 
disbursement of funds in the population account will cause undue 
hardship for the organizations that carry out U.S. international 
population programs. In fact, President Clinton has said that ``a delay 
will cause serious, irreversible and unavoidable harm'' to these 
programs.
  U.S. assistance to voluntary family planning supports a broad array 
of products and services for maternal and child health--including 
family planning education, clinical services, and birth control. These 
programs have proved enormously effective--not only in improving the 
health of hundreds of thousands of women and children, but also in 
reducing the pressures that rapid population growth places on food and 
water, on housing and education, and on forests and trees in developing 
countries.
  Perhaps most importantly, studies indicate that international family 
planning programs can have a tremendous impact on limiting the number 
of unintended pregnancies throughout the world, which--ultimately--
greatly decreases the perceived need or demand for abortions.
  Now let me reiterate this point, because it is extremely important. 
This vote actually will have the effect of limiting the number of 
abortions conducted worldwide.
  This vote also is a referendum on how the Senate views family 
planning. Does the Senate support the provision of family planning 
services to women and men in the developing world, or does it not?
  I know that several Senators will speak today about the awful 
consequences that will result if we fail to uphold the Presidential 
certification. Each one of us will highlight some area of the world, or 
the provision of some service, that will suffer from a further delay in 
the disbursement of these funds.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Africa Subcommittee, I would like to 
focus on Africa, where the United States international family planning 
program has made a tremendous impact.
  In fiscal year 1996, United States population assistance funds were 
distributed in 21 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with a combined 
population of 426 million people. These countries are overwhelmingly 
poor, yet have among the highest fertility rates in the world.
  The United States population assistance program is one of the most 
important things that the United States Agency for International 
Development does in Africa.

  As elsewhere, USAID supports a comprehensive program of voluntary 
family planning and closely related health efforts in several sub-
Saharan African countries. It has trained hundreds of nurses and 
midwives in Uganda. In Mozambique, a country whose entire 
infrastructure was destroyed by 17 years of civil war, USAID helps 
deliver family planning and maternal-child health services in four 
provinces with a combined population of more than 6 million people. And 
it contributes to the distribution of modern contraceptive products in 
Zimbabwe, where 42 percent of women are now demanding such products.
  Now what will happen if the resolution that we will vote on tomorrow 
fails?
  First, many of the nongovernmental organizations that currently 
administer these programs will be forced to close key activities. To 
give a compelling example, CARE, an NGO that has 50 years of experience 
helping poor families, already is considering shutting down its family 
planning program in Uganda because of the funding restrictions imposed 
by the United States Congress. After investing some $2 million of USAID 
funds in this program over 4 years, CARE has trained more than 1,000 
community-based health workers, launched family planning services in 71 
clinics, and increased the percentage of couples using contraception in 
the program target area from 1 percent to 10 percent.
  If this resolution fails tomorrow, CARE's network of trained 
volunteers will no longer be able to serve their communities to educate 
women and men about family planning and other health care.
  Second, even those programs that do not close their doors will be 
negatively affected if we delay our support. The distribution of key 
family planning and health products will be seriously disrupted.
  In Lusaka, the capital of Zambia and a city with one of the highest 
rates of HIV infection, condom distribution would have to be reduced 
significantly, greatly increasing the chances of a rapid spread of the 
HIV virus.
  In Kenya, USAID-funded programs that have spent years teaching women 
about health and family planning, and have helped create a demand for 
contraceptive services, may no longer be able to offer birth control 
pills or other products to the men and women who now depend on them.
  A third consequence of a negative vote tomorrow is that information 
campaigns on family planning and maternal and child health will also be 
cut back dramatically. These campaigns have been successful at reaching 
millions of couples worldwide, helping to educate them about birth 
spacing, natural family planning and other family planning methods.
  Finally, as one Member of the Senate who is careful about how and 
where we spend U.S. taxpayer money, I am concerned that a negative vote 
today will waste thousands--if not millions--of dollars in unnecessary 
administrative costs that will be incurred if the disbursement of funds 
for the international family planning program is delayed any further.
  AVSC International, the second largest-funded agency that works in 
partnership with USAID on international

[[Page S1440]]

family planning, estimates that because of previous congressional 
restrictions and metering, it already has spent $2 million in staff 
time and associated administrative costs in order to manage the impact 
of delayed funding. What this means, according to an AVSC report, is 
that ``for every dollar intended to provide access to these services 
last year, a smaller quantity of services was actually provided.''
  I find this type of expense, which wastes valuable taxpayer dollars, 
absolutely unconscionable.
  If the Senate fails to uphold the Presidential finding, more and more 
organizations will be faced with similar, equally ridiculous costs.
  In other words, Mr. President, a further delay in the disbursement of 
these funds would be inefficient.
  It would be disruptive.
  And it would be costly.
  Opponents of House Joint Resolution 36 will have you believe that 
U.S. tax dollars are used to pay for abortion, even though they are 
well aware that such a practice has been illegal for more than two 
decades.
  Mr. President, this vote, as we always have to point out on this 
issue but it bears constant repetition, this vote is not about 
abortion. It is about whether the United States will continue to 
support efforts to educate both men and women about modern methods of 
birth control, about the importance for health and financial well-being 
of spacing one's children, and about obtaining adequate pre- and post-
natal care.
  Mr. President, it frankly boggles the mind that these logical, 
commonsense activities, which promote sensible family planning in order 
to prevent or delay pregnancies until they are wanted, can be thought 
of as promoting abortion. These funds help prevent pregnancies, not end 
them. Without these funds, abortion rates will undoubtedly increase.
  This vote is about helping empower individuals to make the most basic 
and personal decisions a person can make. It is about helping empower 
individuals to make choices about how many children to bring into this 
world and when to have them. It is about helping empower individuals to 
safely prevent pregnancy, and when they choose to give birth, to 
deliver and care for their children to maximize health. This is an 
issue of fundamental freedom. Our support of these programs represents 
a longstanding commitment from which our Nation, founded on the 
principles of liberty and democracy, must not back away.
  Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues who care about women and 
their children, who care about health and the eradication of disease, 
who care about access to food and water, who care about the environment 
and the effect of global warming, who care about Africa or Latin 
America or Asia, who care about responsible spending, or who care about 
preventing the demand for abortion, I urge all of my colleagues to 
uphold the Presidential determination and to vote in favor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. President, I thank not only the Senator from Vermont but my 
colleagues who gave me the courtesy of letting me speak at this point. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We are going to go from side to side, Mr. President.
  Mr. LEAHY. If you would like.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have sort of an informal agreement 
here to rotate sides. Senator Helms is here and would like to speak on 
my side of this issue. I would like to yield him 8 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. That will be fine, or less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the 
distinguished managers of the bill.
  Mr. President, I am grateful to the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas Mr. [Hutchinson], for offering S. 337, which is the bill to 
restrict U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform or 
actively promote abortion. I am an original cosponsor of that bill. I 
believe it is safe to assume it will receive careful consideration in 
the Foreign Relations Committee.
  Mr. President, if S. 337 were law, Congress would not be tied in the 
existing knot regarding international population control funding that 
now exists.
  With regard to the pending business, I was astonished to learn that 
there were 21 mentions of the so-called Helms amendment during the 
February 13 House debate on House Joint Resolution 36. The references 
to the Helms amendment were prompted by the purpose of my resolution, 
which prohibits using foreign aid funds for performing abortions as a 
method of family planning.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of section 104(f) of 
the Foreign Assistance Act, known as the Helms amendment, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Sec. 104--Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195)

       (f) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Abortions and 
     Involuntary Sterilizations.--(1) None of the funds made 
     available to carry out this part may be used to pay for the 
     performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to 
     motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, since the Helms amendment, so-called, is 
referenced in the administration's talking points, it may be that 
Senators will be referring to it from time to time in this debate, and 
therefore I feel obliged as the author of the Foreign Assistance Act to 
offer a few comments about what section 104(f) does and what it does 
not do.
  The Helms amendment has been permanent law since 1973, the year after 
I came to the Senate. It is a narrow restriction on how funds provided 
by the American taxpayers can be used. It is not a restriction on the 
actions of private groups--for example, International Planned 
Parenthood Federation--that receive funding provided by the taxpayers 
of this country.
  A group may use Federal funds for administrative expenses, 
distributions of condoms, or to pay for, if you can believe it, family 
planning radio soap operas and gender analysis tool kits, whatever they 
are. Simultaneously, funds available to these same groups from other 
sources can and often do pay for abortion or pro-abortion lobbying 
efforts. It goes without saying when the U.S. Government pays for 
administrative and other expenses of these groups, funds from other 
sources are freed up for activities that otherwise would be a violation 
of U.S. law.
  Which is precisely why the Reagan administration came up with the 
Mexico City policy--so that funds provided by the American taxpayers 
would not be misused to underwrite, directly or indirectly, the pro-
abortion dogma of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and 
other similar pro-abortion foreign organizations. President Clinton, 
who agrees with the pro-abortion doctrine, reversed President Reagan's 
Mexico City policy and other pro-life protections on the second day 
that Mr. Clinton was in office back in 1993.
  So the administration has, therefore, once again masterfully 
obfuscated the real issue, which is, does the 105th Congress today 
agree with underwriting, directly or indirectly, organizations that 
make a callous business out of performing abortions and browbeating 
those poor Third World governments into reviewing and reversing their 
long-held beliefs and pro-life laws.
  I cannot condone what these organizations set out to do and I refuse 
to be a part of a scheme leading to the deliberate destruction of the 
lives of the most innocent and most helpless human beings imaginable, 
and those are unborn babies.
  I will vote against the pending resolution, because, as my father so 
often told me many years ago, he said ``Son, you become a part of what 
you condone,'' and I cannot condone this.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished senior Senator 
from Maine wishes to speak, and I yield to her such time as she may 
require.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, I rise in strong 
support of this resolution to expedite the release of already 
appropriated funds for international family planning. This resolution 
essentially reaffirms the President's certification that

[[Page S1441]]

the delaying of these funds which were appropriated last year will 
cause serious and irreparable harm to family planning programs around 
the world.

  The life and health of women and children should transcend politics 
and party lines. The United States has traditionally been a leader in 
family planning assistance around the world for more than 30 years. It 
has enjoyed strong bipartisan support for such leadership. It has had 
unrivaled influence worldwide in setting standards for these programs.
  These family planning assistance programs fund voluntary family 
planning services, contraceptive research, maternal health programs and 
child health programs. An estimated 50 million families in over 60 
developing countries, with a combined population of 2.7 billion people 
across the world, use family planning as a direct result of U.S. 
population assistance programs.
  There is no question that our support and our assistance over the 
last 30 years in developing countries has been enormously successful. 
The average family size in countries that receive our assistance has 
decreased from six children to three children. The Agency for 
International Development has increased the use of contraceptives in 
developing countries from 10 percent of married couples in the 1970's 
to 50 to 60 percent today.
  Yet, there is still a great need for additional family planning 
assistance. In developing countries, maternal mortality is the single 
leading killer of women in their reproductive years, with 600,000 women 
dying annually from pregnancy-related complications. Family planning 
could reduce the deaths by one-fifth. It is estimated one out of five 
infant deaths could be averted if all children were spaced at an 
interval of at least 2 years.
  Unfortunately, the passage of the omnibus appropriations bill last 
year came at a heavy price for U.S. family planning assistance 
programs. As we all know, fiscal year 1997 funds cannot be spent until 
July 1, and at only 70 percent of the 1995 level, and on a monthly 
basis of 8 percent over the next 12\1/2\ months.
  As a result, family planning assistance by our Government will be 
reduced from $547 million in 1995 to only $385 million during 1997. 
This translates into a 30 to 35 percent cut of $162 million. If we 
delay the funding for these programs until July 1, we are talking about 
delay in funding of another $123 million.
  We agreed to these cuts and restrictions only because we wanted to 
avoid a Government shutdown given that there was a difference between 
the House and the Senate on this issue. The Senate rightfully took the 
position that we should fund these programs without the Mexico City 
language. But in order to protect these programs, we inserted language 
requiring a vote on the President's certification that is before us 
today.
  I can assure Members that the failure to release these funds now will 
have a devastating impact on women, children, and families all over the 
globe, and particularly in developing countries. Countless programs 
have already been suspended or halted, as mentioned by the Senator from 
Wisconsin, and if the funds are released in July rather than now, 
dozens of programs may be forced to permanently close their doors, 
including programs in Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, the Philippines, and 
elsewhere. These programs are critical in preventing unplanned 
pregnancies, reducing infant mortality, reducing rates of HIV 
infection, and promoting maternal and child health.
  So there is no question, as the President has indicated, there will 
be irreparable harm to these programs. More than that, the Alan 
Guttmacher Institute and other research institutions predict as a 
result of just the funding cuts alone, not even the delay in funding, 
but just in the funding cuts alone, 7 million couples in developing 
countries who would have used modern contraceptives will be left 
without access to family planning. Four million more women will 
experience unintended pregnancies.
  Now, according to the World Health Organization, 40 percent of 
unintended pregnancies result in abortions. So we can expect 1.6 
million more abortions and countless miscarriages; 1.9 million more 
unplanned births, often to families, as we know, living in terrible 
poverty conditions and who cannot afford another child; 8,000 more 
women dying in pregnancy and childbirth, and 134,000 infant deaths. 
These figures relate to the funding cuts alone. They do not even take 
into account the effect of the metering out, on a monthly basis for 
12\1/2\ months, of this funding, or, most importantly, the significant 
delay in funding.

  Make no mistake about it, a vote against this resolution is a vote 
for more abortions, more women dying, more children dying. That is what 
I think is inconceivable in this debate--that those individuals who are 
against abortion are also against family planning. That is the bottom 
line in this debate. I have been debating this issue since 1985. Time 
and time again there hasn't been one single shred of evidence to 
suggest that U.S. population assistance funding is going for abortions 
or abortion-related activities in other countries.
  Senator Leahy was absolutely correct when he discussed the 
implications of the fungibility argument if applied to our assistance 
to foreign governments. We give assistance to foreign governments who 
allow abortions in their countries, according to their laws. We don't 
impose the requirement that if they use their money for abortion-
related activities, we will not provide them foreign assistance. But 
this is a standard we are using for private organizations who have been 
instrumental in reducing the incidence of abortion worldwide. That 
should be of interest to all of us, given the enormous implications of 
population growth in the future.
  So I suggest that some are trying to bury their heads in the sand, 
taking an ostrich-like approach to this entire issue, to suggest that 
somehow if we don't provide family planning assistance, we will have 
fewer abortions in the world. The statistics do not bear that out.
  I hope that the Senate will overwhelmingly support this resolution, 
because I think that there is no question that it is in America's 
interest and it is in the world's interest. The United States has 
traditionally taken a leadership role for more than 30 years on 
international family planning. In fact, the first Presidential message 
was issued by a Republican President, President Nixon, back in 1969, 
saying that population growth was a world problem. America has always 
shown an inclination for humanitarianism through population assistance 
funding. We should be predisposed to doing the same thing in this body 
here today. To do less will impose serious hardship on women and 
children in developing countries. We know the strain it is going to 
impose. We know there will be millions fewer couples who have access to 
family planning assistance because we are undercutting our support. If 
we undercut our support, I can assure you that other countries will 
follow suit and it will affect an already fragile international family 
planning system program worldwide.
  When you think about the future, we should be concerned because it 
will provide an enormous strain on economic and social stability all 
around the world. In the next decade, the number of women of 
reproductive age will increase from 185 million to 900 million women. 
That is 10 times the size of Mexico. So I know there will be grave 
consequences of this incremental decrease in U.S. support for 
international family planning year after year. How can we incrementally 
undercut our family planning assistance to those organizations who have 
been the most effective, the most instrumental in preventing unplanned 
pregnancies and improving maternal and child health?
  I can assure you of one other point: Not one dime has been spent--and 
it bears repeating here today, and let there be no misunderstanding--
there has not been one U.S. dollar that supports abortion or abortion-
related activities in other countries. We have had that prohibition in 
law since 1973. The fact of the matter is, those funds are maintained 
separately, and there is monitoring and independent reviews on an 
annual basis. That is why I believe that former Senator Mark Hatfield, 
who was a pro-life Senator for many years in the U.S. Senate, wrote a 
letter to a colleague in the House of Representatives, saying that 
there is no evidence to suggest that our funding has ever gone for 
abortion or abortion-

[[Page S1442]]

related activities in other countries through our family planning 
assistance programs. In fact, he goes on to say that we are 
contributing to the increase in abortions worldwide by our failure to 
provide this assistance.

  So I hope, Mr. President, for these and many other reasons I have 
highlighted, that my colleagues will support this resolution. It is in 
our interest and in the world's interest. As the Senate votes tomorrow 
on this resolution, I hope that these facts will not be forgotten.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to commend the senior Senator from 
Maine for her statement. It demonstrates, as we have said before, that 
this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of good sense. Whether 
people believe that abortion should be legal or whether people believe 
there should not be abortion, it makes no difference. We should be 
trying to join together in this to avoid all abortion. If you have 
family planning, that, to me, is a far greater alternative than using 
abortion as family planning.
  As we also showed in this, in Russia, where just increasing our 
foreign aid over a relatively short period of time and increasing the 
availability of contraceptives by about 5 percent, that cut out 800,000 
abortions. I mean, the fact of the matter is, if we hold the money back 
for family planning, abortions go up. If we release the money for 
family planning, abortions go down. Holding back the money, just 
because it may make some feel like they are being a purist on the 
abortion issue, flies in the face of reality. It is rhetoric over 
reality. The reality is, spend money for family planning and you reduce 
abortions.
  I see the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts. I yield to 
him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know there are others who want to speak 
on the resolution. But at the outset of this discussion, I want to pay 
tribute to Senator Leahy and Senator Snowe for their bipartisan 
leadership on this issue. I think that working together bodes well not 
only for this issue but for other matters that will come before the 
Senate. I congratulate them for their leadership on this important 
resolution, which affects millions of families around the world--people 
whose names we will never know, as they will not know ours. 
Nonetheless, with the release of these resources, which we expect as a 
result of this vote, lives will be enhanced.
  I just want to again underline what Senator Leahy and Senator Snowe 
mentioned about what this bill is and is not. This is not legislation 
to promote abortion. They have laid out very clearly that this is about 
providing resources that will be used to support family planning and 
avoid unwanted pregnancies and subsequent abortions. That case has been 
made by Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, and our former colleague Senator 
Mark Hatfield, who is a strong opponent of abortion. Senator Hatfield 
rejected the argument that family planning is a back-door means of 
supporting abortion services. He reviewed the alleged evidence that 
family planning funds were being used to provide abortions and, in a 
letter to Representative Chris Smith, said, ``I do not see anything in 
these materials to back up your assertion that U.S. funds are being 
spent on abortion.''
  This is not only the understanding of those of us here today but also 
the clear understanding of the President. I think those that support 
this action have been justified in challenging those that are opposed 
to it to produce information or evidence to the contrary.
  As President Clinton has said very clearly, ``The United States 
provides family planning support where it is wanted and needed. We are 
prohibited from law from ever funding abortion--and we abide faithfully 
by that law. Indeed, the work we have funded in developing countries 
has been supportive of families, helping them to flourish.''
  One of the extraordinary examples of this work is the lifesaving 
efforts of CARE. In many different parts of the world I have had the 
opportunity to see the extraordinary work of many nongovernmental 
organizations, and I have enormous respect for the dedication of the 
men and women who are so selfless in volunteering for these 
organizations.
  All we have to do is read the newspapers of the past weeks and months 
to recognize the enormous threat to their lives. Red Cross and other 
NGO workers in Chechnya, Uganda, Rwanda, and other parts of the world 
have actually lost their lives because of their work.
  CARE, long respected for its efforts to meet the basic health needs 
of poor families around the world, has used U.S. funds to enhance the 
lives of large numbers of women and children.
  In Uganda, over the last 4 years, CARE has trained over 1,000 
community-based health workers, launched family planning services in 71 
clinics, and increased the number of couples using contraception from 1 
percent to 10 percent. But, that project in Uganda--as well as projects 
in Bangladesh, Niger, and Togo--will be shut down if these United 
States funds are not forthcoming.
  That is the story all across the Third World. Without U.S. aid, 
millions of people would not have access to gynecological examinations, 
postnatal care, and family planning services. The funds appropriated by 
Congress decrease the instances of female genital mutilation and 
prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV and 
AIDS.
  So, for all of these reasons, Mr. President, this is an extremely 
important vote. It is really about children, and it is about struggling 
families in foreign and distant parts of the world that are trying to 
take care of their families and ensure a future with a greater sense of 
hope and health. It is really about life--not about other factors. That 
is the underlying purpose of this bill. That is what the record has 
demonstrated.
  That is why I think this vote is so important, and why I commend the 
Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Maine for their leadership.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator from Vermont is on the floor. 
How much time does he need?
  I yield 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                         PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William 
Jackson of my staff be granted privilege of the floor for the duration 
of the consideration of the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 36, which would approve the President's finding that the 
congressionally imposed delay in disbursement of international 
population funding is having a negative impact on the effectiveness of 
our population planning programs overseas.
  I have been a strong supporter of international family planning 
assistance and see this measure now before us as an important test of 
our Government's commitment to these important, lifesaving programs.
  Claims that this resolution somehow promotes abortion are completely 
unfounded. This resolution is about the health of women and children in 
the desperately poor corners of the world, and, if anything, it is 
about preventing abortion.
  At issue here is whether to begin releasing funds March 1, or delay 
the disbursement for another 4 months, until July 1. The 1997 fiscal 
year began October 1, but under the terms of the fiscal year 1997 
Omnibus Appropriations Act, funding for this particular program was 
delayed for 9 months. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, a total 
of $385 million will be spent on bilateral family planning programs. In 
other words, we are not debating if these funds will be spent, but when 
they will begin to be released--July 1 or March 1.
  I would like to point out that an additional 4-month delay in funding 
would result in an actual reduction of $123 million in funds available 
for programming during fiscal year 1997. The President's finding states 
that at least 17 bilateral and worldwide programs will have urgent 
funding needs in the March-June period which cannot be met by remaining 
fiscal year 1996 funds. If fiscal year 1997 funds are withheld until 
July 1, these programs would need to suspend, defer, or terminate 
family planning services and other critical supporting activities.

[[Page S1443]]

  The continued disruption and possible termination of family planning 
services would have a devastating impact on the health of women, 
children, and their families in many parts of the world. Medical 
research shows that women who are able to space their children in at 
least 2-year intervals have children that are less likely to die at a 
very early age. Children born less than 2 years apart are more likely 
to have a low birth weight, making them more vulnerable to disease and 
illness. Moreover, births too close together affect older children in 
the family as well. Infection, malnutrition, and dehydration result 
from premature discontinuation of breast-feeding. The inadequate 
nutrition, sanitation, and crowded living conditions often found in 
poor countries, increase the likelihood that already vulnerable 
children will succumb to illness. For the health of their families, 
women in these circumstances turn to family planning services, when 
they can get them.
  UNICEF estimates that each year 600,000 women die of pregnancy-
related causes, and 75,000 of these deaths are the result of self-
induced, unsafe abortion. UNICEF also estimates that these women leave 
behind at least 1 million motherless children. In short, to continue to 
obstruct and delay family planning assistance is to contribute to the 
deaths of women and young children. Why would we delay the release of 
funds until July 1 when we could prevent more needless, tragic deaths 
by releasing funds March 1?
  Mr. President, no Senator in this body wants to promote policies that 
increase the incidence of abortion overseas. But by continuing to delay 
funding to clinics in the poorest countries in the world, that's 
exactly what we are doing--shutting off women from the only possibility 
they have of obtaining family planning services and contraception and 
forcing them to consider abortion as a last, desperate option.
  Very simply, to vote against this resolution is to vote against the 
health of women and children, and to force more women to have 
abortions. I do not believe this is the true intention of the Senate 
and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in support of House Joint 
Resolution 36.
  This is a vote solely to determine whether funds already appropriated 
for fiscal year 1997 will be released 5 months late or 9 months late.
  Currently at least one woman dies every minute from causes related to 
pregnancy and childbirth. In developing countries, maternal mortality 
is the leading cause of death for women in reproductive age. The World 
Bank estimates a 20-percent reduction in maternal death would result 
from improved access to family planning.
  In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, there are more than 1,500 maternal 
deaths for every 100,000 live births; in the United States, this ratio 
is 12 deaths per 100,000 live births. By being able to plan their 
pregnancies, mothers are able to ensure they bear their children at 
their healthiest times and that pregnancies do not occur too close 
together. This reduces the risks to the lives of both the mother and 
her children.
  Babies born less than 2 years after their next oldest sibling are 
twice as likely to die in the first year as those born after an 
interval of at least 2 years. Analysis of data from 25 developing 
countries shows that, on average, infant mortality would be reduced by 
one-quarter if all births were spaced at least 2 years apart.
  Family planning education also helps prevent the spread of sexually 
transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
  At least 76,000 women die every year from the consequences of unsafe 
abortions. Thousands more suffer serious complications that can result 
in chronic pain and infertility. A U.S. study found that for every $1 
increase in public funds for family planning, there is a decrease of 1 
abortion per 1,000 women.
  According to the Rockefeller Foundation, in just 1 year, cuts and 
severe restrictions of Federal funding for family planning programs 
will result in an additional 4 million unplanned pregnancies and 1.6 
million of those will end in abortion; 8,000 of those women will die in 
pregnancy and childbirth. These are conservative estimates.
  Pathfinder International is one organization whose 30-year 
partnership with USAID has delivered high-quality family planning, 
reproductive health services, and information to some of the poorest 
countries in the world. The delays in Federal funding have jeopardized 
a significant portion of Pathfinder's programs.
  One woman who has benefited from Pathfinder's programs is a 27-year-
old Bangladeshi woman named Ferdousi Begum. She was married when she 
was 14 years old. Ferdousi and her husband, Mahmud, are poor and their 
lives are hard. Mahmud works 12 to 14 hours a day and Ferdousi works as 
a part-time domestic in addition to tending the home and being a 
mother. But they are happy--family planning has given them hope for a 
better future.

  Ferdousi and Mahmud received counseling to postpone having children 
until she was 18 and her body was more developed. After having two 
daughters spaced several years apart, they decided not to have any more 
children.
  Mahmud speaks proudly of his daughters. He speaks of having dreams of 
his older daughter, Salma, becoming a doctor after winning a prize in a 
science competition.
  However, after years of using family planning in order to provide a 
better life for her family, Ferdousi is at risk of becoming pregnant 
again. Without the necessary funding, many local affiliates are unable 
to restock their contraceptive supplies. An additional 4 month delay 
will have severe repercussions on Ferdousi, her family, and millions of 
other families like theirs in Bangladesh and around the world.
  In 1960 in Chile, less than 3 percent of married women were 
practicing family planning and the abortion rate was 77 abortions per 
1,000 married women of reproductive age. By 1990, use of family 
planning had increased to 56 percent of married women, and the abortion 
rate had dropped to 45 per 1,000.
  Data from Bogota, Columbia showed a one-third increase in 
contraceptive use between 1976 and 1986, accompanied by a 45-percent 
decrease in the abortion rate during the same period.
  In Mexico City use of contraception increased by about 24 percent 
between 1987 and 1992, while the abortion rate fell 39 percent.
  In Almaty, Kazakstan, the United States population program has 
provided funding to train doctors and nurses and to increase 
contraceptive supplies for 28 clinics. Between 1993 and 1994, the 
number of people provided contraceptives by the clinics increased by 59 
percent, while the number of abortions fell by 41 percent.
  In Russia, contraceptive use has increased from 19 percent to 24 
after an affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation 
opened in 1991. During that period, the abortion rate dropped from 109 
per 1,000 in 1990 to 76 in 1994. The total number of abortions fell 
from 3.6 million in 1990 to 2.8 million in 1994. For years, the average 
Russian woman had 7 to 8 abortions.
  In Hungary, a dramatic drop in abortion rates from a peak of 80 per 
1,000 women in the late 1960's to just over 30 per 1,000 women in 1986 
is due in part to an increase in contraceptive use.
  The numbers are incredible, but what is truly important and who we 
can't forget are the women and their families represented in these 
numbers.
  One such woman is 30-year-old Maria Elena Absalon Ramirez in Mexico. 
Her husband earns just $80 per month to support Maria and their 4 
children. They cannot afford contraceptives and rely on USAID. These 
are Maria's words: ``What I fear most is becoming pregnant again. One 
more child would completely change our life; it would be our ruin.''
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution and 
release the international family planning funds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon such time as he may desire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Thank you, Mr. President. I would also like to 
thank Senator Leahy.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that is both very 
controversial and personal; therefore, I do not have a prepared speech, 
but wish to speak from the heart.
  Much has been said here today about Senator Mark Hatfield's 
leadership on the issue of international family planning. In fact, I 
occupy the seat that

[[Page S1444]]

Mark Hatfield sat in for more than 30 years. Like Mark Hatfield, I am 
pro-life. As a State Senator, I advanced pro-life legislation in the 
Oregon State senate, and have never been afraid to stand up for the 
principles of the sanctity of life.
  As a candidate in two races for the U.S. Senate in one calendar year, 
no other issue was brought up more frequently than the issue of 
abortion. As I have stated throughout my career as a legislator, I 
intend to continue my support of pro-life issues and to work 
constructively with Members on both sides of the aisle on legislation 
to reduce the incidence of abortion on a national and international 
level.
  For these reasons, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join in 
my support of Senate Joint Resolution 14. While the debate on this 
resolution has centered on the issues relating to abortion, the 
underlying question is whether the $385 million that has already been 
appropriated for international family planning will be released on 
March 1, 1997 or whether it will be released on July 1, 1997. 
Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the money will be released.
  According to research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, the 
World Health Organization, and other independent researchers, the 
release of these funds on March 1, 1997, will significantly reduce the 
incidence of abortion in developing countries that receive assistance 
through USAID. Therefore, as a pro-life Member of this body, I 
encourage my colleagues to vote yea.
  I understand and share the concerns of those who have suggested that 
this money is being spent for abortion services. This concerns me 
greatly, particularly as the law of the United States prohibits the use 
of Federal funds for abortion services. To address these concerns, I 
reviewed the USAID audits and am assured that this funding is in fact 
being used for family planning services, not abortion. For this reason, 
I also encourage a yea vote.
  In addition to sharing my support for this resolution, I would also 
like to take a moment to express my frustration on this issue. While I 
certainly respect those who may not support my pro-life position, I am 
so often disappointed that there is little effort to educate about the 
options to abortion and ways to make abortion less frequent. The focus 
is often on the legal and the safe but never the rare. Similar 
frustration stems from those who advocate for life. It is unfortunate 
that the effort to advocate and encourage family planning does not 
equal the effort to discourage abortion. Today, we have the opportunity 
to address this inequity and to encourage and protect family planning 
both nationally and internationally. This is a vote to support life, 
and tomorrow I will vote as my predecessor Mark Hatfield, in favor of 
this resolution.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  For the benefit of the bill managers, the time of the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont remaining is 14 minutes and the time of the 
Senator from Kentucky is about 35 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, when the House of Representatives passed 
the resolution, House Joint Resolution 36, which allowed for the 
releasing of funds, $30 million per month for 4 months, 4 months 
earlier than under current law--after they passed that resolution they 
also passed another resolution. It is called the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde 
Resolution, H.R. 581. H.R. 581 actually releases more money for 
international family planning, but it does have restrictions to make 
sure that none of that money would be used for abortion purposes.
  Since the House has already passed H.R. 581 and these are related 
issues, I would like now, at this point, to ask unanimous consent that 
the Senate vote on final passage on H.R. 581 at a time not later than 
Friday of this week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I tell 
the distinguished majority whip that I will object and explain why, I 
understand that there are people who wish to be consulted, I believe on 
both sides of the aisle, on this. Therefore, I do object and suggest 
perhaps we could run a hotline on both sides. We may be able to work 
out a time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. I ask 
his assistance. Hopefully we can get to a vote in the Senate on this 
other resolution. It is a different idea. Let me just compare the two 
so all our colleagues can see exactly what we are talking about.
  This is the current law. It says, basically, we are going to spend 
$420 million on international family planning funds. Under the 
administration's resolution, that will increase by $120 million. For 4 
months there will be $30 million more per month.
  This is a convoluted way to do this. I was not involved in coming up 
with the consent agreement that arranged this. My sympathies go to my 
colleague from Vermont and the Senator from Kentucky, because they 
wrestled with this for a long time. I know Mr. Panetta was involved in 
this. We had a real impasse.
  Maybe I will give a little background in between, so our colleagues 
might remember, but there is a difference in philosophy on what we 
should do with international family planning money. The House felt very 
strongly we should continue the Mexico City restrictions, the Mexico 
City restrictions being restrictions that these moneys could not be 
used by an organization, international family planning organization, if 
they had involvement with abortion. Not only could they not use the 
U.S. taxpayer funds, but they could not use their own funds for 
abortion services, and they also could not promote changes in a 
country's laws dealing with abortions. Those are the two main 
restrictions known as the Mexico City policy, which was the policy in 
the United States from 1984 through, I believe, 1993. It was changed by 
the Clinton administration. So, it was the law of the land for 10 
years.
  I might mention also that, under that policy, a significant number of 
organizations followed that policy. From 1984 to 1993 we had 350 
foreign organizations that complied with the Mexico City policy. In 
other words, they accepted the money. They said the money will be used 
for family planning but not for abortions. They would not use our 
money, U.S. taxpayers' money, they would not use their own money, and 
they also would not advocate changing laws in other countries.
  Unfortunately, this was repealed by the Clinton administration 
shortly after he took office. The House of Representatives felt 
strongly it should be reinstated. After the House had a change of 
leadership in 1994, they reinstated the Mexico City policy. The Senate 
did not go along. So we had, if I remember, 10, 11, maybe even 12 votes 
in the last Congress over this issue, the Senate basically saying we 
want to reinstate our position of no prohibition on how the 
international family planning organizations use their money. If they 
want to use their money for abortion, they can use it for abortion. If 
they want to use their own money to advocate changing laws in other 
countries dealing with abortion--because a lot of countries have laws 
restricting abortions that this administration does not agree with and, 
frankly, the International Planned Parenthood Federation does not agree 
with, and they want to change it. So the Senate was concurring with the 
administration and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The 
House was saying no, we should stay with the Mexico City policy.

  So we had a dozen votes, both sides insisting on maintaining their 
own positions. The net result was we came up with this terrible 
arrangement which basically said we will continue this policy at 35-
percent less money--which, incidentally, I might mention we had a 35-
percent reduction overall in the bill.

[[Page S1445]]

 Mr. Panetta said, let's have it the same way, and then we will dole 
the money out on a monthly basis and then we will have a vote in the 
next Congress over when that money will be released. That is what we 
are going to be voting on tomorrow.
  So, if we maintain current law, the amount of money will be $420 
million. If we adopt the administration's resolution, it will be $543 
million. Under these provisions there is no restriction on abortion in 
this and no restriction on organizations' lobbying capability. The 
House passed H.R. 531, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde resolution that had a 
couple of million dollars more, about $170 million more. But the money 
had restrictions. The money has those restrictions that were, in 
effect, the law of the land from 1984 to 1993, that said these groups 
cannot use the money for abortion, they could not use the money for 
lobbying other governments to change their policies.
  I happen to think the Mexico City policy was right. If we are going 
to be giving money to international family planning organizations, it 
should be for family planning. It should not be for abortions.
  Somebody said, ``You are not using U.S. taxpayer dollars for 
abortions. They are using their own money.'' Some of these groups, like 
the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation, are 
advocates of abortion. If we give them so much money, U.S. money, they 
can say, we do not use a dime of that for abortion. Sure, we will use 
some of our other money for abortion. And sure we will use some of our 
other money to advocate changes in other countries' laws that we don't 
agree with. So, really, you have U.S. taxpayer dollars subsidizing 
international organizations that are, in effect, lobbying other 
countries to change their laws because they deem them too restrictive 
on abortion.
  That is kind of offensive. It is not just these international groups 
that are doing it; it is the administration as well. I will just make a 
couple of comments.
  Donald Warwick of the Harvard Institute of International Development 
has written that the International Planned Parenthood Federation ``has 
in word and deed been one of the foremost lobbyists for abortion in 
developing countries.'' They are promoting abortion in developing 
countries, even to the extent of changing their laws.
  The International Planned Parenthood Federation has made it clear 
that legalizing abortion and expansion of abortion networks is one of 
its primary goals. Their 1992 mission statement Strategic Plan--Vision 
2000 repeatedly and unambiguously instructs its 140 national affiliate 
organizations to work to legalize abortion as part of a mandate to 
``advocate for changes in restrictive national laws, policies, 
practices and traditions.''
  So, we are supporting and giving money to the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation so they can use that money, or other money, to 
lobby, to tell some countries that happen to have pro-life laws that 
they have to change their law. That bothers me. What makes us so self-
righteous that we know that other countries should be changing their 
laws dealing with abortion? How can we be so self-righteous?

  Then we find out it is not only some International Planned Parenthood 
organization, but we see it from our own State Department. On March 16, 
1994, through Secretary of State Warren Christopher in a classified 
action cable to all overseas diplomatic posts, the State Department 
announced, ``The United States believes access to safe, legal and 
voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women,'' and called 
for ``senior level diplomatic intervention'' to garner support for the 
U.S. position at the September U.N. conference on population in Cairo.
  On May 12, 1993, Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth expounded the 
policy in a detailed speech at the United Nations, stating, ``A 
government which is violating basic human rights should not hide behind 
the defense of sovereignty * * * Our position is to support 
reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion.''
  Why in the world would we have the Under Secretary of State make a 
speech to the United Nations telling other countries we think we know 
better, you should change your laws. We think you should have pro-
choice laws in countries such as El Salvador or other countries that 
have maybe a predominantly Catholic population and have pro-life laws 
or laws restricting abortions? Why in the world would we be so self-
righteous or sanctimonious that we should be telling those countries, 
We know best. Change your laws. We think you should have legal 
abortion. Maybe we think you should subsidize it.
  That, to me, is offensive, to think that the Secretary of State or 
Under Secretary of State would have that position.
  April 1, 1993, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers noted 
the administration regards abortion as ``part of the overall approach 
to population control.''
  And if we don't enact H.R. 581, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde language, 
then what we are doing is giving this administration a blank check to 
give money to international organizations that have no restrictions 
whatsoever on how they use their money on abortion or changing laws in 
other countries. I think that is wrong.
  So for my colleagues, just to summarize, we have a couple of options. 
We can accelerate the money with no restrictions whatsoever or, if you 
happen to be in favor of more family planning money, if you want more 
family planning money to go out internationally and you think that 
might reduce the incidents of abortion, you can do that, you can 
support the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde language.
  We are going to try to get a vote on it. The House already passed it. 
Tomorrow it will be pending at the Senate desk. We hope to get a time 
agreement. I understand some people say, ``We want to filibuster 
that.'' Why? What is the matter with having a vote? Let's find out 
where the votes are.
  There is more money. This has $713 million for family planning. House 
Joint Resolution 36, which will be voted on tomorrow, has $543 million. 
There is $170 million more money for international family planning, but 
it has restrictions. You will not be able to use that money or your 
money for abortion. So, if you want less abortions, you should support 
the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde language, and if you think it is wrong for our 
country to be advocating that other countries change their laws dealing 
with abortions, then you need to support that resolution as well.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution we will have 
pending tomorrow, House Joint Resolution 36. Vote ``no'' on that and 
then vote in favor of H.R. 581, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde language, which 
will have more money for international family planning and no money for 
abortion and no money for advocating changes in other countries' 
abortion laws.
  I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time is remaining to the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Vermont has 14 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will take one moment for myself and 
then yield to the Senator from California.
  I will note for my colleagues that we are here because of an 
agreement entered into in good faith by Republicans and Democrats, by 
those who supported the money for family planning and those who opposed 
it last year. Unfortunately, like in the House, we have a request for 
another vote because some of the people who made that agreement last 
year do not now want to live up to it.
  I have spent 22 years in the Senate. If I give my word on something, 
if I make an agreement on something, I carry it out. I am surprised 
that there have been some in the other body, and elsewhere, who are not 
willing to honor the spirit of an agreement made.
  I mention this only because there are aspects to this agreement that 
I was not happy with, and there are other votes I would have liked to 
have had. But the agreement was that both sides would have this vote 
and that would be it.
  When I came here 22 years ago, the distinguished majority leader, 
Senator Mansfield, and the distinguished Republican leader, Senator 
Scott, said the same thing to every Member of the Senate: ``Whatever 
you do here, keep your word.''
  Senators I have dealt with on this issue have. I am concerned some in 
the

[[Page S1446]]

other body have not, and it is unfortunate.
  I note that contrary to what some on the other side have said this 
afternoon, this vote is not about the early release of family planning 
funds. If we approve this resolution, it still means the funds are 
going to be 5 months late.

  It has been said that this vote will provide $123 million more to 
organizations that fund abortions. That is totally false. This vote 
will not increase or decrease the amount we appropriated last year at 
all.
  It is said this vote will increase from $356 million to $385 million 
the funds for family planning. Yes, but that is a $130 million cut from 
2 years ago.
  We also agreed what this vote would be about, and what it would not 
be about.
  And we heard that this is about funding abortion. Of course not. If 
anything, the facts show that where we have given money to provide 
family planning, the number of abortions have gone down, not up, and 
gone down very substantially, and when we withheld the money for family 
planning, abortions have gone up.
  I yield to the Senator from California 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam President, and I thank the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  I rise to support his arguments, to indicate my support for House 
Joint Resolution 36. Madam President, I recently returned from a few 
days in Nepal. If you go to Nepal, you will see that about 35 percent 
of the children die before the age of 5, and they die before the age of 
5 because they are impoverished. They don't have enough food, and they 
die. This is true in many areas, particularly undeveloped countries, 
all around the world.
  I think that one of the most important and effective components of 
U.S. foreign assistance has been our family planning programs. I 
believe these programs reduce poverty, I believe they improve health, I 
believe they raise living standards around the world, and they enhance, 
certainly, the ability of couples and individuals to determine the 
number and spacing of their children.
  I think many of us in this country take that opportunity for granted. 
Most of us have had the freedom to make choices about how we live our 
lives by planning the size of our families. But in poorer countries 
where contraceptive options are not available, women have much higher 
birth rates, and the more children they have, the higher the poverty 
rates. Children are malnourished, many get sick, many die.
  UNICEF estimates that 34,000 children under the age of 5 die every 
day--every day--in developing countries. And it is not just children. 
UNICEF further estimates that 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related 
causes each year and that unsafe abortions are responsible for 75,000 
of these deaths. By giving women the opportunity to plan their 
pregnancies, lives are saved--the lives of women and their children.
  So the need for these family planning programs could hardly be 
clearer. Unfortunately, because of this dispute between the House and 
the Senate last year, the compromise the Senator from Vermont referred 
to was reached, but that delayed the release of family planning funds 
until July 1, or March 1, if the President found the delay was harming 
these programs and Congress agreed.
  The President has made the finding, arguing, I think, persuasively 
that the delay thus far has forced many programs to suspend or defer 
their operations and that further delay, until July, could cause them 
to shut down.
  Already, programs serving over 700,000 people annually in Bolivia, 
the Philippines, Ecuador, and elsewhere, have been suspended.
  Two weeks ago, the House voted 220 to 209 to agree with the 
President's finding. So the vote in the Senate is crucial.
  If we concur with the President and the House, we can release these 
life-saving funds only 5 months late instead of 9 months late. The 
difference is critical.
  Some have tried to draw a connection between our family planning 
programs and abortion. But no connection exists. Since 1973, U.S. law 
has prohibited any USAID funds from being used to pay for abortions as 
a method of family planning or to coerce any person to have an 
abortion. All our programs are voluntary and they involve 
contraception, not abortion. Programs are rigorously monitored to 
ensure strict compliance.
  So the argument that these programs cause an increase in abortion is 
simply a red herring. It is actually worse than a red herring in a 
sense because it is patently and demonstrably false. In fact, it stands 
the truth on its head. It is the delay in our family planning programs 
that is actually causing an increase in abortions.
  The evidence is clear. When family planning options are available, 
fewer unintended pregnancies occur, and abortions decline.
  In Russia where the average Russian woman used to have a stunning 
seven or eight abortions in her lifetime, family planning has made a 
huge difference. With United States assistance, organizations like the 
Russian Family Planning Association have raised the rate of 
contraceptive use from 19 percent to 24 percent from 1990 to 1994. Even 
that modest increase produced results. In the same period, the Russian 
Department of Health reported that the total number of abortions 
performed dropped from 3.6 million to 2.8 million. That is 800,000 
fewer abortions. This is specific, irrefutable, documented, statistical 
proof that family planning moneys drop and lower the rate of abortion.
  The story repeats itself over and over. In Mexico, in Colombia, 
wherever USAID has funded family planning, this is the case.
  So facts are facts. And the link is clear. As our esteemed former 
colleague, Mark Hatfield, who was and is a proudly pro-life Senator, 
reminded us each time we voted on this issue, family planning 
assistance prevents abortion.
  So this vote is about one thing and one thing only--it is about 
giving women in the developing world a chance to make their lives and 
the lives of their children better, safer, healthier, and more 
fulfilling.
  I believe we have every reason and every interest to give them that 
chance. I hope every Member of this body does as well. So I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the Chair. I thank the 
Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time is remaining for the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 3 minutes, 34 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, with the exception of a few self-
appointed experts who have apparently never been to Beijing, Mexico 
City or Calcutta, it is widely understood that stabilizing the Earth's 
population is the foremost challenge of our time.
  This vote is as important as any vote we are going to cast this year. 
But I do not think we should confuse with something it is not. There 
are other votes for or against abortion, but as the distinguished 
Senator from California has said, that is not what this vote is. There 
seems to be no end to the number of times we will fight the fight on 
abortion. But that is not what this vote is about, despite what some 
would try to suggest.
  This vote is about a program that is absolutely crucial if we are 
going to stabilize the Earth's population in the 21st century. The 
number of people born in the next decade are going to decide that 
question.
  A quarter of the Earth's people live in poverty. They have no jobs. 
They have nothing resembling adequate shelter and medical care. They 
drink from the streams they and their animals bathe in. They live from 
hand to mouth in filth and in despair. We can do something to help.

  Our family planning program gives those people a chance to get out 
from under the crushing weight of more and more hungry mouths to feed. 
Some argue that by giving them that chance, we impose our values on 
them. The people who make that argument should ask those people, as I 
have. They should ask them if they feel we are imposing our values on 
them. What they will hear, as I have, is that there are hundreds of 
millions of couples who

[[Page S1447]]

want access to family planning and cannot get it or cannot afford it. 
They desperately want to be able to decide when to have children and 
how many to have. They do not see that as us imposing our will on them, 
but giving them the chance to make their own decisions. Then they will 
decide.
  The only question is whether they will decide with family planning, 
or with abortion or by having more children who die in infancy of 
hunger and disease. If we ask those people if they want to have the 
technology, and the knowledge, so they can make the choice of when to 
have children and how many to have, or if they would rather rely on 
abortion or have more children who will die of disease or hunger, the 
answer is very simple. They want control over their own lives. And by 
passing this resolution, as the House did 2 weeks ago, we give those 
people safe alternatives to abortion now, not 4 months from now when 
for many of them it will already be too late.
  Madam President, it is the height of arrogance for us to stand on 
this floor and say, because of a few single-issue groups in the United 
States, we will not give families in other countries the chance to make 
the decisions that any one of us could do in our own family or in our 
children's families because we live in a nation where family planning 
is readily available and all of us make the kind of income where it is 
not a problem for us.
  But we stand here and say, so somebody can put a notch on the wall, 
that they voted politically correctly for which single-issue group or 
some fundraising letter has gone out, and we turn our backs on millions 
of people who want our help.
  Again, I would remind my colleagues of the facts in the record here. 
In 4 years time in Russia, where we made available family planning 
services, where we increased just one simple thing, the use of 
contraceptives by just 4 or 5 percent, the number of abortions went 
down by 800,000.
  But some of the same people stand on the floor of the Senate today 
and the floor of the House, and say that they are against providing 
these services because somehow they are following a right-to-life or 
antiabortion agenda, and they voted against the money that was used in 
Russia. And that same money helped reduce the number of abortions by 
800,000.
  We have Members in this body and the other body who say they have to 
be so dependent on single-issue groups that they cannot vote for this 
money. They cannot vote for this money because somebody somewhere in 
that country, some private organization, might use money of their own, 
not ours, for abortion, so we should not give them any money for family 
planning. Fortunately, a majority of the House was wise enough to stand 
up to the single-issue groups, and vote for this resolution.
  Let us stop the hypocrisy and stop the pandering to single-issue 
groups. I do not care whether they are to the right or to the left. Let 
us do what is right. How can we stand here and say, ``Oh, we can do 
this because we're rich and we know better, but, boy, we're going to 
show you. We can't help you because somewhere somebody will send out 
newsletters to somebody will say they didn't stick to the agenda that 
our group asked them to do.'' Let us stop the hypocrisy and do what is 
right; and let's vote for this resolution.

  I ask unanimous consent a letter by the distinguished Secretary of 
State Madeleine Albright be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       The Secretary of State,

                                    Washington, February 21, 1997.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I am writing to urge your support on 
     the upcoming vote to release already-delayed international 
     family planning funds in March instead of July of this year. 
     Given the negative consequences to women and men in 
     developing countries, as well as the administrative costs 
     associated with further constraints on these funds, I am 
     confident that you will agree that a March release date is 
     justified and that no identifiable purpose is served by 
     further delay.
       In his January 31 report to the Congress, the President 
     made it unmistakably clear that ``a delay will cause serious, 
     irreversible and avoidable harm.'' At least 17 separate 
     programs, administered by the U.S. Agency for International 
     Development and amounting to at least $35 million, would be 
     seriously impacted by the funding delay. As a result, 
     unintended pregnancies will rise, maternal and infant deaths 
     will be more numerous, and abortions will increase. Clearly, 
     family planning saves lives, enhances the health and well-
     being of women and their children, and prevents the tragic 
     recourse to abortion.
       International family planning also serves important U.S. 
     foreign policy interests; elevating the status of women, and 
     reducing the flow of refugees, protecting the global 
     environment, and promoting sustainable development which 
     leads to greater economic growth and trade opportunities for 
     our businesses. Efforts to slow population growth, reduce 
     poverty, promote economic progress, and empower women are 
     mutually reinforcing. The proof is not found in arcane 
     studies, but in vigorous economic development in countries 
     like South Korea and Thailand.
       The President and I are committed to building bipartisan 
     support for a foreign policy that will serve our national 
     interests into the 21st century. International family 
     planning programs have a successful track record and have 
     garnered bipartisan support for the past 30 years; we must 
     rebuild this support for the next 30 and beyond. Unhappily, 
     international family planning programs have often been 
     misunderstood, creating unnecessary rancor. Let me be clear--
     the United States does not, has not, and will not promote or 
     provide abortion services as a method of family planing in 
     developing countries. These programs are carefully executed 
     and monitored to ensure that U.S. funds are not used for 
     illegal purposes. The upcoming vote is not about abortion. It 
     is, in fact, just the opposite: the release of family 
     planning funds now will reduce the incidence of unintended 
     pregnancy and abortion.
       On the other hand, it is an indisputable fact that family 
     planning does reduce abortion, as best evidenced by 
     significant declines in abortion as family planning services 
     are becoming available in Russia and Central and Eastern 
     Europe. The argument is also made that by providing support 
     for family planning services, the United States may 
     unwittingly enable organizations to use some of their private 
     funds to provide legal abortion services. Carried to its 
     logical conclusion, of course, the United States would not 
     provide support for child survival or any other health 
     programs in countries where legal abortion services are 
     supported by national health systems.
       The Congress has a real opportunity to correct a problem 
     with funding set in place last fall. In so doing, you can 
     help advance our interest in improving the status of women, 
     protecting the environment, and encouraging robust economic 
     progress around the world. This progress will make the 
     difference for hundreds of thousands of citizens abroad. Most 
     important, voluntary international family planning programs 
     are in the interest of our own citizens. I urge your support 
     for S.J. Res. 14.
           Sincerely,
                                            Madeleine K. Albright.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky 
and I discussed earlier. I ask unanimous consent, understanding, of 
course, that I will yield immediately to the Senator from Kentucky if 
he or his representative comes to the floor, that I be allowed to 
continue without the time going beyond the time we would begin the Byrd 
amendment at 3:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it is so frustrating. Every year we have 
this debate, time after time. We have written into our law that not one 
cent of our money for family planning can be used for abortion, and 
none of it has been. Yet we hear the argument, ``But we can't send 
money to some private groups because they may use some of their money 
for abortion.'' We do not hear anybody stand on the floor and say we 
cannot send foreign aid to this or that government because they may use 
some of their money for abortion. That is never done, nor will it ever 
be done, nor should it be done. But it points out the illogic of their 
argument.
  This has become a litmus test vote for some pressure groups in this 
country. The same pressure groups are wise enough to not to advocate 
withholding foreign aid from governments that allow legal abortion or 
that uses their funds for abortion. I am not suggesting that nor have I 
heard anybody suggest that. However, the hypocrisy is obvious.
  Let us not legislate for single-issue groups, on the right or the 
left, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal. Let us instead 
legislate what is in the best interests of the country. Now, maybe we 
will offend the right one day and the next day the left, maybe we will 
offend this single-issue group one day and that single-issue group the 
next day, maybe we will upset somebody's special-interest newsletter 
this

[[Page S1448]]

day and somebody else's the next day. But do you know what, Madam 
President? In the long run the American people will be far more 
respectful of the U.S. Senate if we do that.
  On this issue it is very simple. We have already appropriated the 
money. What we are doing now is withholding the money so that it cannot 
be spent. As long as it is not spent, instead of people having access 
to family planning, instead of people being able to make the decision 
themselves of how many children they will have and when, the number of 
abortions will start going up again. As we have shown over and over 
again, when family planning is available, the number of abortions go 
down, and when family planning withheld, the number of abortions go up. 
It was that way long before any one of us served in this body. It will 
be that way long after we leave.
  So we should stop the rhetoric for the fundraising letters, but 
instead do what is right. We want to help countries determine what they 
may or may not do on the question of overpopulation, on the use of 
their own resources, being given not the tools of abortion but the 
tools of family planning, and tell the special interest groups that say 
no, that maybe they have gone a bit too far.
  I have nothing but respect for my colleagues who are opposed to 
abortion. I wish there would never be another abortion in this world. 
But I am also a realist enough to know that simply withholding family 
planning money or passing laws does not stop abortion. Giving people 
alternatives to abortions, modern contraceptives, that does cut down on 
abortions.
  As I say, I have nothing but the greatest respect for those who have 
moral opposition to abortion. But we should be realistic. It is like 
the old days when we passed laws against abortion and the back-room 
abortionists thrived, as they did in my State. When abortion was legal, 
people made the choice.
  This is not necessarily directly on point in this debate, but I 
remember and I remind people who think simply passing a law determines 
what is a very difficult question for any woman to ask, what happened 
in my State in days when I was a young prosecutor. I got a call at 3 
o'clock one morning to go to our medical center where a young woman lay 
nearly dying, hemorrhaging from an illegal abortion. As part of the 
investigation I instituted that 3 a.m. in the morning, we found out 
that a number of women, some college students, had gone to one person 
in our community to seek abortions. He would arrange illegal abortions 
for them. Abortions were performed by a man who had learned how to 
perform abortions while working for the SS at Auschwitz. The women 
would be sent to Canada, the abortions would be performed. They were 
basically the darning needle type of abortion, and subsequently he 
would blackmail these women for money or sex. They had no other place 
to go. This is where they went. This one young woman nearly died, did 
not die but ended up sterile as a result. If she had not nearly died, I 
never would have found out about it. This man would never have been 
prosecuted. I prosecuted him. As a result of that, we ended up with 
another case, which I was very proud of, called Leahy versus Beecham, a 
predecessor to Roe versus Wade, which made clear that abortions within 
a medical context would be legal. Then the difficult question that any 
woman would have to make would be her decision, whatever consequences 
would be hers, not the manipulations of a back-room abortionist.

  In a way, we do almost the same thing here. We say we will withhold 
safe and legal alternatives to abortion, family planning, because we 
are against abortion. The abortions will go up. Abortions will go up 
and people will die. Instead, we should give families, from the largess 
of the United States, money to plan their families.
  Madam President, I yield back all time on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________