Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)

[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.

____________________