[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1518-S1524]
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 2:10
having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of House Joint
Resolution 36, which the clerk will report.
The bill 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 resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 5 minutes for debate equally
divided in the usual form with the vote on the joint resolution to
occur at 2:15.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, very briefly, I urge my colleagues to
vote against the President's request for early release of population
funds. Significant concessions have already been made by those of us
who support the pro-life position. We agreed to raise the overall level
of funding from $356 million in 1996 to $385 million, and the disbursal
rate from 6 percent to 8 percent a month. Now the President wants to
move up the date when disbursal begins. This would make $123 million
more available for organizations that either support or lobby for the
legalization of abortion.
The administration claims that 17 projects will be forced to close
down if we delay funding until July. Yet, virtually every one of these
programs could be funded because they are willing to abide by Mexico
City conditions not to support abortion or lobby to legalize it. To
protect a few groups who support abortion, the administration is
[[Page S1519]]
withholding support from many organizations willing to provide family
planning services consistent with the Mexico City guidelines. They
complain about a lack of funds, yet are willing to forgo an increase if
it is linked to Mexico City.
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 hope the resolution will be
opposed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we should understand what we are voting on.
We are about to vote on a resolution to decide when, not whether we
release funds, but when.
Somebody said yesterday that this vote is about an additional $123
million for groups that fund abortion. That is absolutely false. We
have appropriated this money. There is no additional money. In fact, we
are voting to spend and release $160 million less than we appropriated
2 years ago. So whether or not this resolution passes this afternoon,
the funds are going to be spent anyway. It is just a question of when.
We should also understand that U.S. law, which all of us have
supported, says that none of this money can be used to pay for
abortions anywhere, and very careful audits have been made of this
money, and nobody has shown that a cent of it has ever been used to
promote abortion.
Some say we will have another population funding vote maybe later
this week. That is not going to happen. This is the only vote on family
planning. Do we vote to release the money now, that is March 1, or July
1? That is all it is. But if we delay, we are using the ultimate
arrogance. We are saying we know better than you; you cannot have
family planning money.
Let me tell you what happens when we spend it. In Russia, abortion
was routinely used as a method for family planning. In the 4 years
since we started family planning programs there, just by increasing the
number of contraceptives by 5 percent, the number of abortions fell
800,000. So when we put family planning money into Russia, abortions
came down by 800,000. When we withhold family planning money, abortions
then go up. We ought to ask ourselves about that.
The Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, spoke so eloquently on this.
Senator Gordon Smith, who is very much a right-to-life Senator, spoke
of his opposition to abortion but of his support of family planning.
We should listen to what is really here. We are just saying, let us
stop abortions by voting for family planning.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider House
Joint Resolution 36, the administration's request to begin releasing
voluntary fiscal year 1997 international family planning funds on March
1 rather than July 1 this year. This resolution simply reduces the
delay in the funds' release from 9 months to 5 since the fiscal year
began October 1, 1996. Although some want to characterize this as an
abortion vote, it simply is not. The funds to be released could be used
only for voluntary family planning--not for abortion. In fact, today's
vote is about whether the Senate will help prevent unintended
pregnancies in the first place.
Furthermore, the resolution the Senate is considering does not call
for any additional funding for international family planning. Whether
these funds are released in March or July, the entire amount of funding
appropriated for international family planning in fiscal year 1997 will
ultimately be spent.
Passage of this resolution merits the support of all Members of
Congress who wish to see improvements in the quality of life for women
and families around the world. U.S. contributions to international
family planning programs have improved the lives of women in developing
countries immeasurably. The ability to plan the size of one's family is
essential if women and children are to live longer and healthier lives,
and if women are to make the educational and economic gains they and we
wish to see.
A majority of our colleagues in the House of Representatives endorsed
the President's plan to release funds for voluntary family planning
when it passed House Joint Resolution 36 on February 13. Now the Senate
must decide. The fiscal year 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations
bill, which Congress passed as part of the Omnibus Appropriations bill
last year, includes a provision that prohibits the U.S. Agency for
International Development [USAID] from obligating funds for
international family planning until July 1, 1997. The provision also
states that if the President determines the delay is having a negative
impact on USAID's population program, funds may be made available
beginning March 1, 1997, if Congress approves the finding.
On January 31, the President certified that the restrictions imposed
by Congress are, in fact, having a negative impact on USAID's
population planning program. The President argues that family planning
service delivery and their supporting activities would be disrupted,
costs at all levels for the program would increase, and, most
importantly, the health and well-being of women, men, and children who
are beneficiaries of U.S. assistance would be severely threatened. As a
consequence, increases in unintended pregnancies, infants and maternal
deaths and abortions would be inevitable.
The President also suggests that at least 17 bilateral and worldwide
programs will have urgent funding needs in the March-June period. By
delaying the release of U.S. funds until July these organizations would
be forced to suspend, defer, or terminate family planning activities.
One program that would be adversely impacted by the delay is the
Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University. The
institute does research on natural family planning and provides couples
with access to family planning methods. In a letter to Congressman
David Bonior earlier this month, the president of Georgetown
University, Father Leo J. O'Donovan, stated that if funding for
international family planning is delayed until July, the institute
would be forced to terminate work that provides services to more than
one million families throughout the world.
Delaying U.S. contributions to international family planning programs
will also inhibit the progress that many countries have made toward
reducing abortions. The Russian Department of Health reports that the
use of contraceptives grew from 19 to 24 percent between 1990 and 1994
with the establishment of 50 International Planned Parenthood
Federation affiliates across Russia. During that time period, the
number of abortions performed dropped from 3.6 million to 2.8 million.
According to the administration, if funding for international family
planning is delayed until July, two of the largest organizations that
receive USAID funds in Russia would be unable to provide 1.7 million
couples with access to modern family planning methods as an alternative
to abortion.
In Bolivia, USAID provides funding for both government and non-
governmental organizations. Since the delivery of family planning
services was expanded in the country between 1989 and 1994, the use of
family planning in Bolivia increased by 50 percent. The administration
argues that if funds for international family planning are delayed
until July, USAID would be forced to defer ongoing population
assistance in that country. This would jeopardize services for 20
percent of Bolivia's population and reduce support to local
organizations providing family planning services to an additional 30
percent of Bolivia's rural population.
Many other developing countries experiencing rapid population growth
would face similar setbacks if U.S. contributions were delayed. USAID
currently assists more than 60 countries through 95 bilateral and
worldwide programs. For more than 30 years, this organization has had a
remarkable impact on the daily lives of people around the world. It has
helped millions of families determine the number and spacing of their
children through voluntary family planning programs. It has reduced
high-risk pregnancies and helped save the lives of hundreds of
thousands of women. And, again, it has reduced the number of unintended
pregnancies and abortions.
USAID has also made a significant contribution to slowing down the
world population growth. Due in large part to U.S. leadership and
bipartisan support for USAID, global population is now growing at a
slower rate. Nonetheless,
[[Page S1520]]
the world's population could double to over 11 billion by the year 2050
unless further progress is made. Delaying U.S. contributions to family
planning an additional 4 months will only exacerbate the numerous
social and environmental problems associated with rapid population
growth. We simply cannot afford to delay U.S. contributions to family
planning programs any longer.
The President has determined that a continued delay in funding for
international family planning will cause serious, irreversible and
avoidable harm. Just as our colleagues in the House of Representatives
did, it is time for the Senate to lend its support to the President's
request. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 36 and
permit the President to begin releasing funds for international family
planning on March 1.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I recognize the important contribution
that voluntary family planning programs can make to the effectiveness
of U.S. foreign aid programs. Clearly, high rates of population growth
are an immense barrier to economic and social change in developing
countries.
I also recognize that increased access to population planning
programs can help reduce the number of abortions, as I understand has
been happening in Russia, for example.
However, we must also recognize why the Congress imposed the funding
limitations contained in the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations
appropriations bill. It was because of a serious difference of views,
within the Congress and between the Congress and the administration,
over whether U.S. population planning funds should go to organizations
that also provide abortion services.
Like many of my colleagues, I have long supported the Mexico City
policy of the Reagan and Bush administrations, which restricted funds
for any non-governmental organizations that were involved in any way in
abortion activities. Although there is a broad consensus that no U.S.
aid funds should be used to fund abortions themselves, it is
intellectually dishonest to ignore the fact that dollars are fungible.
Providing funds to an organization for purposes other than abortions
can free up funds from other sources that can then be used for
abortions. That organization can say, with a straight face, that the
U.S. funds did not pay for the abortions, but the practical effect is
the same, which is contrary to the intent of the law and the desires of
the American people.
I have no desire to hold up the release of funds for population
planning programs. And if the administration agrees to return to the
Mexico City policy, there will be no future delays in the release of
such funds. Funding for population programs may even increase. But if
we vote to release the fiscal year 1997 funds early, it will be viewed
by the administration as an endorsement of its current policy regarding
funding for organizations that provide abortion services.
For this reason, I will vote against the early release of the funds.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the release of funds for
international family planning. This program is essential to enabling
the world's poorest women to improve their lives--and the lives of
their families.
Over the past 2 years, Congress has drastically cut funds for
international family planning--and has put barriers in the way of
implementing the program. We have tied our international family
planning program in knots--and are denying health care to the world's
poorest women.
Today we will vote to right part of this wrong. We are not voting to
increase international family planning. We are simply voting to release
the funds--so that our family planning program will no longer be held
hostage.
What do the cuts and delays in funding mean for poor women? The Alan
Guttmacher Institute estimates that it means that 7 million couples in
developing countries will no longer have access to contraceptives.
There could be almost 2 million unplanned births. And there could be up
to 1.6 million additional abortions.
When we deny a woman the right to choose whether or not to have
children, we deny her the right to control and improve her life. We
deny her the right to help herself and her family.
Those who oppose international family planning assistance claim to
want to reduce the number of abortions. But the effect of our policies
is just the opposite. Family planning prevents unwanted pregnancies and
abortions. You would think this basic fact would not need to be
restated on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
America's international family planning funds are not spent on
abortion. So now, some insist on going after basic health care services
that prevent pregnancy.
Over 100 million women throughout the world cannot obtain family
planning because they are poor, uneducated, or lack access to health
care. Twenty million of these women will seek unsafe abortions. Some
women will die, some will be disabled. We could prevent some of this
needless suffering.
This issue won't go away. I will join my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle in fighting against the irrational and cruel effort to end
U.S. assistance for international family planning. We will continue the
fight to enable the world's poorest women to control and improve their
lives.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I would like to join with so many of my
colleagues in opposing this resolution requested by President Clinton.
There are several reasons why I believe it would be wrong for the
Congress to accelerate funding for international population control
programs. It is the wrong thing to do fiscally, and it is the wrong
thing to do on its own merits.
For the past 3 weeks, the U.S. Senate has been debating the need for
a balanced budget amendment. And now, as one of the Congress' first
acts, we are considering spending an additional $123 million in fiscal
year 1997 for international population control?
Second, does it make sense for us to be accelerating spending on this
extraordinarily controversial program without the kind of sensible
protections that existed during the Reagan and Bush administrations?
Mr. President, despite the claims to the contrary by the other side,
this is a vote that involves the issue of abortion. That is because
this vote involves U.S. taxpayers funding of organizations that perform
and promote abortions overseas. During the Reagan and Bush
administrations, our international family planning programs were
administered under the Mexico City policy, so-named after the 1984 U.N.
population conference in Mexico City where this U.S. policy was
formulated. Under the Mexico City policy, this program was kept
entirely separate from the issue of abortion. This was accomplished by
requiring that U.S. family planning programs overseas could only be
administered by private groups that do not conduct abortions, or
promote abortion as a method of family planning.
Because we all know that money is fungible, funding abortion-
promoting groups to conduct family planning programs overseas permitted
these groups to extend their international presence, increase their
abortion activities, and lobby more aggressively to weaken laws
restricting abortion overseas. The Reagan/Bush policies helped protect
our international family planning programs from the controversy that
inevitably arose through their association with private pro-abortion
groups. With the protection of the Mexico City policy, funding for our
international family planning programs increased from $251 million in
1987 to $434 million in 1993.
One of President Clinton's first actions after his inauguration in
1993, however, was to rescind the Executive order that put the Mexico
City policy in place. Because of the President's action, suddenly this
once again became one of our most controversial foreign aid programs.
This Congress has an opportunity to reinstate the sensible family
planning policies of Mexico City. I commend my colleague from Arkansas,
Senator Hutchinson, for his leadership in introducing legislation that
would return family-planning funding to the principles set forth by
Presidents Reagan and Bush. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of
this important legislation.
There is a reason why last fall's Omnibus Appropriations Act delayed
expenditures for this program so that some of the expenditures of the
money would not actually be spent until next year. This was the result
of a delicate compromise between the Congress and
[[Page S1521]]
the administration. The administration was offered the choice. The
Congress was willing to lift all restrictions on the rate of spending
for overseas family planning funds, but only if the administration
would refrain from funneling those funds through abortion advocacy
groups like the International Planned Parenthood Federation. I would
note that the Clinton administration preferred to keep funding
restrictions in place so that it could continue administering the
program through pro-abortion groups.
Now the administration wants to undo this compromise. The
administration wants all funding restrictions lifted. At the same time,
they refuse to accept the sensible Reagan/Bush policies that protected
this program from the contentious abortion debate.
Groups supporting this resolution have argued that a more rapid
expenditure of these funds by groups that perform abortions and lobby
aggressively for abortion-on-demand laws would, in the long term,
reduce the rate of abortions around the world. This Senator, however,
fails to understand the logic of funding pro-abortion groups to advance
this pro-life objective. It is a simple fact that the rate of abortions
increases dramatically whenever a country legalizes abortion. I do not
believe sending more U.S. taxpayer dollars to an international network
of clinics run by groups that conduct abortions is likely to reduce the
number of abortions worldwide.
Mr. President, the answer to ensuring the long-term health and
welfare of women across the world and stabilizing the world's
population is not to promote abortion overseas as a population control
alternative with U.S. taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. The answer is to
promote free markets and individual liberties in underdeveloped
countries. Over two-thirds of the world's recent fertility decline can
be accounted for by the expansion of economic opportunity and personal
freedoms, as women across the world are given access to greater
educational and lifetime opportunities. Freer markets, more education
and information and more opportunities for the world's women--that's
the answer.
Mr. President, I would gladly vote to remove spending restrictions on
this program if the administration would agree to protect it from abuse
by pro-abortion advocates. But under the legislative procedures we have
before us today, that sensible option is not available. Therefore, I
cannot support this resolution, and urge its defeat.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this week, the Senate will have the
opportunity to vote on two measures related to international family
planning. One, House Joint Resolution 36, which is supported by the
Clinton administration, would release population control funds on March
1, instead of July 1. The funding could not be meted out any faster
than 8 percent of the total appropriated for fiscal year 1997 per
month--a limitation recommended by the President's Chief of Staff last
year. But the funds could be made available to groups that provide
abortions or lobby in support of more liberal abortion policies abroad.
The alternative measure--the so-called Smith-Oberstar bill, H.R.
581--would provide for the immediate release of all fiscal year 1997
population control funds, subject to conditions that would preclude
their use for abortion-related activities. In other words, Smith-
Oberstar would ensure that the funds are used for what we all say is
intended here--family planning, not abortion.
I would point out that both measures passed the House of
Representatives on February 13. But the Smith-Oberstar bill, which
passed that Chamber with more votes than the President's proposal,
would make about $170 million more available for the population control
program than would President Clinton's plan. And, as I just noted, it
would guarantee that the funds are used for their intended purpose--
family planning--not for abortion or lobbying in support of more
liberal abortion policies abroad. It would reinstate the Mexico City
policy, a policy initiated by the Reagan administration at the 1984
U.N. conference in Mexico City, attaching certain conditions to the way
foreign organizations can use the American people's hard-earned tax
money.
Mr. President, there were two main conditions associated with the
Mexico City policy. First, an Agency for International Development
[AID] grantee, getting U.S. tax money for family planning overseas,
could not be involved in abortion, even with its own resources.
Second, that grantee could not lobby or pressure foreign governments
on the abortion issue.
At the crux of this debate is a simple question: Why did President
Reagan establish those conditions for receipt of American tax dollars?
Once we understand the answer to that question, we can get this debate
into its proper focus.
Let us start with this fundamental principle: Any nongovernmental
grantee of the United States abroad--which includes, of course, all the
organizations that receive U.S. population assistance funds--is, in
effect, an agent of the United States.
It does not matter how the group puts its own money to use. What
matters is that, when we give them American dollars, we give them our
seal of approval, too. An AID grant confers more than just funds. It
bestows respectability, standing, and clout. It is, in effect, an
official endorsement.
And that is why, for decades, we have always imposed all sorts of
restrictions and requirements upon AID grantees. We do so in
recognition of the fact that money is fungible. Give a million dollars
to an organization, and you free up a million dollars of its own money
for other activities.
Far more important though, we all understand that an AID grant marks
an organization as acceptable, ideologically and ethically, to the
United States.
Back in 1984, President Reagan saw that AID grants to groups involved
in abortion overseas presented an ethical dilemma. Yes, it was their
own money they were using to perform or promote abortion. But every
dollar they got from American taxpayers freed up another dollar for
their abortion-related work.
President Reagan understood that the international community viewed
those abortion groups as quasi-official agents of the U.S. Government.
And for good reason. Private organizations, having the imprimatur of
taxpayer funding, could well be viewed by foreign leaders as speaking
on behalf of the U.S. Government about abortion-related policies.
In fact, some AID grantees openly ran pro-abortion lobbying
campaigns, with their own resources of course, in countries where
abortion was not legal.
Their money, freed up by AID grants, gave them access to local media
and local officials. In country after country, they ran sophisticated--
and effective--campaigns in favor of abortion.
And they are still doing it. The tiny island nation of Mauritius is
an example of the worldwide effort being waged by the International
Planned Parenthood Federation. This is what IPPF said in its own report
on activities in Mauritius:
As a direct result of the advocacy campaign, the policy
climate in Mauritius has changed favourably . . . The MFPA
(Mauritius Family Planning Association, a member of the IPPF)
is determined to maintain the momentum, and sees its role
more stimulating as it contributes to the wave of change.
There is a fundamental issue here: Should funds be earmarked for
family planning as intended, or should taxpayers be required to fund
lobbying activities with which they might disagree? While there is
general consensus in favor of family planning, most people do not
believe tax dollars should be used for lobbying activities.
Back in 1984, President Reagan did not like the idea of our grantees
pressuring foreign governments--particularly with the appearance of an
official endorsement by the government of the United States.
That is why he made a distinction, in his Mexico City white paper,
between what foreign governments do with their money, and what our
grantees do with their money.
Foreign governments that might be involved in abortion would not be
seen as agents of the United States, but AID grantees would be seen in
that light.
So in his Mexico City policy, President Reagan gave AID's population
grantees a choice. If they wanted to remain eligible for future grants,
they would have to promise not to get involved with abortion or
abortion lobbying overseas, even with their own money.
[[Page S1522]]
And the program worked very effectively with that kind of policy in
place. While the Mexico City policy was in effect, the program provided
funds to about 400 organizations worldwide, accounting for nearly half
of the combined pool of family planning funds made available by donor
nations. And as I recall, the amount of money appropriated for
international family planning rose considerably during the Reagan-Bush
years.
Only two grantees--albeit two very powerful grantees--chose to put
abortion advocacy ahead of their commitment to family planning. Their
involvement in abortion was apparently so deep that they were willing
to cripple the family planning work of even some of their own
affiliates that were willing to accept the Mexico City conditions
during those years.
So when we are told today that the Mexico City policy--like the
provisions of the House-passed Smith-Oberstar bill--would wreck
international family planning, we need only look back on past
experience to see what effect it really had.
Mr. President, past experience tells us that almost every AID
population grantee would put its commitment to family planning head of
its involvement in, and lobbying for, abortion. Only one or two would
not.
This country's approach to international family planning is seen
around the world as part of our foreign policy. And those few grantees
that are zealous in their support for abortion should not be allowed to
call the shots for what is really an arm of American foreign policy.
So the question the Senate faces this week is not how much money the
AID population account will get in March or in July. The question is
whether, as a matter of American foreign policy, the prestige of the
American Government and the resources of the American people should
support family planning on the one hand, or a worldwide campaign for
abortion on demand on the other.
If that issue had been better understood when the House of
Representatives voted on this matter earlier this month, the
President's resolution might not have been approved.
Mr. President, I want to conclude by quoting President Reagan, when
he first enunciated the Mexico City policy in the early 1980's. He
said:
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
resources--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.
That goal should not be held hostage to the Clinton administration's
demand that we fund groups involved in abortion and in abortion
lobbying. Fortunately, we do have an alternative, as embodied in the
Smith-Oberstar bill. That is the legislation the Senate should vote to
send to the President this week.
Mr. President, it is a shame that some people seem to care more about
promoting abortions and related policy than providing family planning
services abroad. I ask unanimous consent that a column by Robert Novak
about that be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. KYL. If we are going to get back to the old policy--a successful
policy that ensured funds were made available promptly and used for
population assistance as intended--we need to reinstate limitations
similar to the Mexico City policy. When we can be sure that the funds
are to be used for their intended purpose--that is, for family
planning--I believe we will find a large consensus that will support
the program. I, for one, will do so under those circumstances.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 1997]
Family Planning Showdown
(By Robert Novak)
President Clinton's strategy for keeping U.S. funding of
global population control free of restrictions on abortion
was exposed in a remarkable speech delivered by the first
lady two months ago in La Paz, Bolivia.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, addressing the Sixth Conference of
Wives of Heads of State and Governments of the Americans on
Dec. 3, declared: ``Some members of the U.S. Congress have
voted to limit American support for family planning
initiatives. My husband's administration remains committed to
encouraging a continuation of these investments.''
That left pro-life members of Congress open-mouthed in
outrage. The ``limit'' on contraceptive help to poor
countries that Mrs. Clinton deplored was proposed last year
not by them but by her husband's chief of staff at the time,
Leon Panetta. The Clinton administration's position: better
take less birth control money than accept antiabortion
restrictions. The House itself will choose which course in a
showdown vote today.
President Clinton, who as governor of Arkansas espoused a
moderate pro-life position, is now joined at the hip with
extreme abortion rights advocates. From his veto of the
partial-birth abortion bill to his current stance on world
population control, he will not risk alienating the feminist
support that is critical to Democratic success.
The current dispute began in August 1984, when the
International Conference on Population held in Mexico City
adopted language urged by Reagan-appointed U.S. officials.
The nations of the world signed a report urging all
governments to ``take appropriate steps to help women avoid
abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a method of
family planning.'' President Ronald Reagan then issued an
executive order applying the Mexico City language to U.S.
foreign aid. No longer would Uncle Sam be violating local
religious and cultural norms that oppose abortion.
Some 350 foreign organizations complied, but the London-
based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
refused to certify that it would not promote abortion for
family planning. Indeed, IPPF's current ``Vision 2000'' is a
battle plan for fighting abortion prohibitions worldwide.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who along with other
administration officials denies that the United States funds
abortions abroad, in House testimony Tuesday said she had
never heard of ``Vision 2000.''
On Jan. 22, 1993, two days after taking office, Clinton
signed an executive order repealing the Mexico City language.
With Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth pushing hard,
population control money increased dramatically amid overall
fiscal restraint. In two years, funding increased by 79
percent to $582.7 million.
Republicans took control of Congress in January 1995 and
sought to restore antiabortion restrictions. To break a
deadlock last September, the Republican leadership offered
this compromise; Organizations that followed the Mexico City
language would receive full funding; those that refused--such
as IPPF--would get 50 percent.
No soap, said Panetta, Instead, he made a counter-offer at
6:30 in the morning on Saturday, Sept. 28, after an all-night
negotiating session in the Capitol seeking an omnibus
spending agreement. Panetta proposed a 35 percent reduction
of family planning spending (the same as the rest of the
foreign aid budget). In other words, accept less money for
population control rather than accept antiabortion
restrictions. Abortion has precedence over contraception.
Facing another politically ruinous government shutdown, the
Republicans had no alternative other than to say yes.
The agreement also mandated a vote in the House (to be held
today) on full funding without the Mexico City language. But
pro-lifers will also offer an alternative co-sponsored by
Republican Rep. Christopher Smith of New Jersey and
Democratic Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota for even fuller
funding--$713 million compared with $543.6 million--but
including the Mexico City language.
Vice President Al Gore has met privately in a strategy
session with abortion-rights advocates, and White House aides
have been whipping up public support. They have spread
propaganda that the Smith-Oberstar, amendment represents a
double cross that undercuts support of family planning. All
of this is incorrect.
Even if Smith-Oberstar passes both houses of Congress, a
presidential veto is likely. That would cause spending to
revert to the present $420.4 million level, with no
restrictions on IPPF or other abortion advocates. Here is not
a fight about contraception but about abortion.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today, the issue before the Senate
is whether or not to approve the release of desperately needed
international family planning funds 5 months after the start of the
fiscal year or 9 months after the start of the fiscal year. This is not
a tough decision, we should have released the money months ago; our
failure to release the family planning funds has caused unnecessary
harm to women, children, and families around the globe. However, since
we do not have the ability to go back in time and release the funds at
the beginning of the fiscal year, I urge my colleagues to prevent
future harm and to support the President's request and release the
family planning funds on March 1.
In this increasingly global economy, it is in the United States' best
interest
[[Page S1523]]
to provide international family planning assistance to developing
countries around the world. As the Rockefeller Foundation reports, ``*
* * resource scarcities, often exacerbated by population growth,
undermine the quality of life, confidence in government, and threaten
to destabilize many parts of the globe * * *. Thus in a world made
smaller by global commerce and communication, such scarcities affect us
in the United States. Civil unrest can alter the balance of power in
key regions, destabilize nations with large populations and extensive
resources, or contribute to humanitarian disasters that call for
assistance and peacekeeping services.'' The rate of population growth
is often inversely related to the rate of economic growth.
In addition, developing countries provide a significant expanding
market for U.S. goods. Unrest and instability can lead to a decrease in
exports and thus a decrease in the number jobs here at home. The lack
of jobs in a developing country, resulting from the ever expanding work
force, can also drive down wages and lead to job loss in this country
by forcing U.S. workers to compete with low-wage workers overseas.
Developing nations with increasingly desperate needs for resources
have also been known to over use their natural resources to the
detriment of the long-term environmental stability of the nation and of
the world.
International family planning funds allow women to choose to have
fewer and thus healthier children. In turn, studies show that when
families can count on healthier children, they are likely to have fewer
children. This limits population growth around the globe.
Clearly, there are many other reasons to support international family
planning, including the documented decrease in abortions that results
from access to family planning assistance and the decrease in infant
and maternal mortality. The people of the United States have been
outspoken in their support for programs that improve the health and
safety of women and their babies and that provide alternatives to
abortion as a method of family planning.
Despite the great importance of family planning, not only for
individuals and families, but also for the economic well being of many
nations including the United States, the last Congress sustained a 35-
percent cut in international family planning funds, a cut that was
first enacted in fiscal year 1996. This cut was enacted despite the
fact that there are still 230 million women worldwide, one out of every
six women of childbearing age, that do not have sufficient access to
modern contraceptive methods and despite the fact that we will soon
have the largest population of women of child bearing age ever.
A study conducted by family planning and population organizations in
early 1996 predicted that the 35-percent cut in funding would result in
an estimated additional 1.9 million births, 1.6 million abortions,
8,000 maternal deaths in pregnancy and 134,000 infant deaths.
This study did not even consider the effect of the delay in the
release of funding that was part of both the fiscal year 1996 and
fiscal year 1997 budgets. The fiscal year 1997 budget prevents funds
from being released until 9 months into the fiscal year, and even then
only a percentage of the funds can be released every month.
An additional 4 month delay in the release of funds would result in a
further reduction in international family planning funds in fiscal year
1997 of $123 million, or one-third of the money appropriated. In
addition, because the agencies and organizations can only receive the
funds in small increments, there is no economy of scale in the purchase
of contraceptives, and there is no consistency in the ability to
provide needed services.
As part of the agreement that allows these funds to be released at
all, there is a provision that allows the President to determine that
the funding limitations are having ``a negative impact on the proper
functioning'' of the international family planning program and request
early release of the funds. The Congress is required to vote by the end
of February on whether or not to release the funds in March. Supporting
the early release of funds cannot undo the damage caused by the current
delay or by the significant cuts already incurred. It can, however,
ensure that 17 bilateral and international organizations are not left
in urgent need of funds, that women have access to safe, effective
contraceptives in the next few months, and that unintended, unsafe
pregnancies are prevented.
The United States has a 30-year commitment to working with
organizations and governments around the world to provide women and
their families with the ability to decide freely and responsibly the
number and spacing of their children, improving maternal and infant
health, and improving the security and independence of women's lives.
Some in Congress question the success of these efforts. The U.S.
commitment, however, has been a success by every measure. In countries
in which the United States has joined in family planning efforts, the
average number of children a woman bears has decreased from six to
three. The number of women utilizing modern contraceptives has grown
from 10 to 50 percent. The U.S. provides people around the world with
the opportunity to plan for the safest births and the healthiest
children possible.
Unfortunately, international family planning has become tangled up in
the debate over the ability of a woman to choose to terminate a
pregnancy. There are those who believe that fully funding the
international family planning program would lead to increased
abortions. In fact, no U.S. international family planning funds are
used for abortion or abortion related services. It is already against
the law and that law is rigorously enforced. In addition, if women are
not able to access safe, modern contraceptives, there will certainly be
an increase in abortion, along with maternal and infant deaths.
Part of the appeal of linking international family planning and
abortion is that many in the United States are concerned with the
amount that we spend overseas and do not want funds to pay for
activities that are not funded in the United States, like abortions, or
to fund programs that coerce women into not having children. No
international family planning money is spent on abortions or related
services, or on programs that coerce women into making certain family
planning decisions. In addition, just about 1 percent of our entire
budget is spent on foreign aid of any sort, and only a fraction of that
funding is spent on humanitarian aid, such as family planning.
Last year, Congress agreed to provide family planning funds to
communities around the world because the need is there and support for
the program exists. Congress should not prevent the funds from being
spent by delaying the release for months beyond the start of the fiscal
year.
By voting for the immediate release of funds, we will be voting
against maternal and infant ill health and death, and against increased
abortions worldwide. We will be voting to strengthen the global economy
and preserve our environment. We will keep faith with our duty to
provide constructive leadership in the world. I urge my colleagues to
vote to release the funds now so that women and children around the
globe can be safe and healthy.
Mrs. Murray. Mr President, the Senate will soon vote to affirm or
reject President Clinton's decision to seek the prompt release of
international family planning moneys already appropriated for fiscal
year 1997. Let me be crystal clear on this point, the question before
the Senate is the release of moneys already agreed to by this body.
Virtually every Senator who served in the last Congress has already
voted to support international family planning. And it is worth noting
that the fiscal year 1997 appropriation for international family
planning is significantly reduced from previous years' funding levels;
a 35 percent cut from the fiscal year 1996 figure.
Mr. President, I strongly support and I do urge all of my colleagues
to support President Clinton's decision to seek the early release of
the $385 million appropriated by the 104th Congress for fiscal year
1997. Traditionally, the Senate in bipartisan fashion has supported the
President's position on this issue. And I want to commend the House of
Representatives for earlier
[[Page S1524]]
agreeing to the President's request to release the monies for
international family planning.
The politics of extremism and misinformation have turned this into a
much larger vote than it should be. The American people should watch
closely the results of the vote on this issue. They will get an early
glimpse of whether the popular rhetoric about working together is real
or simply a political ploy to mask the politics of division and
confrontation that most agree was denounced in last fall's election by
the American people.
Today the world's population has swelled to more than 5 billion
people, with nearly 100 million more added each year. Without strong
leadership in support of voluntary family planning programs, experts
predict that in just over 30 years the world's population is likely to
double to more than 10 and possibly as many as 13 billion people. Since
the mid-1960's, our country has led the global effort to combat
population growth. Currently, the Agency for International Development
provides assistance in more than 60 countries through nearly 100
programs.
Importantly, USAID is prohibited by U.S. law from using taxpayer
dollars to pay for abortions as a method of family planning or to
motivate an individual to seek an abortion. USAID contracts contain
legally binding provisions forbidding abortion as family planning and
strict procedures including staff monitoring and regular audits are in
place to ensure that no U.S. taxpayer moneys go to pay for abortions
abroad. Those who argue this issue is about abortion are engaging in a
campaign of misinformation and deceit.
Current U.S. international family planning moneys are actually
reducing the frequency of abortions abroad. Thus it makes no sense to
me that the opponents of abortion have decided to grade legislators on
this vote. Rather, they should be supporting these programs with the
same vigor they now display in opposition. Consider the recent program
example of Russia. Between 1990 and 1994, the use of contraception
increased from 19 percent to 24 percent of the population. As a result,
the number of abortions in Russia over that period decreased by
800,000. Russian women used to have, on average, two to three abortions
each over a lifetime. Family planning programs are already at work
offering alternatives to abortion for women and families. All across
the former Soviet Union and in countries like Mexico and Columbia,
there is a body of evidence that suggests increased contraceptive use
actually reduces the number of abortions. If the Senate rejects
President Clinton's request to release the 1997 international family
planning moneys, the result will be more abortions performed worldwide.
I want to get away from abortion because that is truly not what
today's debate is about. I want to focus for a few minutes on what
international family planning moneys do accomplish and the importance
of continued U.S. leadership in this area. United States international
family planning programs are perhaps the most successful foreign aid
programs ever supported by U.S. taxpayers.
International family planning is about women's health. Death from
pregnancy related conditions is the No. 1 cause of death for women in
developing countries. According to Amnesty International, almost
600,000 women per year die because of pregnancy related causes. The
death of a mother in the developing world is particularly tragic for a
family seeking to escape poverty as these women are usually both the
principal care givers for children and a wage earner. U.S. foreign
assistance moneys have increased the availability of quality
reproductive health care, including women-centered, women-managed
services.
International family planning is about child survival. It is
estimated that nearly 35,000 children under the age of 5 die every day
in the world's developing countries. Allowing families to space the
birthing of children will ensure healthier mothers better able to
breast feed and care for children. Increased access to family planning,
combined with other factors, could reduce child survival in the
developing world by 20 percent. Rejecting the President's request for
the release of the 1997 moneys will surely set back efforts to reduce
the number of children who die each and every day in countries like
India, Bangladesh, and Uganda.
International family planning is about helping young girls worldwide.
Cultural preferences for sons in the developing world has dire and
sometimes deadly results for young girls. Throughout the developing
world girls are fed less; girls do not get adequate health care; and
girls do not get the opportunity to attend school. And we all know of
the documented cases where infanticide is practiced against young girls
because of a preference for sons. It is somewhat ironic that many who
rail against this treatment of young girls in China and other countries
would now seek to further restrict or end United States international
family planning programs that do so much to better the lives of young
girls.
International family planning programs are fundamental to preserving
the endangered natural environment of our planet. We all know of the
punishing toll that the world's population takes upon the earth: the
air we breath; the clean water we require for healthy and sanitary
living; and the arable land available to feed the population. More than
one-half of the world's developing population is below the age of 25.
And the number of women of reproductive age in the developing world
will soon total nearly 1 billion. Our population problems and the
ramifications for the United States are growing. The U.S. commitment to
combat overpopulation of our planet is shrinking. It is a
responsibility I believe we must not shirk.
The Senate has the opportunity to send a message of hope and
opportunity to the women of the world today, and particularly those
women in the developing world seeking to make a better life for
themselves and their families. It is really that simple. I hope my
colleagues will join me in voting for the resolution to release this
crucial funding.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Vermont has
expired. The Senator from Kentucky has 1 minute and 6 seconds
remaining.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back the time, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Smith, Gordon H.
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--46
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Burns
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith, Bob
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--1
Inouye
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) was passed.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
joint resolution was passed.
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________