[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8686-H8691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1757, FOREIGN RELATIONS 
 AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999, AND EUROPEAN SECURITY 
                              ACT OF 1997

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on 
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 to ensure that the 
enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] proceeds 
in a manner consistent with United States interests, to strengthen 
relations between the United States and Russia, to preserve the 
prerogatives of the Congress with respect to certain arms control 
agreements, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Callahan moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1757 be 
     instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in title 
     XXI of the House bill (relating to United States policy with 
     respect to forced abortion and foreign organizations that 
     perform or promote abortion).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H8687]]

  Mr. Speaker, this issue was thoroughly debated yesterday when the 
Congress chose to instruct the conferees on the foreign operations bill 
to include Mexico City language.
  I support Mexico City language, although I opposed, in a way, the 
Congress telling us that we ought to be forced to do authorization 
business in an appropriation bill. Generally, the arguments that take 
place on the floor are just the opposite.
  But since the Congress saw fit, by a great majority, to instruct the 
conferees on the Committee on Appropriations, sitting and languishing 
for a couple of weeks in conference is the authorization bill where 
this issue should be addressed.
  It is our understanding that even since yesterday, when the Committee 
on Appropriations was instructed to act on a policy matter, Senator 
Helms has indicated and some of the Members of the House Committee on 
International Relations indicated that they are not going to be able to 
maintain this in the conference on the bill that it should be in. So 
what this does is just simply transfer the responsibility to the party 
of responsibility.
  I do not think there is much need this afternoon to go into the 
merits and demerits of the pro-life issue or pro-choice issues or the 
population-control issues. The issue has already been addressed by this 
House, voted on by this House. All we are doing is making certain that 
the committee of responsibility act in a responsible manner according 
to the wishes of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the committee.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered 
by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. I believe the motion is 
unnecessary. It delays the House from more productive work. The House 
has already voted five times on the Mexico City policy, and the result 
is always the same. Mr. Speaker, another vote today repeats the 
obvious. This will be our sixth vote on the Mexico City policy this 
very year.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed in this motion. Until yesterday's 
motion, I was unaware of any motion to instruct to be offered by a 
member of the majority during this Congress. I appreciate the interest 
of the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs, and the work of our Committee on International 
Relations as it relates to our conference and the issue addressed by 
this motion.
  As the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] knows, the resolution of 
this issue is being addressed by our leadership, by the administration, 
and by others; and that is an ongoing attempt to resolve the issue.
  Our House conferees are not trying to circumvent that process. 
Indeed, the House, during consideration of H.R. 1757, voted to defeat 
the Campbell substitute and support the Smith amendment. Our 
committee's conferees have been trying to do our job under that clear 
instruction of the House.
  Notwithstanding the motion of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], which I just learned of yesterday during his announcement, I 
believe that our conferees have been doing their work and doing it in 
line with the wishes of the House. I share the frustration of the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan]. I believe both committees are 
working within the same constraints.
  Given these constraints, it serves as no useful purpose to imply that 
our committee is not doing all it can to resolve that issue. I do not 
believe that the House should have instructed the Committee on 
Appropriations yesterday on this issue, and I opposed the motion. 
Likewise, I do not believe we should instruct the committee on this 
issue.
  Accordingly, I oppose the motion, just as I opposed the motion 
yesterday. I urge our Members to reject the motion by the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I forewarn the Members who are interested 
in speaking, since this issue has been thoroughly debated, even though 
we have an hour, I do not see a great sense of need to take a full 
hour, because we have still the motion to adjourn before the House, and 
I know that we want to adjourn relatively early tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Callahan motion. I do not do 
that because I fully agree with everything in the Smith amendment. I do 
not. I agree with about half of it. I do not support the gentleman's 
amendment to impose Mexico City policy. But I do want to see funding 
cut off to the United Nations population program so long as they remain 
in China, because I think that they have a coercive abortion policy in 
China.
  But that is not the main reason that I support this amendment. I 
support it because if this amendment is to be attached anywhere, it 
should be attached to an authorization legislation and not an 
appropriation bill.
  My favorite philosopher, as I have said many times on this floor, is 
Archie, the Cockroach. One of the things Archie said was that, ``Now 
and then, a person is born who is so unlucky he runs into accidents 
that started out to happen to somebody else.''
  That is the way our Committee on Appropriations feels on this issue, 
because this is an authorization issue. It is an issue which ought to 
be dealt with in that committee, and yet we are now told that the 
authorizing committee may be dropping this amendment because they think 
it will make it impossible to pass their bill.
  Well, boys and girls, if you think it is going to make it impossible 
to pass an authorization bill, what do you think it is going to do to 
the appropriation bill? It does not belong on the appropriations bill. 
It belongs on the authorization bill, if it belongs anywhere. So, at 
least to get this debate in the proper venue, I would urge the House to 
support the motion of the gentleman.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], will understand 
if I, along with most Members who are not on the Committee on 
Appropriations, do not show him great sympathy for his present plight. 
We in the authorization committee feel that appropriations members seem 
to do quite well around here in lots of areas. And I think Archie's 
little saying may not be as applicable as my friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], would like us to think.
  It is easy to get caught up in the process of what we do here, but 
the substance is also terribly important. I would say, for both 
procedural reasons and substantive reasons, we should reject the 
proposition of my colleague that is before us today.
  The substantive reasons are more important than any other, because, 
after all, we work in this process and process is important, but 
substance is what brings us to Congress. It is substance that we fight 
for in the policies, and the substance here is very clear.
  As we have been able to expand family planning, we have not only 
improved the economic situation of the poorest of the poor in this 
world, we have not only been able to reduce death and injury to the 
mothers of the children of this world, but we have also reduced 
abortion, reduced abortion across the globe where U.S. family planning 
funds were able to exercise freely and compete in the globe.
  America's influences in family planning were long before Mexico City, 
long before this debate tied up the Foreign Assistance Act, long before 
it tied up State Department authorizations and appropriations reduced 
abortion globally.
  For the people who look at this issue and who care about abortion, 
take a look at some of the statistics. They will see across this 
country, across this planet, family planning has reduced abortions. In 
Kazakhstan, it has reduced abortions about 40 percent. All

[[Page H8688]]

the debate on this floor about banning abortions and making them 
illegal has not reduced as many abortions as family planning has in 
Kazakhstan in the Soviet Union and across this planet.
  So I would plead with my colleagues that we ought to reject this 
proposal from the Committee on Appropriations, we ought to reject it 
both in substance and in process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support 
of the Callahan motion. Just let me take a moment to digress.
  Some of the leading appropriators in this House never lose the 
opportunity to admonish and even scold the rest of us and to tell us to 
look elsewhere when offering terms and conditions on policy. The 
appropriators just do the money, or so the thinking goes; the 
authorizers do policy.
  All of that sounds neat and tidy, a true division of labor. But 
appropriations bills are stuffed to the hilt with policy. It may be 
useful to note that in years past, this ``not on my appropriations 
bill'' approach has been invoked in attempts to deter the offering of 
pro-life amendments or, once adopted, to try to strip out the pro-life 
language on appropriations bills, including the Hyde amendment on the 
health and human services bill.
  The notion of ``do it on the authorizing bill'' has surface appeal. 
But had pro-lifers heeded that advice, the overwhelming majority of 
pro-life riders would never have become law, including the Hyde 
amendment, including the bans on taxpayer funding for abortion under 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I first offered that 
back in 1983, and everybody was telling me, ``Do not do it on the 
appropriations bill,'' the D.C. appropriations bill, the Federal 
prisons ban, and other riders. If pro-lifers had bought into that line, 
the U.S. Government today would be paying for abortion on demand in 
most of the programs that we subsidize.

                              {time}  1645

  In the real world, appropriators are more equal, more essential, if 
you will, than the rest of us. In the end, their bills must pass, even 
if those bills are rolled into an omnibus bill or a CR. Authorizers, 
especially on the Committee on International Relations, are doubly 
disadvantaged.
  First, we bring relatively unpopular bills to the floor, and who here 
has constituents who are clamoring for more foreign aid? And, second, 
appropriators often render our work product moot or redundant or 
superfluous by simply waiving the need for an authorization bill.
  The simple fact of the matter is that the White House, be it Democrat 
or Republican, knows this and needs only to wait until the eleventh 
hour for the appropriators to waive authorization. The real world 
consequence of this waiver-of-authorization drill is to closely 
undermine Members on the authorizing committees in negotiations with 
the administration on tough issues like population and abortion.
  The administration calculates, and I believe wrongly this time, that 
they can get a better deal by pushing the process to the zero hour, 
which is why we offered the pro-life Mexico City policy to both the 
foreign operations bill and the State Department authorization bill, 
which I would remind my colleagues is the bill that I wrote.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and 
Human Rights, the State bill, not the reorganization, which was the 
part of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], and not some of the 
other policy considerations, but the State Department bill is my bill, 
and I chair the subcommittee that oversees it.
  We put it on that bill and we also put it on the foreign operations 
bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], as everyone knows, moved yesterday to instruct the 
conferees to retain the Mexico City and will hopefully do the same 
today on the authorizing bill.
  This year, the majority of us in the House who recognize the fact 
that abortion is violence against babies will not give in, nor will we 
accept bogus compromises like metering, or counterfeits like the 
Gilman-Pelosi amendment. This year we will simply not allow the 
approximately $400 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to enrich those who 
dismember and chemically poison unborn children.
  Abortion is violence against children. Abortion is child abuse, and 
this year we are prepared to zero out U.N. arrearage payments, cut 
foreign aid and take any action necessary to ensure that the Hyde 
amendment for foreign aid, which is the Mexico City policy, is enacted.
  Yesterday's vote to instruct conferees to insist on the Mexico City 
policy was no frivolous vote. We simply will not cave, not now, not 
next week, not the week after, or ever, because millions of children 
and the well-being of their mothers are at stake.
  I can assure the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] that as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human 
Rights, I will fight any effort to bring the State bill back to the 
floor without the Mexico City policy. If through some means, and I do 
not think one exists, my bill lands on the floor without the Mexico 
City policy, I give my colleagues my vow, I will lead the fight against 
my own bill on the floor of this House.
  I can only ask the same of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] 
on foreign operations. I urge support on the Callahan motion.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of our full 
committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by the 
gentleman from Alabama to instruct the conferees on this bill. 
Yesterday, I reluctantly rose to indicate to the membership that I was 
going to vote ``present,'' and I would like to explain that vote. The 
fact: I have always supported the Mexico City policy. I believe very 
strongly that wherever possible, the United States needs to discourage 
abortion. I am concerned that members of our society are actually 
encouraging abortion around the world.
  The fact is, I happen to have the role, the dual-hatted role of 
running the Committee on Appropriations. Thirteen bills of the 
Committee on Appropriations have to get out every year in an appointed 
time and hopefully without shutting down the government, and the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs is just one of those subcommittees which must report every 
single year.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been a reluctant or an unfortunate reality 
that the Mexico City language has been the source of debate year after 
year after year since we took office as the majority party in 1994. In 
three other separate cycles, it was the last issue resolved, not just 
in the foreign operations subcommittee interchange with the Senate in 
conference, but in fact, the last issue resolved in each separate 
session of Congress.
  Mexico City, and whether or not we should induce family planning 
operations around the world to refrain from advocating abortion, is an 
authorization issue. It belongs in the authorization bill, and that is 
why I am very pleased to stand before my colleagues in this body to 
implore my colleagues, vote for the gentleman's motion, vote for the 
motion to instruct the conferees of the authorization committee to do 
the job that must be done in order to convince the Senate to accept 
this language, to change this language, and to do whatever is necessary 
to change policy so that abortion will be discouraged with family 
planning operations all around the world. If one gets settled in the 
authorization committee, one does not have to come to the Committee on 
Appropriations, and we can go ahead and finish our appropriations bills 
on time and get out without closing down the government.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this proposal.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I will not use all of my allotted 2 
minutes. We had this debate yesterday.
  The only two things that I would like to say in reflection over the 
last 24

[[Page H8689]]

hours is this: People need to understand that the argument that people 
have raised about family planning money would be jeopardized with the 
addition of the Mexico City policy, need to understand that the Mexico 
City policy language that says that no taxpayer funds will go to 
organizations that fund abortions with any of their money, that that 
language was, in fact, the law of the land until 1993, when President 
Clinton rejected the Mexico City policy with an administrative order. 
So, family planning money was not jeopardized under the Mexico City 
policy for 12 years prior to 1993, so the argument is a fallacious 
argument.
  The second thing that I would like to say is that the reason that the 
motion to instruct conferees was added to the appropriations bill is 
that I was fully confident that under the leadership of the gentleman 
from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith, in conference, that it would only be 
over his dead body that that Mexico City policy language would be 
stripped from the authorizing bill before it came out.
  So the appropriate vehicle was on the Committee on Appropriations, 
and I am in favor and voting in favor and urge all of my colleagues to 
support this motion to instruct as well, because as many times as we 
can reinforce doing the right thing, we should be for that.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue to 
support this motion to instruct conferees and support the Mexico City 
language.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson], for yielding me this time and for his 
leadership on this issue, as well as a number of other colleagues who 
are trying to make the point that we are really at a point of absurdity 
on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time now in 2 days to instruct 
conferees on the reinstatement of the Mexico City policy provisions. 
Yesterday we talked about the appropriations bill. Today we are talking 
about the authorization.
  The fact is, it does not really matter what we are talking about 
here, it should be debated in conference. We have already debated it ad 
nauseam on the House floor, and to begin to offer a motion to instruct 
on every controversial issue that comes before this body and is not 
reconciled before conference is a waste of time and it is an assault on 
the legislative process. We cannot get our work done if we keep acting 
in this manner.
  I urge my colleagues to allow the conferees on the foreign 
appropriations bill and the foreign relations authorization act to do 
their job in debating this issue, without these unnecessary and 
intrusive motions to instruct. Leave it to them. They know the issue. 
They are doing the best they can. They will come up with the best 
resolution. This is not a good use of our time. We need to defeat this 
instruction.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pappas].
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  This is not absurd. We are talking about saving the lives of unborn 
human beings here. And for those that are critical of us that are 
supporting this measure to instruct the conferees on the authorizing 
side, I would just like to point out a couple of weeks ago that those 
that felt frustrated and unable to offer their own amendment, and I 
speak of the Gilman-Pelosi amendment, they held this House hostage for 
several days in offering motions to adjourn or motions to this or 
motions to that.
  I do not see this as absurd. We are talking about human beings. That 
is why the people of this country, by and large, have elected people 
that support protecting the vulnerable children, whether they are in 
the United States or any other place in the world, and I stand proudly 
supporting the chairman's motion to instruct.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I may not use the 3 minutes, but that is not a promise, I say to 
my colleagues.
  I think the issue is clear, the same issue as the one we debated 
yesterday, although I think a much more appropriate vehicle here, and I 
am very glad the gentleman is offering this motion to instruct.
  The issue is this. We do not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions 
here in the United States. We should be clear and certain that we do 
not do so abroad as well, and that is what we are talking about here, 
making crystal-clear what I think is, people claim is implicit in the 
setup: making it crystal-clear that American taxpayer dollars are not 
going to be used directly or indirectly to subsidize abortion or 
subsidize organizations that provide abortions, and if everybody agrees 
that we ought to do that, I cannot see the objection to making it clear 
with this particular language.
  I am glad the gentleman offered the motion to instruct. I think it 
shows respect for the millions of people in this country who believe 
deeply as a matter of conscience, as I do, that this practice is wrong, 
and hope some day that we can eliminate it not just here, but around 
the world as well.
  I want to say a word, also, about the particular vehicle for 
resolving this kind of issue. I know that there are many people in the 
House and many in the Senate who believe just as deeply and just as 
passionately on the other side, and they do not want to see this 
language go on. I am deeply concerned that if we fight this issue out 
on the appropriations bill, it may end up jeopardizing some other very 
important appropriations that do not have anything to do with this 
issue, and I do not see why we should do it.
  The issue should be fought out on the authorization bill. We should 
take the whole issue, the whole issue of the population control money, 
the whole issue of this proposed language, take it out of the 
appropriations bill, resolve it in the authorization process where it 
belongs.
  I know that my long-suffering friend, the gentleman from Alabama, who 
offers this motion to instruct, would much prefer not to have to deal 
with this in his appropriations bill, and he is right. Let us support 
this motion to instruct and let us all support taking this issue, the 
money, the policy, all of it off, effectively getting it off the 
appropriations process, onto the authorization bill, and then I hope 
come to a compromise. If not, fight it out in good faith and as between 
honorable people there.
  I thank the gentleman for offering his motion. I intend to support 
it.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would close for our side by simply saying that I 
understand the frustration of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], but there is a substantive issue here and a process one.
  In substance, if the individuals who seek to impose this straitjacket 
on the authorizing committee win, it is less likely that we can move 
forward. The administration has taken a very clear position. This is a 
very tough issue. Passing this instruction will not be helpful to 
achieve the goal that most people here have expressed.
  I think also from a policy perspective it is important to recognize 
that if the proponents win with the Mexico City language, more 
abortions will occur. It is all a function of where we draw the circle. 
The Mexico City language now tries to take in entire organizations. I 
guess we could take continents or countries and draw the circle that 
broad.
  But at the end of the day, if the proponents of the Mexico City 
language on family planning are successful, more abortions will occur 
across the globe. There is no debate on that.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this motion.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the Members of this 
body that I strongly support the Mexico City policy, and I am going to 
support it because it is the will of the House and the conference, to 
the best of my ability.

[[Page H8690]]

  But the proper avenue for addressing this is through this vehicle, 
through the authorizing committee. Because if we do not do it 
permanently in the authorizing committee, we are going to be faced with 
this battle year after year after year. The proper place to debate this 
is in that committee. Most of the proponents, such as the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], are on that conference committee.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Helms in the Senate has given strong indication 
that he is willing to drop the language in the Senate. I do not know if 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] can hold the votes. If indeed 
he can hold the votes, then we will not have to debate this issue on an 
appropriation bill in the near future. That is exactly what this 
resolution is intended to do.
  That is exactly what we are encouraging the authorizing committee to 
do. It is exactly what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] wants 
to do. We are going to probably receive a larger vote to have this done 
in a responsible manner than they did through the appropriations 
process yesterday.
  I beg the Members to vote for this measure. Let us send it to the 
committee of jurisdiction and responsibility, and I am sorry to tie the 
House up this late in the evening.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect and the highest 
esteem for the maker of this motion, Chairman Callahan. However, while 
I agree with him on process, I cannot agree on the substance of this 
motion.
  We debated a motion to instruct on this identical issue on an 
appropriations bill just yesterday. We have had at least seven votes on 
this issue on three or four separate bills this year. Although I oppose 
the gentleman's motion, I respect his desire to keep this issue in the 
appropriations bill. This authorization bill, not an appropriations 
bill, is the proper and appropriate place to discuss this difficult and 
contentious issue.
  I oppose this motion because I oppose the Mexico City policy. Mexico 
City restrictions will cripple international family planning 
organizations in providing family planning and reproductive health 
services that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions 
performed worldwide.
  This is not a pro-life issue. This is not a pro-choice issue. This is 
a women's reproductive health issue. During yesterday's debate, one of 
my colleagues who supported the Mexico City gag rule also stated that 
he supports responsible organizations that do engage in family 
planning. Yet he was one of 147 Members of this body who are on record 
voting to completely eliminate international family planning funding.
  I agree with my colleagues who said yesterday that threat of a 
Presidential veto on a bill filled with other important issues should 
not be the sole basis for voting down this issue.
  However, if some of my colleagues believe so passionately in the 
Mexico City gag rule provisions, and I respect that they do, I 
challenge them to introduce separate, free-standing legislation to do 
what you will effectively do with this language--to eliminate all 
international family planning.
  The Mexico City provisions will crush our successful international 
family planning efforts, which work to reduce the number of abortions 
performed worldwide--in Russia, in Chile, in Colombia, in Hungary, the 
list goes on and on.
  My message today is very simple. Family planning reduces abortions. 
Family planning saves lives. Mexico City restrictions gag family 
planning efforts. I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 190, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 506]

                               AYES--236

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     White
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clay
     Coburn
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Lewis (KY)
     Schiff
     Schumer

[[Page H8691]]



                              {time}  1722

  Mr. NADLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________