[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3481-H3499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Pursuant to House Resolution 
159 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 1757.

                              {time}  1017


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to 
authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related 
agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Ney (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, June 4, 1997, pending was the amendment by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] adding a new title to the bill.
  Pursuant to the order of the Committee of that day, debate on that 
amendment and all amendments thereto will be limited to 1 hour and 20 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the following Members or 
their designees:
  The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for 20 minutes;
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] for 20 minutes;
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for 20 minutes; and
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and let me just begin this debate by saying that today one 
of the most important pro-life amendments will be up before this 
Congress.
  It is the amendment that separates abortion from family planning in 
our overseas population control programs. It is a policy that was in 
effect during the Reagan-Bush years and effectively erected a fire wall 
between family planning and the promotion of abortion on demand around 
the world, where approximately 100 countries protected their unborn. 
And regrettably they are under siege by organizations like Planned 
Parenthood and others in trying to bring down these laws.
  So that is what the amendment is all about. I understand there will 
be a substitute that, frankly, is a fake, and we will talk about that 
during the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman] the designee for the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]?
  Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] 
is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  We have 25 speakers, many of whom thought this would be starting at 
10:30, so many are probably on their way over at this time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BERMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Presently before us 
is the Smith amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. BERMAN. And we are operating under a unanimous-consent request 
with respect to the Smith amendment, a substitute amendment to be 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], and time 
limits for debate on both of those measures; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On the Smith amendment and all amendments 
thereto.
  Mr. BERMAN. But at this point, though, Mr. Chairman, the only 
amendment in front of us is the Smith amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, first of all, a parliamentary inquiry. Is 
my understanding correct that there will be a unanimous-consent request 
to divide time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unanimous-consent agreement has already 
been ordered. The time has been divided.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Further inquiry, Mr. Chairman, before proceeding, and 
that is whether the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey amendment is to be the 
only amendment included during this time period?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On the clarification, the time restriction 
is on the Smith amendment and any amendments thereto.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Further inquiry, Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed, it is 
my understanding that that is the only amendment; otherwise we might 
want to divide the time differently.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is my 
understanding that presently before us is the Smith amendment, the 
Campbell-plus amendment will be offered as a substitute to that 
amendment, and the time limit is for the two amendments together, three 
20-minute segments.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
clarification.

[[Page H3482]]

  One last inquiry of a parliamentary nature, Mr. Chairman. Is it now 
appropriate or necessary for me to actually move the Campbell-
Greenwood-Lowey amendment as a substitute for the Smith amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It would be in order for the gentleman to 
offer an amendment at this time.


Amendment Offered by Mr. CAMPBELL to the Amendment Offered by Mr. SMITH 
                             of New Jersey

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       Page 1, strike all following the title designation and 
     insert the following:

     SEC.  . POPULATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES OR OTHER POPULATION 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act or any other provision of law, none of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act for population 
     planning activities or other population assistance may be 
     made available to pay for the performance of abortions in any 
     foreign country, except where the life of the mother would be 
     endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in cases or 
     rape or incest.
       (2) The limitation contained in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to the treatment of injuries or illness caused by 
     unsafe abortions.
       (b) Limitations on Lobbying Activities.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other 
     provision of law, none of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act for population planning activities 
     or other population assistance may be made available to lobby 
     for or against abortion.
       (2) The limitation contained in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to activities in opposition to coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization.

     SEC.  . UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND.

       (a) Limitation.--Subject to subsections (b), (c), and 
     (d)(2), of the amounts made available for each of the fiscal 
     years 1998 and 1999 to carry out part I of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, not more than $25,000,000 shall be 
     available for each such fiscal year for the United Nations 
     Population Fund.
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Funds in China.--None of the 
     funds made available under this section shall be made 
     available for a country program in the People's Republic of 
     China.
       (c) Conditions on Availability of Funds.--(1) Not more than 
     one-half of the amount made available to the United Nations 
     Population Fund under this section may be provided to the 
     Fund before March 1 of the fiscal year for which funds are 
     made available.
       (2) Amounts made available for each of the fiscal years 
     1998 and 1999 under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 for the United Nations Populations Fund may not be made 
     available to the Fund unless--
       (A) the Fund maintains amounts made available to the Fund 
     under this section in an account separate from accounts of 
     the Fund for other funds; and
       (B) the Fund does not commingle amounts made available to 
     the Fund under this section with other funds.
       (d) Reports.--(1) Not later than February 15, 1998, and 
     February 15, 1999, the Secretary of State shall submit a 
     report to the appropriate congressional committees indicating 
     the amount of funds that the United Nations Population Fund 
     is budgeting for the year in which the report is submitted 
     for a country program in the People's Republic of China.
       (2) If a report under paragraph (1) indicates that the 
     United Nations Population Fund plans to spend China country 
     program funds in the People's Republic of China in the year 
     covered by the report, then the amount of such funds that the 
     Fund plans to spend in the People's Republic of China shall 
     be deducted from the funds made available to the Fund after 
     March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year 
     in which the report is submitted.

  Mr. CAMPBELL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer to the Smith amendment 
restores the agreement that was reached last year on U.N. family 
planning assistance, and its purpose is that we would have exactly the 
same compromise which allowed us to go ahead with necessary family 
planning assistance through the U.N. population fund that we had last 
year and that was made law last year.
  Let me be explicit in noting that it does not permit the United 
States contributions to go for any abortion purposes; and, also, it 
states that there is to be no contribution at all to China. So those 
two issues really should be taken off the table. In the Campbell-
Greenwood-Lowey amendment funds may not be used in China, even if it is 
for family planning in China.
  So the substance of the amendment is, I repeat, what we had last 
year. Money is to be cut into two parts, that which is available for 
disbursement before March 1 and that which comes after March 1. That 
which comes after March 1 goes to the U.N. population fund, as the 
first half does as well; but, dollar for dollar, if the United Nations 
family planning fund gives money to China, then dollar for dollar we 
restrict, we take that dollar out of what the United States is 
contributing to the UNFPA.
  So, as a result, it is simply not true that any of our taxpayers' 
money will go to fund abortion. It is also untrue any of our taxpayers' 
money will go to assist even family planning in China. What the 
amendment permits, however, is the continuation of successful 
participation in family planning, which, I suggest, is a very great 
benefit to the U.S. interests and to those in need throughout the 
world.
  I draw attention to the fact that family planning is a substitute for 
abortion. It is just essential to recognize that if a country is 
attempting to bring down its birthrate, and if there is a temptation to 
have abortion as a means of doing that, family planning is far 
preferable.
  The Smith amendment, by contrast, runs a tremendous risk. What it 
does is to say unless the President can certify that the entire United 
Nations fund does not go to assist in China, or unless the President 
can assert that there are no coerced abortions in China, then all 
United Nations family planning assistance contributions by the United 
States must end.
  Let me be very clear about that. Even if the assistance is to 
Bangladesh, even if the assistance is to sub-Saharan Africa--because of 
China, the United Nations family population assistance, the part that 
comes from the United States, may not go ahead. Whatever one's views 
happen to be about China, it is simply wrong to punish the good 
essential functions of international family planning in destitute areas 
of the world because of China, which is what the Smith amendment does.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, I want to draw attention to the fact that 
contraception diminishes abortion. The facts are indisputable. I cite 
the AID studies in this area involving Russia, Kazakhstan, Hungary, 
where there was an increase in the use of contraception, a dramatic 
drop in abortions followed.
  Russia, 1990 to 1997, contraceptive use went up 30 percent, abortion 
dropped 22 percent; Kazakhstan, 1993 to 1994, contraception went up 59 
percent, abortions dropped 41 percent; Hungary, from 1968 to 1988, 
contraceptive use more than tripled and abortion dropped more than 
half.
  Examples of this nature are obvious because the need for family 
planning removes the occasion for abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify some of the information relative to 
the Smith-Barcia-Oberstar-Hyde amendment and mention a few of the 
points that the amendment attempts to address and focus the issue and 
the discussion back on the issue of the amendment itself as opposed to 
debate between of course the concept of contraception, which many of us 
support and certainly should support, and the actual language of the 
amendment.
  The Mexico City policy would ensure, of course, it would certainly 
address the point in the policy and it would ensure that U.S. tax 
dollars will not be allocated to foreign nongovernmental organizations 
unless they agree not to violate the laws or lobby to change the laws 
of other countries with respect to abortion and agree not to perform 
abortions in those countries, except in the cases of rape, incest, or 
where the life of the mother is in danger.

                              {time}  1030

  Second, it closes the loophole that allows U.S. tax dollars to 
subsidize organizations which perform abortions. Currently, law under 
the 1973 Helms amendment prohibits the direct use of U.S. foreign aid 
funds to pay for most abortion procedures. U.S. funds and tax dollars 
are being used indirectly by organizations claiming that they are

[[Page H3483]]

using their funds and not U.S. tax dollars to perform abortions.
  Third, the amendment will prohibit any U.S. funds to the United 
Nations Population Fund, the UNFPA, until they cease their support for 
China's coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization policy. The 
actions of the Chinese toward their citizens are beyond description. 
The forced abortion of their unborn and mandatory sterilization of 
their people, regardless of the economic hardship in their country, is 
inexcusable. U.S. funds should not be used to support those actions.
  This amendment does not decrease funding for population assistance. 
In fact, spending for population control programs increased over the 
time the Mexico City policy was in effect from $318 million for fiscal 
year 1985 to $448 million for fiscal year 1993. This amendment 
continues to fund international population assistance but limits the 
availability only to those organizations who do not perform abortions.
  Finally, this amendment will not prevent funding for most family 
planning organizations. Virtually all family planning organizations 
agreed to the terms of the Mexico City policy.
  Mr. Chairman, those are the points that I wanted to make. I know we 
will be hearing additional debate on these very important amendments, 
and I hope that those of us who are concerned about this issue will get 
to the floor on our side to be recognized for statements they might 
wish to make, recognizing of course that it is a very busy and hectic 
time this morning as we try to complete the session business this week. 
But I am delighted to join my cochair, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith], who has done a fine job in leading the discussion and 
offering these amendments which I was very pleased to offer bipartisan 
support to.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California, the author of the 
substitute which we are now considering, made the essential point. It 
is counterproductive, it is wrong to seek language which would restrict 
the disbursement of contraceptive services in the name of opposition to 
abortion when the consequence of that very conduct will be to increase 
abortion. That point needs to be made over and over again.
  I want to just take what little time I have yielded myself to point 
out the other language in the amendment of the gentleman from 
California. There is a clear prohibition on the use of U.S. funds to 
pay for abortions or for abortion counseling in any foreign country 
except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in 
danger. No U.S. funds will be used for these purposes.
  The goal of the Campbell amendment is to free up family planning 
funds and contraceptive services so that people can make their 
decisions about how to avoid the problem of having to have abortions. 
It also prohibits lobbying on the issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith language and in 
very strong opposition to the Campbell-Greenwood amendment. I would 
like to clarify the debate at hand here. This is a funding issue, what 
are we going to do with our U.S. taxpayer dollars. While there are 
prohibitions against U.S. taxpayer dollars being used for purposes like 
providing abortions, for lobbying to overturn pro-life laws in foreign 
capitals, or to go to an organization that promotes the forced abortion 
issue that is going on in China, United Nations funds right now are 
going to China and they are using it to force women who do not want to 
have abortions to have abortions.
  Our colleagues will claim that that is OK and that they can play this 
numbers game, and they can use our U.S. taxpayer dollars to provide 
condoms or other contraceptive services and then use dollars from 
somewhere else for forced abortions, for providing abortions or 
lobbying to overturn abortion laws in foreign capitals.
  The Smith amendment very clearly just says we are not going to give 
it to those organizations, we do not want to give U.S. taxpayer dollars 
that come out of the pockets of hard-working Americans, millions of 
whom are pro-life, millions of whom are pro-life Catholics and 
Protestants who have a strong religious prohibition against this.
  We do not want to give our U.S. taxpayer dollars to those 
organizations. Why would we want to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to an 
organization that is going to do forced abortions in China, and then we 
are going to get up here on the floor of the House and smile and say, 
well, our dollars did not go for that purpose.
  I mean, what a joke. They have got $1 million in the account, and 
they get $500,000 from the United States and $500,000 from their 
private sources, and they say the $500,000 going for abortions comes 
from the private sources. I say support the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] and support his amendment, vote against the Campbell-
Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], the coauthor of the amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, what is this all about? The base bill does the right 
thing. The base bill holds true to America's commitment to population 
control.
  This is the history of population growth on planet Earth. We can say 
that in the second half of this century we headed off on an explosive 
growth of population worldwide, and most of that growth is in 
underdeveloped nations, in places like India and China and Africa.
  The purpose of these funds is to simply enable families, particularly 
poor families, to have the number of children that they want to, as 
many children as they want to or as few as they want to.
  My colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], 
has an amendment. His amendment would say that none of the funds to 
help control population development may go to an organization if that 
organization, with its own money, not with American taxpayers' dollars 
but with the money of the woman who seeks an abortion, provides that 
service as well.
  My colleague stands on a moral point. I respect him for that. But 
there is a time in public policy where morality becomes hypocrisy and 
morality becomes hypocrisy, when what we are trying to achieve does far 
more harm and in fact goes counterproductive to what we are trying to 
accomplish.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I will say that I am not suggesting that 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is hypocritical, if that is 
his point.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I am suggesting that public policy can make us all 
hypocrites. The point is that without these funds, the consequences are 
real. The consequences are 1,600 women dying every day because their 
pregnancies are too closely spaced together, because their bodies are 
too young, their bodies are too old to sustain that pregnancy, they die 
of postpartum hemorrhage.
  Five hundred eighty thousand women die a year because they do not 
have access to good reproductive health services, and it is 
hypocritical for any of us to suggest that we want to, in the name of 
reducing the number of abortions, allow that to occur. It is wrong to 
allow 7 million infants a year around the world to die because they are 
born to women who cannot nourish them, they are born into families that 
cannot sustain them. That is an awful consequence to pay for a moral 
principle.
  It is wrong and most ironic that the consequence of the Smith 
amendment is millions and millions of more abortions around the world, 
because we will not stop abortions by simply prohibiting agencies from 
participating in family planning funds. That defies common sense on its 
face. In fact, what we do have is an explosive growth of abortions in 
those places around the world where women do not have access to family 
planning.

[[Page H3484]]

  My colleagues, please support the Campbell-Greenwood amendment. It 
accomplishes what we all want to accomplish. It reduces human 
suffering. It empowers poor families to develop their families, to grow 
their families as they are able, to prevent this awful toll of human 
suffering, and it ensures that not a penny, not a dime of taxpayer 
moneys goes to pay for abortion.
  Let us talk about the realities of this process. We know that if the 
Smith amendment prevails unamended by Campbell-Greenwood, that this 
will not be accepted by the Senate and it will be vetoed by the 
President, so this will not stand. This is the time for compromise. We 
have found ourselves compromising on this issue year after year, 
session after session. Let us be realistic. Let us understand the 
political realities as well as the realities in human suffering and 
support the Campbell-Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just also like to comment on the Campbell-
Greenwood amendment and say that it simply does nothing to end United 
States support for the UNFPA's continued activities in China that have 
already been referenced, and I think are certainly viewed in a very 
negative fashion by the taxpayers across this country. It also does 
nothing to end United States tax dollars being used to promote and 
perform abortion around the world.
  Pro-life Americans believe that it is improper use that any tax 
dollars go to organizations that perform or promote abortions, even 
though these organizations may claim that U.S. dollars are not used for 
abortion-related activities. We should not support any organization 
that fails to adhere to our unyielding belief in the right to life.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Aderholt].
  (Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], an amendment that 
would save literally countless children throughout the world, and in 
opposition to the alternative amendment which would only continue the 
status quo, dodging the real issue at hand.
  I would like to commend my colleague from New Jersey for taking 
action to try and prevent the use of hundreds of millions of taxpayer 
dollars for promoting abortion and funding the international abortion 
industry. How can we justify using our hard-earned money for the 
purpose of helping foreign nations take the lives of innocent children? 
This is not what I would call foreign aid.
  I also commend my colleague for taking steps to save children from a 
death sentence. Just yesterday in Poland, Pope John Paul II stated that 
the right of life is not a question of ideology, not only a religious 
right, it is a human right. He also restated his belief that a nation 
which kills its own children is a nation without a future.
  The question we will vote on today is quite simply whether you oppose 
taxpayer funds being used to promote abortion in foreign countries or 
whether you support it, pure and simple.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes on behalf of the 
Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey amendment to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, our world's population is growing at an 
alarming rate. Resources are being consumed faster than they can be 
renewed. This exploding population is leaving poverty, malnutrition, 
widespread transmission of disease, and environmental degradation in 
its wake. That is why, Mr. Chairman, support for reproductive health 
services is becoming more important every day.

                              {time}  1045

  Voluntary family planning services give mothers and families new 
choices and hope. They increase child survival and promote safe 
childhood and safe motherhood. Without our support for international 
family planning, women in developing nations will face more unwanted 
pregnancies, more poverty, more despair.
  Mr. Chairman, it continues to be extremely ironic that the same 
people who would deny women in the developing world the choice of an 
abortion would also seek to eliminate support for family planning 
programs, programs that reduce the need for abortion in the first 
place. Without access to safe and affordable family planning services, 
there will be more abortions, not fewer, the abortions will be less 
safe and put more women's lives in danger.
  To this end, Mr. Chairman, the very least we can do is pass the 
Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey amendment. We should not be playing political 
football with international family planning funds. Let us allow 
international family planning programs to do what they were designed to 
do, maintain sustainable levels of population, giving people in the 
developing world better health, greater prosperity and more hope for 
the future.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Kelly].
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Smith 
amendment which would reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy.
  Once again we have this unnecessary debate. Once again those of us 
who are strong supporters of international family planning have to 
remind Congress that we already prohibit U.S. funds for abortion in 
international family planning through a 1973 Helms amendment that is 
part of the permanent foreign aid statute. Once again we have to remind 
Congress that family planning is not abortion, that family planning 
prevents abortion. Once again we stand here today debating an issue of 
women and infant mortality.
  This amendment uses scare tactics to prevent nongovernmental 
organizations from discussing issues pertaining to reproductive rights. 
The Smith amendment gags foreign nongovernmental organizations from 
talking to their own governments with their own funds about abortion 
law or policy, even when it might involve discussions about making 
abortions safer.
  The effects of the Mexico City policy are far-reaching and negative. 
According to UNICEF, each year 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related 
causes; 75,000 of these deaths are associated with self-induced unsafe 
abortion. Is this the result we want? Do we want the blood of 75,000 
women on our hands year after year after year?
  In addition, this amendment would terminate the entire U.S. 
contribution to the U.N. Population Fund unless the President certifies 
that the U.N. Population Fund has terminated all activities in China. 
This is simply not fair.
  The U.N. Population Fund's country program in China ended in 1995. 
Currently they maintain a liaison office only in Beijing for programs 
in Mongolia and North Korea. This amendment seeks to use the U.N. 
Population Fund's past program in China and its small presence in China 
as a basis for withdrawing all support of the U.N. Population Fund 
altogether.
  Lastly, I would like to emphasize that to call family planning 
abortion is to trivialize a critical and complex issue. Family planning 
is prenatal care. Family planning is child nutrition. Family planning 
is followup and preventive care. It is the education provided by 
international family planning that is often what enables children to 
survive the first year and what enables women to survive their 
pregnancies.
  Do not impose this gag order. Provide the world with family planning 
education that works to eliminate the need for abortion. Defeat the 
Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of the 
Smith amendment and in opposition to the Campbell amendment. The Smith 
amendment is about abortion and it is about prohibiting the use of 
Federal dollars for the promotion of abortion. Do not be misled. 
Promoting abortion is never about family planning.

[[Page H3485]]

  This administration would have us believe that once we give away 
millions of dollars to contractors or grantees in faraway countries, 
how these dollars are used is irrelevant as long as their money is not 
being used to directly perform abortions. Since when is it irrelevant 
that U.S. tax dollars are being used to harm innocent human life? Since 
when are Americans obligated to finance efforts to dismantle the laws 
of foreign countries who have so appropriately chosen to protect human 
life? And since when has this Government simply turned over tax dollars 
to any individual, organization or entity and simply said, ``What you 
do with this is irrelevant,'' especially when lives are at stake?
  Mr. Chairman, human life is relevant. Nothing is more relevant. It 
matters to that innocent baby that may be killed because laws that 
protect it are being dismantled with U.S. tax dollars. It matters to 
the families of these children. Quite frankly, it should matter to us. 
It is our obligation as elected officials to actively protect innocent 
human life. Abortion is a disgrace to society and to civilization. Let 
us not degrade ourselves and our reputation abroad any longer. Please 
support the Smith amendment and defeat the Campbell amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise respectfully in disagreement with the Smith amendment 
and support of the Greenwood-Campbell-Lowey amendment and thank them 
for their leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor.
  It seems repetitive to say what some of my colleagues have already 
said on the floor on this issue, but obviously the issue needs 
repetition because it does not seem to be clear that this provision, 
the Smith amendment, is unnecessary. No United States funds can be used 
by UNFPA in China. Current appropriations law, and I speak as ranking 
member of the subcommittee on appropriations for foreign operations, so 
I know intimately the details of our legislation. Current 
appropriations law already denies foreign aid funding to any 
organization or program that, quotes, supports or participates in the 
management of a program of coerced abortion or involuntary 
sterilization in any country, and this is under the so-called Kemp-
Kasten amendment. Further, current appropriations law also ensures that 
none of the United States contribution to UNFPA may be used in China, 
and United States funds are maintained in a segregated account and may 
not be commingled with other UNFPA funds.
  I understand and appreciate the concern that my colleague has spoken 
out on in terms of China and their forced abortion program. But the 
United States Government should not as a matter of principle hold 
family planning and UNFPA hostage to a legitimate concern that my 
colleagues and I share about the conduct of the Chinese Government. 
There is a well-founded concern about China's family planning program 
but not UNFPA's. UNFPA is already subject to more restrictions that are 
more punitive than those imposed on other multilateral organizations 
working in countries considered to be rogue nations or guilty of human 
rights abuses.
  We must not hold our policy hostage to the politics of the House of 
Representatives. We must not hold the poor families and the poor women 
of the world hostage to the politics of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to 
respond.
  This is not about politics. This is about life and death. We are 
talking about not reducing family planning by a dime. That is a 
priority issue and that is a money issue. We are talking about erecting 
a wall of separation between promotion and performance of abortion 
overseas by groups like Planned Parenthood Federation of America and 
their international branch and the IPPF and all these other groups who 
have it as their mission to promote abortion on demand globally. That 
is what we are talking about. This is not about politics.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I come forward today to express my strong support for 
the Smith amendment that would essentially restore two policies that 
were in effect during the Bush and Reagan Administrations. I totally 
support and identify with the comments of the gentleman from New 
Jersey. One concerns future U.S. funding of the United Nations 
Population Fund. The second is intended to prevent U.S. funding of 
nongovernmental organizations which perform or promote abortion as a 
method of family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, current law, known as the 1973 Helms amendment, already 
bans direct funding of abortions. But I have learned that Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America--now, this is a fact--Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America provides direct assistance to family 
planning projects through its Family Planning International Assistance 
Program. That is not fiction. That is fact.
  In Kenya, for instance, the Family Planning International Assistance 
Program began supporting a project designed to remedy the serious 
problem of unsafe abortions. The project offers feminine cyclical 
regulation and post-cyclical family planning services. The other 
projects, in Bangladesh and Nicaragua, also provide abortion and 
cyclical regulation services. Altogether these projects perform nearly 
10,000 abortions a year.
  Mr. Chairman, this news makes me very angry, because we have to deal 
with the facts. We cannot be fooled by the false claims of many 
international population groups who state that this is not an abortion 
issue. It is an abortion issue.
  We must be firm and stipulate that no population funds will go to 
foreign nongovernmental organizations that, No. 1, perform abortions, 
except in the case of criminal rape, incest, or when the mother's life 
is in imminent danger; or, two, violate the laws of any foreign 
country. We must respect their laws with respect to abortion. Or, 
three, engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or 
governmental policies of any foreign country with respect to abortion.
  My position on abortion is very clear and consistent. I oppose it 
except in the case of the imminent life of the mother being threatened, 
or criminal rape or criminal incest, where that has occurred.
  Our system of laws, our American heritage, is based on the idea that 
people have certain God-given rights, and those rights are life and 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights existed before laws 
were established. In fact, it is because of those rights that existed 
that laws were established in order to protect those rights.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the highest respect for the gentleman from New 
Jersey. He has been and is one of the great leaders in this Congress in 
supporting human rights and the rule of law across the world. 
Yesterday, he stood up and ensured that Voice of America and Radio Free 
Asia got additional funds so that we can broadcast the message of 
freedom to the people of China hourly.
  We have had this debate so many times. Sometime I hope that I can 
convince the gentleman from New Jersey that voluntary family planning, 
the right to plan the number and spacing of one's children by the 
spouses of a family, is a basic human right for all people across this 
planet and that the United States of America ought to be the strongest 
supporter of that basic human right.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree there is absolutely no question that 
abortion is not a legitimate family planning method. The United States 
has never provided $1 for abortion as a family planning method, and we 
do not do so today. Unfortunately, some have seen an opportunity to 
address a tangential issue in the context of voluntary family planning, 
and in the meantime, 75,000 women a year all across this world are 
dying from botched abortions.
  In the year 2025, the world's population is projected to be 8.2 
billion people; 85 percent of this population will

[[Page H3486]]

live in less developed countries. Thirty-five percent of the developing 
world is under the age of 15, compared to 20 percent in an 
industrialized country. In nearly all sub-Saharan African countries 
close to half the population is under the age of 15. What opportunity 
do those people have to a life of any hope?
  In 1994, the average gross national product per capita in the United 
States was $25,860; in Africa, $660. With the population rate 
increasing faster than an economic growth rate, people are simply 
assigned to the dustbin of a life of no hope, no future, and no chance.
  We are talking about international family planning. The abortion 
issue has been brought into this debate sideways, as a tangential 
issue. Some day we have to realize that access to family planning is a 
basic human right. I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey, that, 
since we are both strong supporters of human rights worldwide, I hope 
we can find common ground to support family planning and to ensure that 
abortion is never considered as a legitimate option.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment 
and in strong support of the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey substitute. My 
good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], and other 
proponents of the Smith amendment, claim that the amendment simply cuts 
abortion funding. What they do not tell us is that abortion funding 
overseas has been prohibited since 1973.
  This amendment would cut abortion funding from its current level of 
zero to zero. Therefore, the Smith amendment must be after something 
more. That something is family planning.
  One of the most important forms of aid that we provide to other 
countries is family planning assistance. No one can deny that the need 
for family planning services in developing countries is urgent.
  Let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women 
around the world. Complications of pregnancy, child birth, unsafe 
abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age 
throughout the third world. One million women die each year as a result 
of reproductive health problems; each year 250,000 women die from 
unsafe abortions. Only 20 to 35 percent of women in Africa and Asia 
receive prenatal care. Five hundred million married women want 
contraceptives but cannot obtain them. Most of these deaths can be 
prevented.
  The Smith amendment would impose a gag rule on U.S.-based 
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, multilateral 
organizations that provide U.S. supported family planning aid overseas. 
The gag rule is written, in fact, so broadly that it would prohibit the 
publishing of factual information about maternal morbidity and 
mortality related to unsafe abortion.
  Finally, the Smith amendment cuts funds to UNFPA, an organization 
that provides family planning and population assistance in over 140 
countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment and 
to support the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to respond to the gentlewoman from New York's 
comments, a Member who I have a great deal of respect for, but again we 
emphasize this amendment does not decrease funding for population 
control assistance. In fact, spending for population control programs, 
as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, increased over the time the 
Mexico City policy was in effect from some $318 million for fiscal year 
1985 to over $448 million for fiscal year 1993. The intent of the Smith 
amendment is to restrict those dollars from being used through 
subterfuge for the performing of abortions.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARCIA. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my good friend and 
colleague that I recently came back from a trip to Egypt. This 
amendment would have a chilling effect on programs such as exist in 
Egypt which are lifesaving to women and children, helping them space 
their children, giving them the information. If an organization such as 
we find in Egypt that provides these valuable services to these women 
uses their own money or even provides some factual information in 
response to a question, they could be defunded.
  So we are saying here, and I believe with all due respect to my 
friend and colleague, that this is not about family planning; it is 
because, in speaking to the health professionals, they make it very 
clear that this would have a tremendous impact on family planning.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support a strong wall 
between abortion and other health-related services. This Congress 
should do nothing to spend U.S. tax dollars overseas to promote 
abortion. We as Members of Congress should not help abortionists push 
abortion.
  If my colleagues want to hear the type of philosophy this 
administration wants to fund, listen to a quote from the director of 
the U.N. Population Fund. China has every reason to feel proud of and 
pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning 
policy and control of its population growth. Now the country could 
offer its experiences and its special experts to help other countries.
  This is a shameful statement. The forced abortion policy in China is 
wrong and immoral. This Nation should not use our hard earned tax 
dollars to push China's policy or this administration's abortion 
philosophy on other nations in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, we should build a strong wall between the abortion 
industry and other health-related services. We should promote health-
related services, but let us stand up to the most pro-abortion 
administration in our history. Please support the Smith amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Is the gentleman the designee for 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]?
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think there is one fact that cannot be 
argued here. If the Smith amendment wins, as well-intentioned as it is, 
there will be more abortions because every time we shut down a family 
planning project we end up with unwanted pregnancies, and the only 
alternative we are going to leave for these women are abortions. In 
many instances not only will the fetus die, the mother will die because 
they do not have the kind of conditions that a safe abortion can be 
performed in. So my colleagues can be on lots of sides on the issue of 
abortion, but they cannot argue with one central fact here:
  If the Smith amendment wins, women will die, and more abortions will 
occur because when we take away the choice of family planning, when we 
reduce the leverage of the dollars we have that provide for education 
and family planning, contraceptives and other methods of reducing the 
need for abortion and reducing unwanted pregnancies, we end up with one 
unarguable fact, that the number of abortions worldwide will increase.
  Now my colleague's intent may be another category. People's intent 
may be completely honest here. I am sure the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith], who I know to be a genuine individual and cares deeply 
about this issue, has the best intent possible. But the results of his 
amendment, if it succeeds, will be to increase abortions around the 
world in communities that cannot afford it. They cannot afford the 
economic consequences, they cannot afford the loss of life of mothers 
who are mothering children already born, and so the policy that we will 
send from this Chamber will have the exact opposite result than the one 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] is seeking.
  We need to defeat the Smith amendment to make sure that people have 
an alternative to abortion around the world, that family planning, that 
contraception is the way that we can do that, and so I say to my 
colleagues,

[[Page H3487]]

 ``Don't just walk into this Chamber and think about where you normally 
line up on this issue, because if you really want to cut the number of 
abortions worldwide, vote against the Smith amendment. If you're really 
against abortion, if you want to see fewer abortions than we had 
yesterday, then oppose the Smith amendment because it is the only way 
to reduce the number of abortions. You can't hope it is going to do it, 
you can't do anything else to reduce it except to increase family 
planning and education.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just 
briefly to respond.
  First of all, we are saying in my amendment, ``Divest yourself of 
abortion and you get family planning funds.'' The gentleman from 
Connecticut in 1984-85, when I first offered this amendment, said none 
of the nongovernmental organizations would accept those conditions. 
Well, over the course of the years in the 1980's, early 1990's, 
virtually every family planning provider except for the International 
Planned Parenthood Federation in London and Planned Parenthood 
Federation of America accepted those conditions. They separated 
themselves from the killing of babies through abortion and took the 
money and did family planning. We want to erect that wall again in my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Smith-
Oberstar-Hyde-Barcia amendment.
  I find it ironic that today the U.S. Congress is honoring Mother 
Teresa for her devotion to protecting the lives of the world's 
children, born and unborn, and yet the American government is 
contradicting itself by sending money to pay for abortions in other 
countries. This is an outrage. Each year Congress authorizes hundreds 
of millions of dollars for family planning organizations which in turn 
use the money for population control activities. These groups perform 
and promote abortion worldwide so in essence this American money ends 
up paying for abortions.
  The majority of the American public is opposed to spending their tax 
dollars on federally funded abortions. Let us not forget that we are 
elected to serve the people of America. Surveys have shown time after 
time that the people, no matter how they feel on the abortion issue, 
are adamantly opposed to their tax dollars paying for abortions. It is 
not fair and it is wrong that the U.S. Government continues to go 
against the will of the taxpayer.
  The fact that American tax money is spent overseas on abortion not 
only goes against the wishes of the taxpayer, it is anti-family. We are 
talking about the lives of innocent children. The allocation of this 
foreign aid money contradicts the ideals that this Congress claims to 
support. It is wrong for the U.S. Government to set the social agenda 
for other countries.
  I urge my colleagues to protect life. Support the Smith amendment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Mrs. Emerson].
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith 
amendment to prevent taxpayer dollars from promoting abortion overseas, 
and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith], for offering this important amendment and for his unwavering 
support for the unborn.
  As many of us know, the House has already endorsed several of the 
provisions of the Smith amendment in a vote earlier this year, and in 
passing H.R. 581 we affirm the wisdom of the Reagan-Bush Mexico City 
policy, which does prevent taxpayer dollars from going to international 
organizations which promote or perform abortions as a method of family 
planning. Today the House has an opportunity to again make it clear 
that the U.S. Government must not be in a position of encouraging 
abortion.
  The second part of the Smith amendment, which would prohibit funding 
of the United Nations population fund until that body ceases activities 
in China or until China abandons its policy of forced abortion, is 
equally as important as the first. It is a terrible injustice that the 
UNFPA would allow China's abuses to go unchecked, but worse still that 
the United States taxpayer may be a partner to this crime.

                              {time}  1115

  The safeguards contained in the Smith amendment are the only way to 
be sure that we are not fostering the policies of the Chinese 
Government, or making it possible for the UNFPA to do so.
  I urge the House to say no to a policy of exporting abortion and yes 
to support the Smith amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith 
amendment. I strongly support international family planning because we 
know it will improve women's health, it reduces poverty, and it 
protects our global environment.
  Some people claim that our family planning efforts increase the 
number of abortions. This is not true. This amendment is not only 
harmful, it is unnecessary as well. By law and by practice, U.S. funds 
cannot be used today to provide abortion services, either in the United 
States or abroad. AID has implemented procedures that carefully monitor 
the spending of these funds, and independent audits confirm that not 
one dollar of U.S. funds is used today to perform abortions.
  While I personally support a woman's right to choose strongly and I 
disagree with this policy, it is, nonetheless, the current policy and 
the current law with or without this amendment.
  The real problem with this amendment is that it forces family 
planning clinics that receive U.S. funding abroad not to use their own 
resources to provide abortion counseling or to perform abortions. 
Clinics that accept these restrictions will be limited in the services 
they are able to provide, and many health clinics will not accept such 
restrictions on the use of their own resources and may be forced to 
close for lack of funding.
  These closed clinics will no longer help women receive prenatal care, 
will no longer prevent more women from dying during childbirth, will no 
longer prevent unintended pregnancies, and therefore will no longer 
help reduce the number of abortions. The number of abortions will 
increase, not decrease, if this amendment were to pass.
  This amendment is unnecessary, pernicious and harmful. It will simply 
result in more unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women in 
childbirth, and more abortions. It makes no sense on any grounds, and I 
strongly urge a yes vote for the Lowey-Greenwood substitute and a no 
vote on the Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I heard the comments on that side of the 
aisle, and I would say to my good friend from Connecticut and the 
gentlewoman from New York, if we knocked on the door of the people who 
live in Danbury, CT, in Torrington, CT and in Hartford and we said to 
them, we want to tax you and take the dollars that you are paying for 
your automobiles and dollars you are paying for your food and we want 
to send them over, as the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] would 
like to do, to Egypt, we are sending them over to Egypt to a group that 
is involved with family planning. What do you think the people of 
Westchester and Armonk, New York and Torrington and Danbury and 
Hartford would say. Get a life. They would not say, here are my 
dollars, run over to Egypt and give them to a family planning 
organization. How ridiculous. They would say no, I want to keep my 
dollars here.
  Then we would say, well, we are going to put in a very strict 
accounting mechanism that is going to say, wait a second, these dollars 
will not be used for abortion, they will only be used for the health 
and welfare of the child and the mother. They would say, well, maybe, 
just maybe, but by and large every one of the people in Torrington and 
Hartford and Armonk and Westchester County would say, you know what? I 
would like to keep my tax dollars here.
  We are talking about taxpayers money. We are talking about people

[[Page H3488]]

who pay taxes. My colleagues on the other side want to send this money 
way over to these countries and let these people use it for anything 
they want. And the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] here, all he 
is saying is, I want to put a mechanism in place to protect the 
taxpayer. Good Lord. Let us support the taxpayers and support the Smith 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, since his first days in office, President Clinton has 
pushed for abortion on demand, both domestically and abroad. His 
policies undermine the laws of several foreign countries where abortion 
is illegal, particularly in Africa and parts of Latin America.
  With his repeal of the Mexico City policy in 1993, President Clinton 
has granted United States funds to organizations heavily involved in 
promoting both the legalization and provisions of abortion in foreign 
nations.
  Supporters of worldwide family planning legislation say that this 
vote has nothing to do with abortion, but everything to do with family 
planning.
  We must understand that abortion is a central element to what many 
countries consider family planning. Whether or not U.S. funds pay for 
the actual abortions themselves, nothing is preventing pro-abortion 
organizations from spending more of their own money on abortion when 
U.S. funds are there to fill the caps.
  Congress must assure that international population assistance dollars 
will not support organizations which perform or actively promote 
abortion as a method of family planning. Representative Smith's 
amendment assures the American taxpayers that their money will not fund 
any program which not only performs abortions but attempts to change 
abortion laws in other countries.
  This amendment reinstates the Mexico City restrictions on 
international family planning by prohibiting United States funding to 
any organization that directly or indirectly performs abortions in a 
foreign country.
  Furthermore, this amendment will prevent the United States Government 
from funding any aspect of China's horrific population control 
programs. United States policy must stand against China's brutal 
policies toward its women and baby girls. But we don't have a chance of 
succeeding until we stop pouring money into programs that force 
abortions and sterilizations without consent.
  Thomas Jefferson once said, ``The care of human life and happiness, 
and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of 
good government.'' I share this commitment to actively support 
legislation that sustains the Federal Government's traditional goals in 
family planning.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Representative Smith's 
amendment which will restore the program's original purpose--promoting 
family planning, not abortion.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], my friend and colleague.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith-
Oberstar-Hyde-Barcia amendment. I also want to make it clear, as 
Members who are listening, I favor family planning, so I think one can 
strongly favor family planning and be for the Smith amendment.
  Also, this just merely returns us back to the policies of previous 
Congresses. This is not something dramatic or new, it just previously 
goes back to where we were, and more importantly, this is the House of 
Representatives. This returns us to the position of the American 
people. The American people, if they were voting today in the Congress, 
would clearly support the Smith amendment.
  Third, this is about China. This is about China. The gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith]) and I were in China together where we talked to 
people where we had cases of women who were literally tracked down in 
villages and forced to have an abortion. So this is about China, and it 
is about forced abortion with regard to China.
  Lastly, under the Smith amendment, I believe as someone who strongly 
favors family planning, there will be more money for family planning, 
and I strongly urge Members on both sides to support the Smith 
amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  We have this debate almost every year here and it always makes me 
sad. I think those of us who are fortunate enough to live in America 
where we have good access to health care and information probably do 
not understand what it is like in a Third World country where one does 
not have it.
  Frankly, I think the harshest kind of birth control on Earth is to 
live in a place where women kill themselves trying to abort. They have 
not been able to get the information they need to help space their 
families or even to plan them, and we rise to the floor year after year 
after year and say that we don't care.
  Is there anything worse than the children who are left motherless 
because their mother could not face one more child, and we could have 
helped her, had we been able to give the family planning information 
that she needed?
  I want to give two quotes this morning which I think are very 
succinct. One of them has to do with the Helms amendment, and I know 
everybody in the majority strongly believes that the Helms amendment is 
quite good. The first is no U.S. foreign aid funds are used to perform 
abortions. It is explicitly prohibited in the annual appropriations law 
and the underlying statute, which is the Helms amendment. USAID has 
been scrupulous in complying with the law, and even the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith], who is my good friend, agrees that the Helms 
amendment stopped the direct funding of abortions.
  The second is what Vice President Gore has said, and I quote,

       Our administration believes that the United States 
     Constitution guarantees every woman within our borders the 
     right to choose. We are unalterably committed to that 
     principle, but let us take a false issue off the table. The 
     United States has not sought, does not seek, and will not 
     seek to establish any international right to abortion.
  He said that at a national press conference in 1994, and that has not 
changed.
  The Smith amendment is absolutely unnecessary and it is simply again 
another way to punish women in other countries and to provide some 
sense in the House that we are helping children, which is absolutely 
untrue.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this has to be emphasized. The vote today is 
not about whether we are pro-choice or pro-life on abortion, it is 
about whether life for thousands, hundreds of thousands of families who 
choose to plan their families will include a real chance to do so, not 
whether or not abortion is available to that family.
  I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], yes, I think most 
Americans support U.S. assistance for voluntary family planning.
  Since 1973 the Helms amendment has prohibited the use of U.S. dollars 
to perform, support, or encourage abortion overseas. That mandate has 
been followed in good faith by the U.S. Government. And in order to 
ensure its implementation and sensitive to the argument about 
fungibility of moneys, when I was assistant administrator of AID, we 
instituted in the late 1970's a rigorous system to separate out U.S. 
moneys from other funds spent by organizations receiving American 
funds, and that practice has been followed assiduously by every 
administration. Audits show not one dollar of American funds is being 
used for abortion-related activities overseas.
  So this is the basic question. When the United States is fully 
abiding by the Helms amendment, when the Government has taken every 
possible step to separate American funds so no American money is being 
used for abortion-related activities, and when there is no real 
fungibility as to U.S. dollars, do we want to stop the availability of 
critical funds for voluntary family planning for millions of families 
in fast-growing developing countries?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that the answer for each of these is no. I urge 
a vote against the Smith amendment and for Campbell-Greenwood.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Pitts].
  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge Members to support the

[[Page H3489]]

Smith amendment. The Campbell amendment merely creates a scheme which 
frees up more of the organization's own resources for the promotion of 
abortion overseas. In contrast, the Mexico City policy places a wall of 
separation between abortion and family planning.
  The Smith amendment prevents U.S. funding for such things as China's 
deplorable population control program, which includes coercion, forced 
abortion, forced sterilization for Chinese men and women alike. Women 
all over China are victimized daily due to their ability and desire to 
bear children. China's so-called family planning policy includes the 
following methods, and it is documented in this book by the 
anthropologist Steven Mosher and others, entitled ``The Broken Earth''. 
This is the international family planning program the UNFPA has 
publicly praised.
  First, arresting pregnant women and taking them to abortion clinics 
tied up or in handcuffs. Second, incarcerating pregnant women in 
barracks until they acquiesce to abortions and/or sterilization. Third, 
forcing pregnant women to attend study sessions away from their 
families until they agree to have abortions. Carrying out sterilization 
or abortion without the consent or knowledge of the women while 
rendering other medical services. Imprisoning husbands until wives 
submit to abortion procedures. Cutting off food, electricity, water and 
wages for couples who refuse to comply with the Chinese Government's 
barbaric policies. Confiscating furniture, livestock and even homes of 
families who refuse to comply. And fourth, demolishing the homes of 
people who refuse to comply as reported in the two Catholic villages at 
Hepel Province.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not family planning. These are outright human 
rights abuses. I do not believe this is a pro-life or pro-choice issue; 
this is a human issue, this is a woman's issue, this is a family issue. 
This is an issue of blatant governmental abuse, and the United States 
should not be in any way a part of it through the United Nations or any 
other agency.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear what this amendment is 
about. This amendment is not about abortion. This amendment is about 
family planning. If we went to the door of every household in this 
country and said, do you think our Government should be involved in 
family planning efforts throughout the world so that women are not 
forced against their will to have countless unwanted children, children 
who will be subject to starvation, children who will be subject to 
disease, so that the women can avoid the pregnancy to begin with, so 
that the woman can avoid abortion, these families across America would 
say yes, we think that that is a high use of our taxpayer dollars. We 
think that America should be working across the world to prevent 
unwanted pregnancies and to help increase the quality of life for 
citizens around the world.

                              {time}  1130

  That is a noble purpose. Let us be clear. The current U.S. policy 
prevents Federal funds from being used for abortions anywhere in the 
world. This is not going to be changed.
  What this amendment will do is prevent women across the world from 
planning their pregnancies and avoiding unwanted pregnancies. That is 
not the policy the United States should pursue. That is why just last 
month or the month before, this Congress affirmed the right of the 
United States to increase its family planning efforts nationwide.
  I urge Members to defeat this amendment, to keep our appropriate 
policy throughout the world, and prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin 
with.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Smith 
amendment. My time is short, so let me get to the point: the U.N. 
funds. My parents had more than one child. Because they had the freedom 
to do so, I have a wonderful sister named Olga. However, parents in 
China do not have a similar basic right. Brothers and sisters are 
illegal. Until the UNFPA strongly condemns and disassociates itself 
from this brutal coerced abortion policy in China or any other country, 
no United States tax dollars should go to this misguided program.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise this Congress' and in 
fact our Nation's attention to this irony of our entire overseas 
abortion debate. Many of our colleagues who will stand here on this 
floor and oppose this amendment to restore the successful Mexico City 
policy are many of the same Members who regularly lambasted this body 
for not moving campaign finance reform.
  If they truly believe in campaign finance reform, this is their 
vehicle. This is the first campaign finance reform vote of this session 
of Congress. Vote for the Smith amendment and Members will walk the 
walk of campaign finance reform. Otherwise, they are saying it is OK 
for U.S. foreign aid money, America's hard-earned tax dollars, to be 
used as soft money to lobby and change abortion laws throughout the 
world.
  Make no mistake about it, failure to enact the Smith amendment will 
be interpreted by the world community that this Congress wants our tax 
dollars going to foreign lobbyists to change other countries' laws. I 
am against welfare for lobbyists for the abortion industry, and so is 
the vast majority of the American people. The Smith amendment will 
prevent this. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if it seems we just had this debate, it 
is because we just had this debate. On February 13, this House by a 
vote of 220 to 209 decided to release these international family 
planning funds. We did so, 44 Republicans, 175 Democrats, and one 
Independent to 20 in all, so we knew at the end of the day if we are 
going to achieve the goals that we share, that we all share, including 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] that international family 
planning funds be available to help empower families to control the 
number of children that they have, that the only way to get that done 
is to do it without the entanglements of the Smith language, to pass 
language that is straightforward, that prevents these funds from being 
used for abortion, can be adopted by the Senate and signed by the 
President.
  When all is said and done, if we adopt the Smith amendment, we know 
that one of two things will happen: Either we will come back on another 
day and undo it, as we have in the past, or we will kill the program. 
Neither of those, certainly killing the program makes no sense. It 
makes no sense to do this simply for rhetorical reasons today, and come 
back and compromise as we have done each and every year.
  Let us do what is reasonable. Let us do what is sensible. Let us 
adopt the compromise which is embodied in the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey 
amendment now, get it over with, and move on to the next issue.
  I want to particularly address those colleagues who equivocate on 
this issue to be consistent and vote today as they did in February.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of all the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for his dedication to this issue. While we 
disagree on the major issue, I think his dedication is certainly 
something we all commend. I value his participation in our committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell amendment. As 
Members know, I am a strong supporter of voluntary family planning 
programs. It is important to note that after almost 30 years of U.S. 
assistance to the voluntary family planning programs, the health of 
millions of women and children has been improved throughout the world.
  I also note that the voluntary family planning programs have led to 
the reduction of abortions in key countries and in newly independent 
States of the former Soviet Union, where abortion used to be the only 
method of family planning.

[[Page H3490]]

  Mr. Chairman, family planning is good for mothers, for children, for 
the environment, and for economic growth. The Smith amendment would 
impact upon voluntary family planning programs by blocking assistance 
to key providers of family planning programs in the U.N. Fund for 
Population Activities.
  Permit me to review a couple of basic facts about the family planning 
program. First, the Hyde amendment is part of the current U.S. law 
which prevents any U.S. funds from being used for abortion. Second, the 
U.N. Fund for Population Activities no longer has a family planning 
program operating in China. Accordingly, the Smith amendment is 
language in search of a problem that essentially does not exist. Please 
permit me to repeat: United States funds are not now used for abortion 
and the UNFPA does not have any program in China.
  I would also like to bring Members up to date as to how this issue 
affects the rest of this important issue. The Committee on 
International Relations, when it met to consider this bill, rejected 
language offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and 
included language offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell] on this very point. I remind our colleagues that the 
Committee on International Relations strongly favored the Campbell 
language and supports the voluntary family planning program.
  Accordingly, I urge Members to support the Campbell amendment and 
oppose the Smith amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  MR. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind Members that the U.N. Population Fund 
was there on the ground in 1979 when the one-child-per-couple policy 
was crafted. They were one of the cocrafters. Over the years they have 
praised this coercive population control program, given it highest 
praise.
  Dr. Sadik, the executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, has 
said it is a ``totally voluntary program,'' a total lie. It is not a 
voluntary program. It is a coercive program.
  Let me also add that they are now in negotiations with the Beijing 
dictatorship to decide what kind and the scope of any new programs that 
they will be involved in. We send a clear, nonambiguous message: Get 
out of China; do your family planning elsewhere, but do not comanage 
and support that program.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to congratulate the gentleman 
from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, and his associates for bringing this 
very important issue to the floor. We ought to stop funding the 
international abortion industry. Family planning and abortion are two 
separate things. Family planning asks the question, do you want a baby 
or not? Once you are pregnant, you have a baby. Abortion helps you 
dispose of that baby by killing it. It has been our policy and it ought 
to continue to be our policy not to subsidize that function on an 
international basis.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] ignores the concept 
of fungibility. If you give money and say do not spend it for this, 
only spend it for this, who are you kidding, because it frees up other 
money to be spent for the forbidden function. It does not matter 
whether they are using ourmoney or their money. If we give money, we 
empower all of their activities, so it is a distinction without a 
difference.
  The Mexico City policy simply says that we will continue to 
generously fund family planning, but we will not subsidize abortion, we 
will not subsidize organizations that lobby to change laws in countries 
that forbid abortion, and it is in keeping with, I believe, the best 
ideals and policy certainly under the Reagan and under the Bush 
administration. I regret keenly that it was changed.
  I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], which is more obfuscation than 
clarification, which ignores the fact that money is fungible, and if 
you forbid it for one purpose you free up other money for the other 
purpose.
  I hope that Members will support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, who has been a real hero in 
this very difficult fight. When my friend, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman] says the United Nations is out of China, that is rather 
superficial. They are not out of China.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. That is a U.N. program.
  Mr. HYDE. They have an office here, and they said they are 
negotiating for more programs.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, let us make it very clear. The Smith-
Barcia-Oberstar-Hyde amendment does not reduce by one penny the amount 
spent on international family planning. It merely ensures that the 
money we do spend and commit to population control goes to family 
planning, not to abortion. American taxpayers who believe that abortion 
is morally wrong should have their voice expressed on this floor in 
support of this amendment; and likewise, those who believe abortion is 
acceptable, and that abortion ought to be made safe and rare, ought to 
have assurance that their tax dollars do not go to groups who do not 
share that viewpoint, who see abortion as a means of family planning.
  Both sides have an interest in the outcome. I believe that our side 
is on the side of justice, that it is morally wrong for the United 
States to support with its taxpayer dollars abortion as a means of 
family planning control, and this amendment will assure that none of 
those dollars go to that purpose.

                              {time}  1145

  That is what we are trying to accomplish; that just as we have 
pursued the policy at home of not funding abortion with taxpayer 
dollars, that we should not fund it abroad with taxpayer dollars. 
Family planning is a legitimate objective, but it should not include 
abortion as a means of family planning. That is what we are asking. 
That is what this amendment does. I ask Members to support the Smith-
Barcia amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 
seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me rise briefly to support the Smith 
amendment and to say that the Mexico City policy that we propagated 
under the Reagan administration sent a moral message to the world. As I 
understand it, most of the organizations that heretofore had performed 
abortions stopped them as an effect and impact of that policy. If we 
still have that moral policy, and that is my feeling that we do have 
that and that that is exactly what we are voting on, then we should not 
support abortions through middlemen. We should not support 
organizations that support abortion. We ought to keep that message as 
clear as we did under the Reagan administration, under the Mexico City 
policy. I would urge a strong yes for the Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members that we 
do not cut family planning by a dime in this amendment. We condition 
it. We put on human rights, pro-family, pro-baby conditions. Abortion 
takes the life of a baby. We do not think that we should be giving to 
organizations that are promoting abortion overseas. That is the simple 
reality of what we are trying to do today. Any other characterization 
misses by a mile.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is right on point. 
The

[[Page H3491]]

facts are that the taxpayers of the United States have a right to put 
conditions on money that they earn with their hard work that we send to 
international organizations. This has been one of the important 
conditions that we historically have put on, and we should put it on 
whether the organization indirectly supports abortion or does it 
directly.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Ney]. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Smith amendment and in favor of the Campbell-Greenwood amendment 
because I, like my colleagues, love children and love families. I have 
five children of my own, my parents had seven children. Their parents 
had 14 children. But all those children were born into a world that is 
vastly different than the world that we are talking about and that 
would be affected by this amendment.
  We in this Nation are so blessed with such prosperity and high living 
standards that it is often very difficult to relate to people that are 
born into a world of such abject poverty and desperation that parents 
would be willing to sell their children into a life of virtual slave 
labor or prostitution. How can life be so cheap? How can suffering and 
human degradation be so tolerated?
  It is largely because people in that other world have so little 
control over their lives because they have so little ability to control 
the size and the timing of their families. Ironically, this amendment 
further limits that control over their lives. This amendment in effect 
diminishes the value of those children's lives, when we have a moral 
responsibility to be increasing, enhancing the value of children's 
lives, and that is what family planning information is all about. With 
proper education, those in developing countries can plan their families 
just as we in the United States do.
  It is unconscionable as leaders of the most prosperous, blessed 
Nation on Earth that we would deny these vital resources to the least 
fortunate people on Earth. Yet that is precisely what this amendment 
does. This, the Mexico City policy that the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] wants, restricts funding to groups who offer reproductive 
educational services to families in need of those services.
  We decided in February that denying those funds had a negative impact 
on population control efforts internationally and that decreasing 
family planning funding increases the number of abortions. This has not 
changed since our vote in February.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to understand that family planning in this 
other world can prevent about 10,000 deaths that are due to pregnancy 
complications, low birth weight babies born to women who are neither 
ready nor desirous of having children. Defeat the Smith amendment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would ask my pro-life colleagues in the House to oppose the 
Campbell substitute, which is not a compromise but in fact would 
continue the current policy of abortion on demand around the world. 
Organizations can use simple bookkeeping to create the impression that 
U.S. taxpayer funds are not being used for abortion while in fact they 
are substituting other moneys for that purpose in their respective 
facilities around the world. I just hope that our pro-life Members of 
the House today will cast a strong vote against the Campbell substitute 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] 
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell] has 1\1/2\ minutes. The time of gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Gejdenson] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] has 
expired. There was a half minute yielded to the gentleman from New 
Jersey by the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  (Mr. HUTCHINSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the 
Smith amendment. I believe it is appropriate and right, and I want to 
express my strong support on behalf of the people of my district.
  Mr. Chairman, 50 years ago, the Nuremburg Tribunal condemned 
population control policies enacted by the Nazis as ``crimes against 
humanity,'' and yet today, not only does China engage in the same 
barbaric practices but our tax dollars support them.
  Every year since 1985, we have denied funds to the U.N. Population 
Fund because it provides financial support for China's brutally 
coercive one-child policy. But, Mr. Chairman, in 1993, the 
administration changed the rules. They reinterpreted U.S. law in order 
to claim opposition to coercive population control programs, but then 
actually provide for their financial support.
  The administration's policy prohibits our tax dollars from providing 
direct support for forced abortion and sterilization, but that doesn't 
stop our money from freeing up funds in other accounts to be used for 
these barbaric acts. This is an unconscionable deception which must be 
brought to an immediate end.
  Mr. Chairman, the Smith amendment simply interprets United States law 
as it was originally intended--it stops all payments to the U.N. 
Population Fund until it withdraws its financial support for China's 
draconian population control programs. Mr. Chairman, as a nation deeply 
concerned about China's human rights record, we have no business 
sending such mixed signals. For these reasons I urge a yes vote on the 
Smith amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Many of our colleagues were shocked and angered to learn that the big 
name pro-abortion population control organizations like Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Zero 
Population Growth and others had grossly misled Congress, the 
President, and the American people about partial-birth abortion. In one 
letter sent to every Member of Congress signed by those organizations 
and many others, we were solemnly assured that, and I quote: This 
surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer than 500 per year. 
It is most often performed in cases, it goes on to say, of severe fetal 
anomalies.
  Mr. Chairman, we now know that the abortion lobby's campaign to 
defeat the partial-birth abortion ban was and is riddled with lies and 
distortions. It is one thing to have an honest difference about policy. 
Congress after all is a marketplace of disparate opinions and ideas, 
but do not lie to us.
  Mr. Chairman, interestingly, it was one of their own, Ron 
Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion 
Providers, who blew the whistle on their fraudulent tactics. Members 
will recall Mr. Fitzsimmons came forward and said that he was lying 
through his teeth about the circumstances and the incidences 
surrounding partial-birth abortion. Having raised serious questions 
concerning the credibility and the reliability of Planned Parenthood 
and others, Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted, and I quote, that thousands of 
partial-birth abortions in the vast majority of cases are performed on 
healthy mothers with a healthy fetus.
  Why is this relevant to the amendment the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Barcia] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and I are offering this morning? 
Because each year Congress authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars; 
this is not an entitlement, these are discretionary funds, hundreds of 
millions of dollars for population control organizations. And much of 
that cash will wind up in the hands of the very same abortion industry 
that so skillfully lied to my colleagues and me.
  After lying through their teeth on the partial-birth abortion ban 
here in the United States, is it so unreasonable to doubt the abortion 
lobby's commitment to truth-telling elsewhere? Who then will expose 
their deceptive tactics in Warsaw or Lima or Cairo or Pretoria or San 
Salvador? I believe that we need to steer family planning funds to 
those who will pledge neutrality on abortion rather than promote 
abortion in foreign capitals.
  Today the pro-life laws and policies of almost 100 countries that 
restrict abortion are under siege, and the engine driving this global 
pro-abortion

[[Page H3492]]

push are the nongovernmental organizations like Planned Parenthood 
funded by the U.S. Government. Let me remind Members, we provide almost 
50 percent of all the money that goes into their coffers. That is why 
we need to make a difference with the amendment that I and my friends 
are offering today.
  Our amendment permits the flow of funds to those organizations that 
pledge to provide family planning and only family planning and not 
abortion. This is all about abortion, Mr. Chairman. The innocent 
children are held harmless. Who we subsidize, not just what, but who we 
subsidize and who we give millions of dollars to does matter.
  Some Members have argued today that U.S. funds will not be used for 
abortion. That is already the underlying law. An amendment simply 
restates current law. But money is fungible. The millions of dollars we 
give to a group immediately frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be 
used, and in this case are used, for performing and aggressively 
promoting abortion around the world. If we give millions of dollars to 
those for whom abortion on demand is a way to plan family size, we put 
unborn babies at grave risk of death.
  It should matter greatly to each of us not just what an organization 
does with our specific donation but the rest of its agenda as well. It 
is a package deal. Many groups use family planning as the Trojan horse 
to conceal their real agenda, which is abortion.
  Let me remind Members of Vision 2000, that abortion manifesto in 1992 
that was agreed to by International Planned Parenthood Federation based 
in London and its 140 affiliates. It said these are their marching 
orders that they will, quote, ``bring pressure on governments and 
campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions 
against abortion.''
  Fred Sai, who used to be chairman of IPPF, a Planned Parenthood 
group, said, now for the first time the IPPF plan Vision 2000 outlines 
activities at both the secretary and the family planning association 
level to further their explicit goal of increasing the right of access 
to abortion. Again let me remind Members, 100 countries protect their 
babies. These people to whom we are giving millions of dollars want to 
bring down those right-to-life laws. Let me give some examples.
  In Poland, the chairman of the Parliamentary Group on the Family, 
Stanislaw Kowolik, recently lashed out at external factions in Poland 
for meddling in that country and pushing for liberalized abortion. As a 
result of strong lobbying by family planning groups, Poland recently 
reversed the pro-life policies of Lech Walesa and Solidarity and put in 
its place the pro-abortion policy of the Communists.
  Another example of backlash over United States and Planned Parenthood 
pressure to legalize abortion on demand is the Philippines. A headline 
in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last July said Senator ``Flavier Hits 
U.S. Pressure on Abortion.'' And he writes: We had just celebrated our 
50th anniversary of independence from America, but we can still see 
insidious methods of imperialism trying to subvert our self-
determination by using funds as subtle leverage,'' and then he goes on 
to say he strongly opposes abortion, that his constitution prohibits 
it. And then he said, finally, ``we should be prepared to lose foreign 
funding rather than be pressured into causing the death of unborn 
children.''
  The abortion promotion by Planned Parenthood is so extreme in the 
Philippines that the head of their IPPF affiliate, the Planned 
Parenthood president, quit. He said it was because a ``hidden agenda 
of'' and that his affiliate was being used as a Trojan horse to 
legalize abortion. They talk family planning, the real agenda is 
abortion on demand.
  The pro-life safeguards say: We will provide money for family 
planning. There is not one penny lost as a result of this amendment. 
But we will give it only to those groups that are committed to family 
planning and not abortion on demand.
  Let me also say on the China provision, since 1979, the U.N. 
Population Fund has been there on the ground promoting the one-child-
per-couple policy. We have heard testimony, Members should be fully 
aware by now that forced abortion is commonplace in the People's 
Republic of China. Yet Dr. Sadik, who is the executive director of the 
UNFPA, has said, and I quote: ``UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the 
government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a 
totally voluntary program. It is not. It is a totally coercive program, 
and the UNFPA has been whitewashing these crimes since 1979.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that the amendment, the 
substitute amendment, is a fake. With all due respect to my good 
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], it is cover. It 
does not stop abortions. It does not do anything meaningful relative to 
China, and it actually trivializes this crime against humanity, against 
women, of forced abortion because again in China there is the UNFPA 
doing its work day in and day out. And we understand now that they are 
in negotiations for new programs in the PRC. We are saying you can have 
your $25 million. Just get out of China. Stop being complicit. Stop the 
hand and glove relationship with the dictatorship of the PRC.
  Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues were shocked and angered to 
learn that the big name pro-abortion/population control organizations 
like Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Alan Guttmacher 
Institute, had grossly misled Congress, the President, and the American 
people about partial-birth abortion.
  In one letter sent to every Member of Congress, signed by Planned 
Parenthood and the others, we were solemnly assured that:

       This surgical procedure is used only in rare cases, fewer 
     than 500 per year. It is most often performed in the case of 
     wanted pregnancies gone tragically wrong, when a family 
     learns late in pregnancy of severe fetal anomalies or a 
     medical condition that threatens the pregnant woman's life or 
     health.

  We now know the abortion lobby's campaign to defeat the partial-birth 
abortion ban was and is riddled with distortion and lies.
  It's one thing to have honest differences about policy--Congress is, 
after all, a marketplace of disparate opinions and ideas.
  But don't lie to us.
  Interestingly, it took one of their own, Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive 
Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, to blow the 
whistle on their fraudulent tactics. You will recall that Mr. 
Fitzsimmons admitted ``lying through (his) teeth'' in spouting the pack 
of lies dished out by the abortion lobby. Having raised serious 
questions concerning the credibility and reliability of Planned 
Parenthood and others, Mr. Fitzsimmons admitted that of the thousands 
of partial-birth abortions ``in the vast majority of cases, the 
procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus * * 
*.''
  Why is this relevant to the amendment Messrs. Barcia, Oberstar, Hyde, 
and I are offering today?
  Because each year Congress authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars 
for population control organizations--and much of that cash will wind 
up in the hands of the very same abortion industry that so skillfully 
lied to you and me. After ``lying through (their) teeth'' on the 
partial-birth abortion ban here in the United States, is it so 
unreasonable to doubt the abortion lobby's commitment to truth-telling? 
Who then will expose their deceptive tactics in Warsaw of Lima or Cairo 
or Pretoria of San Salvador? We need to steer family planning funds to 
those who will pledge neutrality on abortion rather than the promotion 
of abortion in foreign capitals.
  Today, the pro-life laws and policies of almost 100 countries that 
restrict abortion are under siege and the engine driving this global 
pro-abortion push are the nongovernmental organizations funded by the 
U.S. Government.
  My amendment permits the flow of funds to those organizations that 
pledge to provide only family planning, not abortion. The innocent 
children are held harmless.
  Who we subsidize--not just what--but who we give millions of dollars 
to, does matter. Some Members will argue today that no U.S. funds will 
be used for abortion. But money is fungible. The millions of dollars we 
give to a group immediately frees up other non-U.S. funds that can be 
used--and, in this case, are used--for performing and aggressively 
promoting abortion. If we give millions of dollars to those for whom 
abortion on demand is a way to plan family size, we put unborn babies 
at grave risk of death. It should matter greatly to each of us not just 
what an organization does with out specific donation, but the rest of 
its agenda as well. It is a package deal. Many groups use family 
planning as the Trojan horse to conceal their real agenda--abortion on 
demand.
  I urge Members to carefully consider the 1992 International Planned 
Parenthood Federation abortion manifesto called Vision 2000, a global 
strategic plan that Planned Parenthood and its 140 country affiliates 
adopted

[[Page H3493]]

and have been implementing ever since to promote abortion in every 
corner of the world.

  The Vision 2000 strategic plan says, and I quote, that family 
planning organizations should ``bring pressure on governments and 
campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions 
against abortion.'' Can anything be more clear? Pressure governments to 
nullify their pro-life policies. Campaign for abortion on demand. And 
we are providing many, many millions of dollars to this group.
  Fred Sai, who is the former chairman of International Planned 
Parenthood, put it very succinctly:

       Now, for the first time, the IPPF strategic plan, Vision 
     2000, which was unanimously adopted at the Members' Assembly 
     in Delhi, outlines activities at both the Secretariat and FPA 
     level to further IPPF's explicit goal of increasing the right 
     of access to abortion.

  IPPF has plans of action, as they call them, to promote abortion in 
Central and South America where unborn children are now legally 
safeguarded. They have plans to repeal the pro-life laws in Africa, the 
Muslim countries in the Middle East, and several Asian countries.
  In Poland, the chairman of the Parliamentary Group on the Family, 
Stanislaw Kowolikveouk recently lashed out at external factions in 
Poland for meddling in that country and pushing for liberalized 
abortion. As a result of strong lobbying by family planning groups, 
Poland recently reversed the pro-life policies of Lech Walesa and 
Solidarity and put in its place, the pro-abortion policy of the 
Communists.
  Only last week's action by Poland's high court stopped the new 
abortion law from going into effect.
  Another example of backlash over United States and Planned Parenthood 
pressure to legalize abortion on demand is the Philippines.
  A headline in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last July: ``Flavier Hits 
U.S. Pressure on Abortion.'' The article quotes Senator Juan Flavier:

       We had just celebrated our 50th anniversary of independence 
     from America, but we can still see insidious methods of 
     imperialism trying to subvert our self-determination by using 
     [population control] funds as subtle leverage * * *. I 
     strongly oppose abortion. It is prohibited by our laws and 
     the Philippine Constitution. Hence, we should be prepared to 
     lose foreign funding rather than be pressured into causing 
     the death of unborn children.

  The abortion promotion by Planned Parenthood is so extreme in the 
Philippines that the president of IPPF's affiliate--the Family Planning 
Organization of the Philippines [FPOP]--resigned over what he called 
International Planned Parenthood Federation's ``hidden agenda'' and use 
of his affiliate as a Trojan horse to legalize abortion.
  The use of family planning as cover--the use of family planning as a 
Trojan horse for abortion law liberalization is now commonplace and 
must be stopped.
  Let me remind Members that the pro-life safeguards included in my 
amendment are nothing new; they were in effect for almost a decade. And 
they worked.
  The pro-life safeguards often referred to as the Mexico City Policy 
were in effect during the Reagan and Bush years as a principled way to 
fully fund family planning without promoting abortion.
  Specifically, the safeguards say this: We will donate funds only to 
those organizations that will not perform abortions except in the cases 
of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Funds may go to those 
organizations that will not lobby for or against abortion.
  We should have no part in empowering the abortion industry to succeed 
in its war on the unborn.
  If Members want to promote abortions, be up-front and legislate that. 
But don't hide behind counterfeit amendments like the Campbell 
substitute. The Mexico City Policy makes it very clear that there ought 
to be a wall of separation between abortion and family planning. The 
Campbell amendment--with all due respect to its author, a friend of 
mine--is a fake and a counterfeit.
  The second part of our amendment relates to forced abortion.
  Every day, forced abortion and forced sterilization devastate the 
lives of women and families in China while the U.N. Population Fund 
provides political cover and sustenance to those who practice these 
abuses. The Government of China compels women to abort their so-called 
unauthorized, illegal unborn children. It starts with intense 
persuasion using all of the economic, social, and psychological tools a 
totalitarian State has at its disposal. If these methods fail, women 
are taken physically to abortion mills. Forced abortions are often 
performed very late in pregnancy, even in the ninth month. Sometimes 
the baby's skull is crushed with forceps as the baby emerges from the 
birth canal. Other times the baby gets an injection of formaldehyde or 
some other poison into the baby's cranium. The mass murderers, 
euphemistically called family planning cadres, are at it every day--
killing babies, devastating women's lives.
  Forced abortion was properly construed to be a crime against humanity 
at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. Today, it is employed 
aggressively and with chilling effectiveness and unbearable pain upon 
women in the People's Republic of China. Women in China are required to 
obtain a birth coupon before conceiving a child. Chinese women are 
hounded by the population control cadres and even their menstrual 
cycles are publicly monitored as one means of ensuring compliance.
  The New York Times has pointed out in an expose that the authorities, 
when they discover an unauthorized pregnancy, an illegal child, 
normally apply a daily dose of threats and browbeating. They wear the 
women down. Eventually, if the woman does not succumb to the abortion, 
she is physically forced to submit.
  In the mid-1990's, the PRC issued a decree on eugenics which 
nationalizes discrimination against the handicapped. In a move that is 
eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Communist Chinese Government is 
implementing forced abortion against handicapped children simply 
because they suffer an anomaly like Downs Syndrome, and forced 
sterilization against parents who simply do not measure up in the eyes 
of the State. Since 1979, the U.N. Population Fund has provided funds, 
materiel, people on the ground and what no money could buy, the sort of 
shield of respectability that the PRC Program so desperately wants.
  Mr. Chairman, in July 1995, victims of the Chinese forced abortion 
program testified to the truth. Our Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights heard the testimony of three women who 
testified that they had been forced to have abortions.
  One of those witnesses, Li Bao Yu [Lee Bough You], told us how her 
troubles started in earnest after she removed an IUD that the 
population cadres had forced her accept, but which had been making her 
sick. She became pregnant. The family planning program officials, who 
came to inspect every woman in the village several times a year--the 
involuntary inspections a serious violation of each woman's privacy--
discovered her pregnancy and threatened that if she did not have the 
abortion, her first child would be denied education and health care. In 
her own words,

       They threatened me that I do not agree to have this 
     abortion, then my first child will forever have no chance of 
     being a registered, normal citizen.

  Mr. Chairman, this is the human cost of the shameful program that for 
years has been assisted, praised, coddled, and protected by the U.N. 
Population Fund, the UNFPA. The supporters of this amendment argue that 
if it were not for UNFPA, the Chinese program would be even worse. But 
this is an assertion without evidence. UNFPA officials including Nafis 
Sadiq have repeatedly praised the Chinese program. UNFPA has provided 
demographic capabilities--a tracking system that hunts down women 
bearing babies--a system that enables the Beijing population commissars 
to tell where they need to enforce their program more vigorously. They 
have trained thousands of cadres--the implementors of this egregious 
policy. They have provided major elements of the infrastructure that 
systematically oppresses the women of China and murders their babies. 
They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  The Campbell amendment would delete the pro-human rights language in 
my amendment and insert a substitute that looks good and does next to 
nothing. UNFPA could spend all the money it wanted in China so long as 
it kept a separate set of books that showed our money going only for 
projects outside China. There would also be a reduction in the U.S. 
contribution--but past experience has shown that a reduction is not 
enough. The language of the amendment is almost identical to language 
that has been adopted in the past by the Appropriations Committee, and 
when this language has been adopted, UNFPA has stayed in China. Only 
when there was a real threat of serious action--an absolute condition 
that UNFPA get out of China or lose our money--did UNFPA even go 
through the motions of getting out. So the substitute language is 
simply not enough. It absolutely trivializes these crimes--it should 
not be enough for those of us who are pro-life, and it should not be 
enough for those who think of themselves as pro-choice. If there is 
anything UNFPA's involvement in China is not about, it is not about 
free choice.
  This House has voted countless times to condition United States 
funding for UNFPA on its disengagement from the PRC forced abortion 
program. Last year, we gave UNFPA some flexibility. They insisted they 
were no longer giving grants in China. They still had an office there, 
which they said they were using to administer old grants. Now it turns 
out that they are actively negotiating with the Chinese Government for 
future grants and contracts. So we were misled last year: UNFPA was not

[[Page H3494]]

getting out of China and, unless we take decisive action, has no 
intention of getting out of China. Congress gave UNFPA the flexibility 
their supporters said they needed. This is as far as we can go. Loyalty 
to these women--these victims of unspeakable torture--will allow us to 
go no further.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I address to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], 
one simple question. I have 1 minute, so if he could please confine his 
answer, if he can.
  Under the gentleman's amendment, if the U.N. spends one dime to 
advise one person in China about contraception, would not all United 
States assistance to U.N. family planning throughout Africa and Latin 
America be terminated?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman 
that the language in our amendment says if the President can certify 
that there is no more forced abortion, and if they get out of China, 
which is what we are advocating, because they have had this 
duplicitous, egregious policy, working hand in glove with the 
dictatorship, we are saying get out and they get their full $25 
million. And there will also probably be about $400 million of other 
family planning money that is also in the bill that is conditioned by 
the first part of the amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is the answer to my 
question yes?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
unless the forced abortion is ended, sure. They have had a hand-in-
glove relationship.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  My colleagues, we have heard the fundamental problem with the Smith 
amendment. It is not simply Mexico City. It terminates all United 
States contribution to all family planning around the world, in Africa, 
in Latin America, in Indonesia, in desperately poor parts of this 
world, all of it, if the U.N. spends a dime for family planning in 
China. It was crafted with that intention and it is cruel and wrong.
  For whatever motive we have regarding China, to punish the destitute, 
the poor, the needy in Africa and Latin America, compassion suggests a 
``no'' vote on the Smith amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the Campbell-
Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment 
and in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey.
  I have some concerns about the fact that we are even debating this 
issue today; especially since most of the foreign aid sections were 
stripped from this legislation.
  I am also disappointed that the gentleman from New Jersey has 
insisted on offering his amendment. The legislation that was reported 
out of the International Relations Committee would have provided women 
and families worldwide with the maximum access to essential family 
planning services. At the same time, it called for a dollar-for-dollar 
reduction in United States funding to the UNFPA for any amount spent in 
China. I think we can all agree that U.S. funds should not be used to 
pay for ``forced abortions'' in that country.
  The gentleman from New Jersey will attempt to equate support for 
family planning with support for abortion. That is simply not the case. 
U.S. law already prohibits the use of Government international family 
planning funds for promoting or providing abortion services. These 
programs are carefully monitored to ensure that U.S. policy is strictly 
followed. At the same time, studies have shown that the availability of 
family planning services actually reduces the incidence of abortion.
  The support for international family planning is instead equivalent 
to the support of women and families and of sustainable economic growth 
worldwide.
  I have long been interested in the cause and effect relationship 
between rapid population growth and movement and worldwide 
environmental degradation, dwindling natural resources, urban poverty, 
malnutrition, and social unrest.
  This is especially disconcerting given that more than 90 percent of 
the annual population increase of 100 million people is in the 
developing world.
  International family planning funds allow women and families to make 
responsible and informed choices about when and whether to have 
children. These are choices that many Americans take for granted; they 
are also choices that many parents in the developing world do not 
realize they have.
  Giving people in the developing world the resources to make informed 
reproductive choices can help to control the population growth in those 
countries and decease the strains that such growth would place on 
society and on natural resources.
  It is in our national interest, and in the global interest, to 
support voluntary international family planning. Efforts to slow 
population growth, elevate the status of women, reduce poverty, and 
promote sustainable development will lead to a more stable global 
system.
  In short, it bears repeating: in so many important ways, family 
planning saves lives.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the 
gentleman from New Jersey to restrict international family planning.
  We should not, we cannot return to the days when the so-called Mexico 
City policy dictated the flow of America's family planning dollars. 
That policy had a chilling effect on family planning in developing 
countries.
  There is no evidence that Mexico City restrictions reduced abortions 
in developing countries. On the contrary, there is strong evidence that 
gag rule increased abortions and decreased the quality of life for many 
women.
  The Mexico City policy denied many women access to family planning. 
Without these services, women lack the help they need to protect 
themselves from disease and to regulate childbearing.
  The Mexico City policy restricted women from learning how to reduce 
unintended pregnancies. And, in the developing world, 40 percent of 
unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
  Clearly, the Mexico City policy is at odds with itself. We would be 
wrong to restore it.
  Nor should we ban aid to the U.N. population fund.
  The U.N. population fund does not support abortion as a family 
planning method. It does not fund abortions. And it does not condone 
coerced abortions in any country.
  But, the U.N. population fund does provide women in 140 countries 
with family planning services.
  These services help women choose the number and spacing of their 
children. In doing so, the U.N. fund has saved women's and children's 
lives, and reduced population growth.
  Population growth affects all of us through its impact on the 
economy, environment and national security.
  Population pressures on ecologically fragile areas lead to increased 
environmental degradation. Unchecked population growth where job 
opportunity is lacking threatens the political stability of the entire 
planet.
  The Smith amendment would undermine years of progress in battling 
unchecked population growth and the problems it causes.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment. Oppose a return 
to the past. And vote in favor of the future.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-
Greenwood-Lowey substitute to the Smith amendment. This is a 
commonsense measure which restates current law and will protect the 
lives of women and children around the world.
  This vote is not about supporting abortion. Under current law, not $1 
of U.S. family planning funds can be used to perform--or even counsel 
women to obtain--abortions anywhere in the world. The substitute would 
retain that prohibition. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
substitute. Vote to prevent abortion. Vote to improve the health of 
women and children. Vote to save lives.
  U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of women. Around the world, 
600,000 women die in childbirth every year. Access to family planning 
in the developing world would reduce unintended pregnancies by one-
fifth, and could save the lives of as many as 120,000 of those women.
  U.S. family planning aid saves the lives of children. Family planning 
allows women--and men--to choose how many children they want and when 
to have them. Spacing children further apart and breast feeding them 
can improve a child's chance of survival by up to 20 percent in most 
developing countries. Evidence from across the developing world shows 
that increased contraceptive use reduces abortion, raises families out 
of poverty, and increases the life expectancy of all of the children in 
the family. The Smith amendment, which would halt U.S. family planning 
aid, condemns hundreds of thousands of women to poor health and 
possibly death.
  If we fail to pass this substitute today, family planning and health 
clinics across the developing world will close. For many women, these 
health clinics are the only source of preventative health care that can 
detect diseases such as cervical cancer in the early stages and save 
lives.
  By voting ``yes'' to this substitute, you vote to save the lives of 
women. You vote to reduce unwanted pregnancies. You vote to reduce 
abortions across the world. You vote to

[[Page H3495]]

improve children's health and life expectancy. Support women's health. 
Support children's health. Vote ``yes'' on the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey 
substitute, and vote ``no'' on the Smith amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak out 
against the Smith amendment which seeks to reinstate the so-called 
Mexico City restrictions on international family planning and to cut 
funding for the U.N. Fund for Population Activities [UNFPA]. This is 
really nothing more than a global gag rule.
  First of all, no U.S. foreign aid funds are used to either promote, 
or perform abortions. So this amendment is really unnecessary and 
antifamily planning. The amendment also seeks to ban aid to UNFPA based 
on its past involvement in China. But UNFPA is in no way linked to 
reported family planning abuses in China.
  UNFPA does not support abortion and has never funded an abortion. The 
UNFPA does work in 140 countries where people are desperately seeking 
assistance in preventing unintended pregnancies. Holding these funds 
hostage hurts women, children, and families around the world.
  UNFPA programs have achieved better nutrition, better health, longer 
life expectancy and a reduced toll of infectious disease for people all 
around the world. Their programs have increased the use of family 
planning from about 15 to 60 percent of couples. And they ensure that 
young women, whether in Bangladesh or Botswana, have access to 
reproductive and other basic health care services.
  A basic principle that has governed UNFPA's work for many years is 
that abortion should never be promoted as a method of family planning. 
Families which lack access to adequate public health services deserve 
our understanding and our help. Vote ``no'' on the Smith amendment. 
Vote ``yes'' on Campbell-Greenwood.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith 
amendment and I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey for offering 
this important amendment to reinstate what we refer to as ``The Mexico 
City Policy.''
  The wording in that policy is direct, simple, and straightforward, 
and from 1985 to 1993 this ``Mexico City'' language protected the 
American taxpayers from having their tax dollars spent on abortion. For 
8 years, this language assured that our great Nation would not, 
directly or indirectly, support or promote abortion throughout the 
world. With all the world's great crying needs, we should not spend our 
scarce foreign aid dollars to subsidize and promote abortion.
  The world looks to America for moral leadership. The world looks to 
America for justice for the weak and the disenfranchised. We should 
respond to this call for leadership not by promoting abortion for the 
children of the poorest peoples of the world, but rather by helping 
them develop the economic and political infrastructure that encourages 
development, peace, and progress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 158, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Campbell] will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. NETHERCUTT

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
       At the end of the bill add the following section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO THE ABDUCTION AND 
                   DETAINMENT OF DONALD HUTCHINGS OF THE STATE OF 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Al-Faran, a militant organization that seeks to merge 
     Kashmir with Pakistan, has waged a war against the Government 
     of India.
       (2) During the week of July 2, 1995, Al-Faran abducted 
     Donald Hutchings of the State of Washington, another American 
     John Childs, and 4 Western Europeans in the State of Jammu 
     and Kashmir. John Childs has since escaped.
       (3) Al-Faran has executed one hostage and threatened to 
     kill Donald Hutchings and the remaining Western European 
     hostages unless the Government of India agrees to release 
     suspected guerrillas from its jails.
       (4) Several militants have been captured by the Indian 
     Government and have given conflicting and unconfirmed reports 
     about the hostages.
       (5) Donald Hutchings and the 3 remaining Western European 
     hostages have been held against their will by Al-Faran for 
     nearly 2 years.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the militant organization Al-Faran should release, 
     immediately, Donald Hutchings and 3 Western Europeans from 
     captivity;
       (2) Al-Faran and their supporters should cease and desist 
     from all acts of hostage-taking and other violent acts within 
     the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
       (3) the State Department Rewards Program should be used to 
     the greatest extent possible to solicit new information 
     pertaining to hostages; and
       (4) the governments of the United States, the United 
     Kingdom, Germany, Norway, India, and Pakistan should share 
     and investigate all information relating to these hostages as 
     quickly as possible.

  Mr. NETHERCUTT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I am introducing this amendment today 
for myself and for the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 
Pallone, who has worked with me, with the two Senators from the State 
of Washington, Senator Gorton and Senator Murray, as well as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McHale, the distinguished gentleman 
from New Mexico, the former Congressman, Bill Richardson, who is now 
Ambassador Richardson, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Hamilton, and certainly the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, the 
distinguished Speaker of the House, over the last 2 years to raise the 
awareness about a constituent of mine, Donald Hutchings from Spokane, 
WA, who was taken hostage nearly 2 years ago on foreign soil.
  On July 2, 1995, Donald Hutchings was on a mountain climbing 
expedition in Kashmir with his wife and other climbers when they were 
abducted by a shadowy group of militants known as Al-Faran. Don's wife, 
Jane Schelly, was released immediately, and another American, John 
Childs, escaped his captors.
  This group has repeatedly threatened Donald Hutchings, to kill him, 
and the other three remaining Western European hostages, unless the 
Government of India agreed to release suspected guerilla fighters from 
its jails. One hostage was found brutally murdered in August 1995, but 
the location of the other hostages is unknown. A number of militants 
have been captured by the Government of India, but they have given 
conflicting and unconfirmed reports about the hostages.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, expresses the sense of Congress that 
Al-Faran should immediately release all the hostages from captivity and 
cease all violent acts in India. It urges the use of the State 
Department Rewards Program, which this bill, H.R. 1757, improves by 
raising the cap on available funds in order that those funds can be 
used to solicit new information pertaining to the hostages.
  The Nethercutt-Pallone amendment also urges that the Government of 
the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway, India, and 
Pakistan continue to work together to share all investigative 
information relating to these hostages.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment also sends a strong message to Al-Faran 
that the United States believes such terrorism is reprehensible, we 
condemn it; and, at the same time, it encourages the flow of new 
information which will allow Don's courageous wife, Jane Schelly, to 
know where her husband is being held.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman from 
Washington that it is an excellent amendment, the committee agrees to 
accept the amendment, and I think the minority has also expressed a 
willingness to accept the amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am delighted the 
chairman would do that. I would just conclude by saying that Jane 
Schelly

[[Page H3496]]

has been halfway around the world in order to raise the level of the 
interest of this amendment and in the finding of her husband.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington as well as the chairman of the committee. I totally support 
this amendment.
  I am not going to repeat the background of what occurred there and 
the brutal killing of the second hostage that was mentioned by the 
gentleman, but I do feel that we need to send a message to the Al-Faran 
and I believe that this will accomplish that.
  I just wanted to say that while I was in India, I talked to former 
Prime Minister Devde on the hostage situation, and he informed me he 
could not confirm nor deny the status of Donald Hutchings, but he did 
assure me he would continue to investigate the situation and the Indian 
Government would do all it can to find and release the hostages.
  Before my trip to India this year, I had the opportunity to meet with 
Donald Hutchings' wife, Jane Schelly. Obviously, she was upset and 
would like the safe return of her husband, and although the safe return 
of her husband does not look promising, she continues to hope. In her 
heart she believes her husband is alive and will return back to home in 
the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot lose hope. We need to support this amendment 
and we must urge the State Department to work with India, Pakistan, the 
United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway in securing the release of these 
hostages. I think the gentleman's amendment will help in that regard 
and thank him for sponsoring it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey, and I would hope we can have a recorded vote 
on this to make certain the whole Congress weighs in very heavily on 
the importance of this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Nethercutt] will be postponed.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to advise the House that late last night, when 
the Committee of the Whole was meeting, there were three Members, I 
believe, three Members at most, in the Chamber. One of our colleagues 
introduced an amendment to the legislation that is being debated at 
this point which is replete more than with irony, with cynicism.
  It was an amendment introduced by a gentleman from New York that says 
more or less the following: If the terrorist state, the Cuban terrorist 
state, complains about any United States citizen, makes a complaint, 
then the State Department, paid for by United States taxpayer funds, 
will have an obligation to report to Congress on the complaints of the 
Cuban terrorist state.
  I have rarely seen examples of such advocacy directly, directly in 
favor of a state on the terrorist list of the State Department. That is 
the amendment that was introduced last night by one of our colleagues.
  So I want to advise the House that I will demand a separate vote in 
the House at the time that the Committee of the Whole rises on this 
unfortunate amendment.
  I think that it is important for our colleagues to know, for this 
House to know what was introduced into this legislation last night. It 
was truly unfortunate, and it was truly something that I think should 
be and, hopefully, will be stricken at the time that the Committee of 
the Whole rises and we have a separate vote in the House.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we will soon be voting on final passage and I alert my 
colleagues that, as my colleague from Florida has stated, we will be 
calling for a recorded vote on the amendment introduced by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] last night. For various reasons, 
the Committee felt it was best to allow a voice vote and wait until 
final passage to raise the question of recorded votes.
  This amendment does not even belong within the scope of a debate 
concerning U.S. foreign policy and the protection of U.S. national 
security interests. The amendment places a greater emphasis on the 
false and distorted allegations of a terrorist regime, a pariah state, 
than on safeguarding persons of the United States. It places the 
activities of the U.S. Government in jeopardy and potentially endangers 
the lives of some U.S. Government personnel who risk their lives every 
day in Castro's Cuba in an attempt to assist human rights dissidents 
and the pro democracy movement inside the island.
  The Serrano amendment would essentially turn our U.S. State 
Department into an instrument of Castro's propaganda machine. It will 
waste thousands of U.S. taxpayers' dollars, forcing the U.S. Government 
to act based on the rumblings and idiotic attacks of officials from a 
regime which is desperately trying to cling to the reins of power.
  Time and time again Castro officials have accused falsely the United 
States Government and falsely accused United States nationals of the 
most ridiculous actions, such as the United States launching of 
biological warfare against the Cuban people. That was an actual Castro 
accusation. They have also said that we have launched insect warfare to 
destroy Cuba's agricultural sector.
  This is what Fidel Castro has actually accused the U.S. Government of 
doing. This is absolutely ridiculous, and the Serrano amendment, 
introduced last night, would want us to pay attention to and would tell 
the State Department to monitor such attacks. So if Castro says the 
United States is waging a chemical war against the Cuban people, which 
is exactly what Castro has said, we, the taxpayers of this country, 
would have to foot the bill to make sure that will we monitor these 
criticisms.

                              {time}  1215

  I think it is the wrong action for the U.S. Congress to take and that 
is why we will be calling for a vote on this Serrano amendment at the 
proper time.
  So to force the State Department, our own Government, to turn against 
our own people, U.S. citizens, falls dangerously close to doing the 
same things that Castro's apparatus intimidation does on a daily basis. 
For anyone to suggest that this body should violate the privacy of the 
American people for the purposes of granting credence to the rantings 
of oppressors and terrorists is ludicrous. It is shameful, it is 
ridiculous. It is so far beyond the stretch of the imagination that it 
does not even merit further discussion in any serious debate of U.S. 
foreign policy objectives and national security interests.
  In fact, if this amendment were to pass on a recorded vote, that 
would mean that our own State Department would have to then report on 
the activities of this very body. Why do I say that? Just last week, on 
Friday, the president of Cuba's national assembly, a nondemocratically 
elected group, denounced this very bill as, quote, anti-Cuban actions 
and rendered an official complaint, which is the only criteria required 
by the Serrano amendment. So according to this amendment introduced 
last night, our very own State Department would have to investigate us 
and put us on the State Department list.
  I know, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues will vote against the 
Serrano amendment and I reiterate our call for a recorded vote against 
it. I wish that the Member of Congress who proposed this amendment 
would instead be trying to pass legislation calling for free elections 
in Cuba. I wish that our colleague on the other side of the aisle would 
instead be denouncing the human rights violations that occur daily in 
Cuba. But instead he is doing Castro's work for him in this body. I 
think that he should rethink that decision and I know that this body 
will

[[Page H3497]]

rethink our vote on that amendment, and that is why we will be proud to 
call for a recorded vote at the proper time.
  I ask Mr. Serrano, shouldn't U.S. taxpayer money be put to better 
use? Wouldn't U.S. foreign policy objectives be better served by 
requesting reports on human rights abuses; on Castro's narcotics 
trafficking; on Castro's support for terrorism worldwide?
  I know this would be a better use of funds, time, and effort for the 
U.S. Government and specifically the State Department.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Brown of Florida

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Brown of Florida:
       At the end of title XVII insert the following new section;

     SEC. 1717. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF 
                   PRISONERS IN ANDEAN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Several American prisoners have spent years in 
     Ecuadorian prisons on drug-related offenses without having 
     received a trial.
       (2) The prisoners include James Williams, a United States 
     citizen who has been held for 9 months without any findings, 
     and Sandra Chase, who has been held for more than 18 months 
     and has never seen a judge.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the Governments of the Andean countries of Peru, 
     Ecuador, Bolivia, Columbia, and Venezuela, should respect the 
     rights of prisoners, including United States citizens, to 
     timely legal procedures and abide by international standards 
     of due process.

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses one of the 
most basic issues that ties together every country in this globe. This 
issue is respect for human rights--including the rights of people 
accused of crimes. My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that 
the Governments of the Andean countries, including Peru, Ecuador, 
Bolivia, Columbia, and Venezuela, should respect the rights of 
prisoners, including United States Citizens, for timely legal 
procedures and international standards of due process. This is a simple 
amendment--one that would be difficult to vote against because it 
simply asks for due process, nothing more.

  On my recent trip to Ecuador, I witnessed extreme human rights 
violations in this nation's prisons, and in their justice system. I 
traveled to Ecuador to visit American prisoner James (Jim) Williams in 
the Guayaquil Penitentiary. Jim Williams is a businessman from 
Jacksonville, FL, and he has been held in this prison for the past 9 
months. On my trip one factor became very apparent. Like several other 
South American countries, Ecuador's judicial system--including the 
courts and prisons--is in shambles. It is a country where poverty is 
the norm and typewriters are a luxury. Thousands of people linger in 
prisons for years without a trial.
  Officials related to me that because of U.S. pressure for drug 
suspects to be apprehended, there is a focus by an overwhelmed local 
police force to bring in anyone suspected of drug use, drug 
trafficking, or money laundering. Local police lock up persons who 
associate with even suspected drug dealers. Hence, prisons are 
overcrowded with suspected drug users, drug dealers, or money 
launderers. But because of the rampant, corruption and bribery, the 
most dangerous narcotics offenders--the traffickers--are able to buy 
their freedom.
  Because of the rampant corruption and bribery, most people sit in 
jail for years without every going to trial. And some of the most 
dangerous drug dealers buy their way out of the system.
  Within this corrupt system are Jim Williams, Sandra Chase, and 40 
other Americans. They are in jails where most people have no toilets. 
There are only six public defenders for 10 million people. Most 
prisoners become hopelessly lost in a broken judicial system. Children 
grow up in prisons with imprisoned mothers.

  The prison I visited in Guayaquil has 2,500 prisoners; only 400 have 
ever received a trial. Because of the extensive bribery, simply getting 
a trial can cost the prisoner up to $30,000. Wealthy people simply buy 
their way out. But Jim Williams has insisted on proving his innocence. 
Unfortunately, those who plead innocent spend more time in the system 
battling the charges than if they had first plead guilty to the crime 
and served their time.
  The good news is that we can make a difference. When I was in 
Ecuador, I met one prisoner who had been in jail for 4 years on charges 
that he had a single marijuana cigarette. He was 16 when he entered 
this prison. Last week, he and 11 other prisoners who spent years in 
jail without a trial, were released.
  I believe this is a direct result of the publicity we brought to 
these prisoners, and I am even more committed that we can work with our 
neighbors in Latin America to ensure that all people have access to due 
process.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and send a message to 
our neighbors that the U.S. Congress will not stand by while prisoners 
lie suffering, waiting indefinitely for justice.
  Ecuador's judicial system is in shambles. There are few typewriters, 
cases lie in paper heaps on office floors where there is no air 
conditioning and the humidity is usually at very high levels.
  Poverty in Ecuador is the norm.
  U.S. officials in Ecuador have an overriding role to combat drug 
trafficking.
  Local police lock up persons who associate with even suspected drug 
dealers.
  Because of bribery, wealthy drug offenders go free.
  Forty Americans are imprisoned within this system.
  Ecuador has 6 public defenders for 10 million people.
  One prisoner was in jail for 4 years without a trial for having one 
marijuana cigarette.
  The jails have no phones and no toilets.
  Children grow up in prison with imprisoned mothers.
  Each lingering case represents a person out of work and a family that 
suffers.
  I visited a prison with 2,500 prisoners--only 400 had ever received a 
trial. A trial can cost $30,000.
                                               Comite de Internos,


                                              Del C.R.S.V.-G.,

                                   Guayaquil, 31 de Mayo de 1.997.
     Ms. Corrine Brown,
     Congresswoman of the U.S.A.,
     Washington.
       My dear lady: Thanks to your visit to this Penitenciary 
     some changes have occurred and we, the inmates, wish to thank 
     you for your kind intervention and interest in our plight
       First of all, we wish to inform you that the inmate Jose 
     Ayala Gomez, after 4 years and 6 months of prison, for 
     possessing one marijuana cigarrette, was finally released. He 
     went to the press and T.V. to publicly thank you for your 
     help.
       On the other hand, we have seen that judges have started to 
     take depositions from the inmates and some progress seems to 
     be underway. This all has happened after your visit to this 
     center.
       Two thousand prisoners that have been relegated and remain 
     without sentence for years are still waiting for justice.
       We wish to ask you to keep your kind interest in our 
     suffering so that the international organization of Human 
     Rights pressures the Ecuadorian authorities to comply with 
     the law and cease the abuse of the civil and human rights of 
     Ecuadorian citizens.
       We are pleased to remain yours very truly.
     Francisco Baquerizo Villao,
       President.
     Robert Vera,
       Secretario.
                                 ______
                                 
                                   Guayaquil, 31 de Mayo de 1.997.
     Ms. Corrine Brown,
     Congresswoman U.S.A., Washington.
       Dear lady: I wish to send you by this letter, my deep 
     feeling of gratitude for my release from prison.
       After four years and six months I have managed to get out 
     of hell, thanks to your kind help. I will always remember the 
     beautiful lady that came here as an aparition from heaven.
       Now I must seek my wife and three children that I have 
     lost. I will also try to recover my health. Hundreds of 
     companions that are left behind wait also for justice.
       I pray so hard that you are well and that your efforts be 
     successful.
                                             Franklin Ayala Gomez.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman from Florida yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support our colleague from Florida, Ms. 
Brown, in offering this amendment. I have been monitoring closely the 
case of James Wilson who is being held in prison in Ecuador. Without 
prejudging the merits of any particular case, I am proud to join the 
gentlewoman in expressing the sense of Congress that all such persons 
should be afforded timely legal procedures. And by passing this 
amendment, we would be making a strong unequivocal statement in favor 
of justice and due process. I commend the gentlewoman for her amendment 
and I would like to note to the gentlewoman that the majority accepts 
the amendment.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was in my office listening to the comments by the two

[[Page H3498]]

Members from Florida on an amendment that was passed last night 
concerning the ever-present and sad Cuban issue. Let me first set the 
record straight.
  I presented the amendment because I felt it was right. I printed it 
under the rules of the House. I presented it under the procedures set 
up by the Republican majority, the amendment was voted on by voice vote 
and it was passed. If they desire now to quiet me and quiet the issue 
by bringing up the vote, that is fine; they have a right to do that. 
But I think we have to understand what is going on here. This bill 
includes provisions that ask the administration and other agencies to 
report to the Congress every 3 months on how the administration is 
enforcing the Cuban embargo. I am an opponent of the Cuban embargo. I 
feel it is improper and I feel it is foolish and it has not gained any 
success for our country.
  Therefore, in a desire to strike some balance, I have said on many 
occasions that there are complaints that come from the Cuban Government 
that deal with the behavior of some American citizens and American 
residents, complaints such as, on more than 10 occasions before the 
tragic downing of 2 airplanes flown by Florida residents, on more than 
10 occasions prior to that time, the Cuban Government had officially 
complained to our Government that these planes and planes from the same 
organization were violating Cuban air space.
  On that July, prior to that tragic incident, the Cuban Government had 
complained officially to the United States and to the rest of the 
world, if anybody wanted to listen, that planes from that organization 
had flown over Havanna, dropped leaflets, dropped paint, and incited or 
attempted to insight a riot. Now please understand what I am talking 
about. If Cuban airplanes flew over the capital, each one of us would 
expect our Government to shoot them down immediately. And I would be 
the first one to say that that would be the proper action to take, but 
because it is Cuba and it is the desire of this country and of some 
people to continue to press them until they come begging forgiveness 
for their different form of government, nothing gets done.
  So all my amendment does, the amendment that was passed properly last 
night, is to say every 3 months tell us what official complaints have 
been brought forth by the Cuban Government, complaints that deal with 
violation of air space, complaints that deal with American citizens or 
residents who enter Cuban territory, complaints that deal, official 
complaints with ships getting beyond international waters into Cuban 
territory, and recently complaints that deal with American residents or 
citizens that have been accused by the Cuban Government of being 
involved in what we would call terrorist actions.
  What is it that some people want to hide that they do not want simply 
the truth to come out? I am not suggesting in my amendment that we do 
anything about those actions. Interestingly enough, I am not suggesting 
in my amendment that we arrest anyone, I am not suggesting in my 
amendment that we stop anyone from doing these things. All I am 
suggesting is that we know as Members of Congress so that we can 
balance the Cuban issue and the Cuban approach.
  Now, there are people who stand on this floor and accuse my amendment 
of being the worst amendment they ever saw and accuse my actions of 
being the worst actions any Member can take, but let me say something. 
I strongly believe that we are wrong in our policy toward Cuba and I 
will not rest until my country, this country, realizes that the best 
way to deal with this issue is the way we dealt with the Soviet Union, 
the way we are dealing with China, the way we are dealing with Vietnam, 
the way we are dealing with Korea.
  If there are Members that do not like that, I apologize for bringing 
grief upon their lives. But I will not move back, nor any approach on 
their part will make me move back from this that I believe so strongly. 
What is right is to let the amendment go through. What are we afraid 
of? To learn the truth?
  The vote will be taken today. I would hope that all Members on both 
sides take into consideration the fact that an amendment properly 
presented before this House was approved. If they want to kill it, 
there are other ways to do that, in conference, in the Senate, but they 
should let this amendment go through because I presented it properly 
and it was approved properly.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to engage our colleague from New York, Mr. 
Serrano in a series of questions about some of the statements that he 
has made. For example, he said that the amendment that we passed 
yesterday had to deal with how the United States is monitoring Cuban 
embargo. That is not the case.
  The amendment that we will pass deals with how the State Department 
is or is not administering the laws that the U.S. Congress has passed 
with almost 400 votes in favor in a strong bipartisan way. We would 
like the State Department to administer the law. The U.S. Congress 
approved it. We would like the State Department to approve it, to 
implement it.
  Furthermore, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] is saying that 
Castro was so upset about the U.S. planes flying so close to his 
territory. Too bad that the facts of the case are that every 
international body, including the United Nations, that has looked at 
this incident has said that it was an unarmed, humanitarian flight that 
took place in international waters and Castro killed American citizens, 
shot them from the sky.
  But my colleague is not concerned with that. He is concerned with 
Castro's accusations. He is not concerned about our constituents that 
died, and he is not concerned about the thousands of Cubans that die 
every year trying to get to liberty. He wants to do Castro's work in 
the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, in coordination with 
our committee's ranking minority member, Mr. Hamilton, to move at a 
subsequent time to seek an agreement to limit consideration of any 
further amendments to this bill, the bill that is now before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I was just trying to understand what the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] was saying. Would he repeat, 
please. I apologize, I was distracted.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I intend to move at a subsequent time to 
seek an agreement to limit consideration of any further amendments to 
this bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HAMILTON. I commend the chairman for his statement. I think it is 
important that we give Members notice that we are going to cut off 
amendments to this bill. I think the chairman is taking the right 
approach on it, and I will work with him on it.


  Request for Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Scarborough to 
                 Title XVII, Foreign Policy Provisions

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make a 
technical amendment on my amendment regarding Sudan to add the 
sentence: ``This restriction shall not be interpreted to restrict 
humanitarian assistance or transactions relating to normal diplomatic 
activities.''
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Scarborough:
  At the end of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Scarborough] insert: ``This restriction shall not be interpreted 
to restrict humanitarian assistance or transactions relating to normal 
diplomatic activities.''

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HAMILTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I 
understand the amendment has been adopted. The gentleman is seeking a 
unanimous-consent change in the text of the amendment. I just had it 
handed to me. I do

[[Page H3499]]

not want to object to the gentleman's request, but I would request that 
we be given a little time to examine it. It is new to me. I would like 
to check it out. May I request that the gentleman withdraw his 
unanimous consent and let me have a couple of hours here to check it 
and renew it at a later point?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman 
for asking. This vote is going to be coming up early this afternoon, 
after 1:30. The objection last night was that this would somehow affect 
NGO's. We actually have talked to NGO's that are going into Sudan. They 
have said this would not have any impact on them whatsoever. But we 
wanted to just bend over backwards to make sure that everybody knew 
that humanitarian assistance was cleared.
  Let me just say that after this passes, we will certainly be glad as 
we go to conference to do whatever it takes to make sure that the 
minority has no concerns regarding it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
do not have any doubt about the gentleman's intent here, but since I 
have only had a very few minutes to look at it, I still feel like I 
need some additional time to review it, so I would be constrained to 
object to the unanimous consent at this point. However, I would 
anticipate we could work this out.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. If the gentleman will yield further, would the 
gentleman agree to possibly, if I come back to amend it before the 
vote, when we come back in later today, would that be all right with 
the gentleman?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Yes. I understand there is a vote pending on the 
gentleman's amendment. I do not want to delay that. Let us proceed 
quickly here to find out about it. Then the gentleman can renew his 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. HAMILTON. I will be back in touch with the gentleman.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Snowbarger) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ney, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to authorize 
appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________