[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.
  
                            ____________________