[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1581-H1600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1757, FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND
RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 1998
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 385 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 385
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 385 waives all points of order against
the conference report that accompanies this bill, the Foreign Affairs
Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, and against its consideration.
The rule also provides that the conference report be considered as
read. This of course is the traditional type of rule for considering
conference reports and will allow expedited consideration of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, on the conference report itself, I am pleased to say
that I will be able to support a State Department authorization bill
for the first time in many, many years. I am not in the habit of voting
for foreign aid of any kind, and I am not in the habit of voting for
the State Department authorization bill. But I think all Members ought
to listen up, particularly those of conservative persuasion who may
have some concern about this bill.
First of all, one reason I support it is because of the excellent
work by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the rest of the conferees who have managed
to retain some very excellent provisions relating to NATO expansion
overseas, abortion issues and the United Nations. I am most pleased
with the retention of the provision of the European Security Act, which
supports something near and dear to my heart, and that is the expansion
of NATO, which will guarantee peace in that part of the world for many
years to come.
Twice in this century, American soldiers have gone to war on behalf
of Europeans, and we fought a very, very costly financial war with the
Cold War. The European Security Act designates Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Romania as eligible countries for transition assistance
under the NATO Participation Act of 1994. It further expresses a sense
of Congress that those four countries should be invited to become full
NATO members at the earliest possible time.
Mr. Speaker, as we see democracy breaking out all over Eastern
Europe, in countries that were enslaved by communism for decades, it is
morally and strategically imperative that we do not shut these people
out of the Western system, that we not draw a line in the sand as we
did back in Yalta, which created this terrible situation of enslaving
tens of millions of people behind this philosophy of deadly atheistic
communism. Especially as they struggle valiantly to establish democracy
and reform their economies, these great friends of America need
security and stability.
That in itself is reason enough to come over here and vote yes on
this bill. NATO of course is the key to security and stability in that
part of the world. For 49 years, it has kept peace and helped nourish
democracy and prosperity in Europe. Some say, let us shut it down, or
let us keep the status quo. Mr. Speaker, some over in the other body
wish to establish some sort of pause after Poland and the Czech
Republic and Hungary get in. What an irresponsible and myopic policy
that would be. We must not let that happen. That in itself is sending
signals that we are willing to once again draw that line in the sand,
and we cannot let that happen. In addition to betraying the people of
that region, after decades of Communist slavery, leaving a gray area in
Central Europe will only tempt demagogues and potential aggressors in
that region and make it more, yes, more likely that United States
soldiers will have to fight in Europe once again.
To those who say why should U.S. soldiers die for Danzig or Bucharest
or Riga, I say they are right, they should not, and if they do not want
it to happen, support NATO expansion that appears in this bill, because
that is exactly what this bill does.
This conference report also retains the very strong restrictions
supported by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on funding of
overseas abortions and advocacy of abortions. There is not a more
principled Member of this body than the gentleman from New Jersey. I
commend him for standing up for what is right for the children of this
Nation.
Finally, I am pleased that this conference report places strict
conditions on the payment of our supposed arrears to the U.N. Members
ought to listen up, because I am the author of the Kassebaum-Solomon
amendment that has withheld dues from the United Nations until they
cleaned up their house and they put their house in fiscal order. Yet I
am the one standing up here today saying we ought to support this bill.
It is because of what is written into this bill.
I have a great deal of trouble with paying these so-called arrears to
the U.N., given its history of waste and abuse and, frankly, its lack
of gratitude for all the expenses and danger on our troops that we
incur in support of U.N. resolutions.
I also have trouble handing out any more money over to an
organization whose Secretary General Kofi Annan has just cut an
appeasement deal with Saddam Hussein, said that Saddam Hussein is a man
he can work with and called U.S. weapons inspectors cowboys. That is
what this head of the U.N. said? He ought to be horse whipped for
saying it. I resent that, Mr. Speaker.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the conferees have done
excellent work in placing strings on the money, strings that will help
reduce bureaucracy, help reduce waste and abuse at that U.N. I am
particularly pleased that they have retained
[[Page H1582]]
my legislation, which would prevent any arrearages from going to the
U.N. if that body attempts to create taxes on American citizens, and
they are talking about that, as my colleagues know. We know that U.N.
bureaucrats would like to do exactly that. This legislation is a shot
across the bow. Do not try it.
The conferees have also included, and this is very, very important,
conditions requiring that the U.N. reduce the U.S. share of the
peacekeeping budget down to 25 percent and that the regular budget be
no more than 20 percent. All fiscal conservatives, if they are
listening, that is the reason they ought to come over here and vote for
this bill.
What is extremely important is that the conference report also
requires the President to seek and obtain a commitment from the United
Nations that it will provide reimbursement to the United States for the
costs incurred by our military in support of U.N. missions. Right now
we get no credit. We just pay all that extra money in and it is a
terrible, terrible drain on our military budget to do so. This bill
says that they will take into consideration all of the moneys that we
pay in in that respect and reimburse us for it. These and other
conditions which should lead us to spending less on the United Nations
in the future, as well as the previously mentioned support for NATO
expansion, and the excellent anti-abortion provisions are why I
grudgingly support this measure.
Mr. Speaker, in sum, this is a good conference report. I urge
adoption of the rule so that we can get on with the expedited
consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
This resolution, H.Res. 385, is a rule that provides for
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1757, which authorizes
appropriations, it makes policy changes for the State Department and
related agencies. As the gentleman has described, this rule waives all
points of order against the conference report. The bill, in my opinion,
has some good sections and good ideas, especially humanitarian ideas
and humanitarian concerns and human rights. I do have some concerns,
though, about the bill and about the process. In his statement to the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the
ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations,
said that the conference report was rushed through a highly partisan
process without any consultation with the minority. The gentleman from
Indiana stated that Democrats had almost no opportunity to review the
language in the report. I am also very concerned about the reduced
funding levels that will cause cuts in American embassies. In this area
of global uncertainty, our need for strong worldwide diplomatic
presence has never been greater.
I want to take this opportunity to address a particularly difficult
issue related to this bill. This is the stalemate between Congress and
the administration over restrictions on international family planning
and the payment of U.S. dues to the United Nations and funding for the
International Monetary Fund. I am considering an alternative proposal
that would allow some restrictions on family planning funds and that
would require all future IMF financial packages to include microcredit
programs to the poorest of the poor. Both sides could win something and
the larger national and international interests would be advanced. I
suggest microcredit programs because of their success, particularly
with women. These small loans help women to invest in projects which
can double or triple their family income. It helps pull families out of
poverty. It reduces abortion and reduces the size of families.
Most individuals on both sides of this issue act out of deep
convictions, and they should. Perhaps there is no middle ground on this
fundamental issue. But as legislator, we are charged with finding a
middle ground on legislation and there is a difference. We need to
support the United Nations. Despite its problems, it is the best hope
for peace in many of the troubled regions of the world. We need to
support the International Monetary Fund. The IMF stands as a buffer
between the financial shock in Asia and the world economy, including
the United States. Lives are affected by the decisions on population
planning funds. But the greater number of lives today and among future
generations are threatened by our failure to deal with the bigger
issues involved. Congress and the administration must be open to
creative solutions to resolve this stalemate.
If my proposal is not satisfactory, then both sides need to work
together to explore other options. I urge both sides to find common
legislative ground so that we can pay our debts to the United Nations
and fund the International Monetary Fund.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), one of the most respected and distinguished Members
of this body who has been here for about 16 years now. He has led the
fight for the children of this country and for human rights for all
American people.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon) for those kind remarks. My sentiments are the same
for him. He has always been a champion for human rights in China and in
other captive nations. I applaud and deeply respect him for that work.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his support
for the rule and the bill, H.R. 1757, and for pointing out that there
are a large number of very important human rights provisions in this
bill that Members should be aware of, that will advance the goals that
we care about so deeply with regard to human rights around the globe.
{time} 1415
First, let me just make this point to all of my colleagues that this
is not, per se, a foreign aid bill. It is a State Department bill. It
contains important restrictions on foreign aid but authorizes no
appropriations for these purposes except for a $38 million package of
humanitarian assistance for the anti-Saddam Hussein, pro-democracy
movement in Iraq.
The bill contains a compromise version of the pro-life Mexico City,
cutting off funds to foreign organizations that promote abortion--lobby
for abortion or attempt to influence legislation or policy as it
relates to abortion. The compromise would allow the President to waive
the prohibition on assistance to abortion providers. This was very hard
for our side to concede, but in the legislative tug of war this is half
a loaf, and our hope is that the administration will take note of that.
There needs to be some give and take.
This bill also conditions funding to the U.N. Population Fund on an
end to the UNFPA activities in cooperation with the coercive population
control program in China.
Wei Jing Sheng testified before our subcommittee a few weeks ago and
was absolutely aghast and appalled and outraged that the UNFPA worked
side by side with the oppressors of women in the People's Republic of
China, and said so in very, very clear and unambiguous language at the
subcommittee. Wei asked how the U.N. could join and support the
oppressors of women, babies--the family.
H.R. 1757 also contains U.N. reform and arrearages packages which,
unlike some proposals, is not a blank check to the U.N. The U.N.
arrearage money is delivered, in 3 tranches. Each payment is contingent
on U.N. implementation of specific reforms, including reduction of U.S.
dues from its current 25 percent to ultimately 20 percent but 22
percent on the near term, and a reduction of U.S. peacekeeping
assessments from 31 percent down to 25 percent.
The bill reduces the number of Federal agencies by two. It merges the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and USIA, U.S. Information Agency,
into the State Department to achieve savings through efficiency and
resource sharing. But it structures this merger very carefully to
preserve the integrity of arms control process and especially of the
pro-freedom and pro-democracy functions of USIA's public diplomacy
programs like the radios.
This legislation enhances Radio Free Asia to provide a 24-hour pro-
freedom broadcasting to China.
It also contains provisions designed to force deadbeat diplomats at
the U.N.
[[Page H1583]]
to pay child support judgments and to ensure that diplomats who commit
crimes in the U.S. will be prosecuted for those crimes.
It reforms the State Department personnel law to restore the
Secretary's power to fire convicted felons from the Foreign Service and
to eliminate duplicative pension and salary provisions that allow
double dipping at taxpayers' expense.
It contains provisions that will ensure vigorous enforcements of the
Helms-Burton law which is designed to bring freedom and democracy to
the Cuban people.
It sets aside $100 million of the State Department budget for
implementation of the congressional directive that the U.S. Embassy in
Israel be moved to Jerusalem, and it incorporates the McBride
principles designed to end employment discrimination against Catholics
in northern Ireland as a condition of U.S. foreign aid.
H.R. 1757 also includes a number of important provisions relating to
human rights and refugees from Tibet, Burma, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa and
elsewhere. These provisions have been endorsed by leading
organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of
Jewish Federations, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and
the U.S. Committee for Refugees.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes on the rule, and I hope the Members will
also vote yes on the conference report.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield another 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of a colloquy with the
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my friend and colleague on
this measure, and I understand the gentleman from New Jersey wants to
engage in a colloquy.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes. First of all, I want to call attention
to the language, Mr. Speaker, that deals with incorporation of the U.S.
Information Agency into the State Department.
Mr. Speaker, the conference committee on H.R. 1757 carefully
structured the merger of the U.S. Information Agency into the State
Department so as to preserve the integrity of the pro-freedom, pro-
democracy public diplomacy activities now carried out by USIA. This
bill should not be interpreted as an authorization for the State
Department to take the money and run by converting USIA resources into
a massive domestic State Department public relations operation.
Accordingly, the programs to which the Smith-Mundt and Zorinsky
amendments apply must be construed broadly in accordance with the
purpose of the legislation to ensure that these important protections
continue to apply to the activities now conducted by USIA once they
have been incorporated into the State Department.
This is a matter on which a number of House conferees on both sides
of the aisle felt very strongly. We should never have agreed to
incorporate USIA into the State Department except on the understanding
that the integrity of all USIA functions will be preserved.
``Programs'' means not just the materials that USA produces and
disseminates, but also the resources, including personnel and support
services, that are necessary to conduct our public diplomacy abroad. I
would ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) to comment on this
very important provision.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is correct.
USIA is to be incorporated into the State Department for protection for
the integrity of its activities. The managers in this legislation do
not contemplate any diminution of our public diplomacy activities or an
expansion of the State Department's public affairs activities as a
result of this merger.
I understand we have a bipartisan consensus on the issue both in the
House and in the other body, and will engage in vigorous oversight to
make sure the purpose of this legislation is faithfully implemented.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1757, the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act (FY 1998-99).
I would like to call attention to several important features of the
bill:
First, this legislation is not a foreign aid bill. It contains
several important restrictions on foreign aid, but authorizes no
appropriations for these purposes--except for a $38 million package of
humanitarian assistance to the anti-Saddam Hussein pro-democracy
movement in Iraq.
This bill contains a compromise version of the pro-life ``Mexico City
Policy'', cutting off funds to foreign organizations that perform or
promote abortion. It enacts this policy as permanent law--not just for
this year but forever. The compromise would allow the President to
waive the prohibition on assistance to abortion providers--but not
promoters--in exchange for a reduction in total population assistance.
This bill also conditions funding to the United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA) on an end to UNFPA activities in co-operation with the
coercive population control program of the government of China, or on
an end to forced abortions in that program.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1757 contains a U.N. reform and arrearages package
which, unlike some other proposals, is not a blank check to the U.N.
The U.N. arrearage money is delivered in three ``tranches''; each
payment is contingent on U.S. implementation of specific reforms,
including reduction of U.S. dues from 25% to 22%, reduction of U.S.
peacekeeping assessments from 31% to 25%, and an end to UN ``global
conferences'' after 1999.
The bill reduces the number of federal agencies by two. It merges the
Arms Control Agency and the US Information Agency into the State
Department, to achieve savings through efficiency and resource-sharing.
But its structures this merger carefully, to preserve the integrity of
the arms control process and especially of the pro-freedom and pro-
democracy functions of USIA's ``public diplomacy'' programs.
This legislation enhances Radio Free Asia to provide 24-hour pro-
freedom broadcasting to China. It also contains provisions designed to
force ``deadbeat diplomats'' at the U.N. to pay U.S. child support
judgments, and to ensure that diplomats who commit crimes in the United
States will be prosecuted for these crimes.
It reforms State Department personnel law to restore the Secretary's
power to fire convicted felons from the Foreign Service, and to
eliminate duplicative pension and salary provisions that allow
``double-dipping'' at taxpayer expense.
It contains provisions that will ensure vigorous enforcement of the
Helms-Burton law, which is designed to bring freedom and democracy to
the Cuban people.
It sets aside $100 million of the State Department's budget for
implementation of the Congressional directive and that U.S. embassy in
Israel be moved to Jerusalem.
It incorporates the ``McBride Principles'', designed to end
employment discrimination against Catholics In Northern Ireland, as a
condition of U.S. foreign aid.
H.R. 1757 also includes a number of important provisions relating to
human rights and refugees from Tibet, Burma, Viet Nam, Cuba, Africa,
and elsewhere. These provisions have been endorsed by organizations
including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish
Federations, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and the U.S.
Committee for Refugees.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the conference
report.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations will stay on his feet, I yield 2 minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). He is one of
the few Members who has been a Member of this body longer than I have,
and he has truly been a great, great leader in the field of foreign
policy.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the
rule on the conference report on the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act. This measure reflects the serious efforts of Members of both sides
of the aisle and the administration to try to craft a workable foreign
affairs agency consolidation, to also provide reasonable funding levels
to sustain our overseas operations and embassies, and to provide
necessary forms linked to payment of our arrearages to the United
Nations.
I think it is shortsighted of the administration to threaten a veto
on this comprehensive measure because they are unwilling to work on a
family planning compromise. This Congress needs to advance the
authorities, to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies in
[[Page H1584]]
keeping with the President's decision to merge those agencies and to
hold the United Nations accountable for reforms while committing to the
payment of arrearages.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to vote yes on this important
rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter) a member of the Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House
consideration of H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act. This bill seeks to send our Nation's foreign policy
back to the dark ages of women's reproductive health. This act would
reinstate the Reagan-era Mexico City policy which seeks to limit the
reproductive freedom of women in other nations, but it goes even
further than Mexico City in posing arbitrary and cruel restrictions on
women's legal health choices.
Not only does H.R. 1757 ban U.S. foreign assistance to any
organization that engages in any kind of lobbying on the issue of
abortion, but it defines lobbying to cover attending conferences or
workshops, drafting and distributing materials on abortion laws. It is
not enough that the majority wants to deny women access to reproductive
health services, now they want to restrict the freedom of assembly and
speech for women's health organizations.
We have this same debate time and time again on the House floor, and
yet still many cannot grasp the critical importance of providing full
and balanced information on reproductive health to women in developing
nations.
This is a matter of life and death for many women. Denying access to
vital health information and services will lead to the cruelest birth
control of all: death. If we do not fund family planning organizations,
women in the developing world will and are suffering.
For my colleagues who profess to be proponents of children's health,
I would note that the availability of contraception has important
health benefits for both women and their families. By spacing births,
infant survival improves dramatically and families can ensure that they
have the resources to support their children.
Studies indicate that spacing births at least 2 years apart could
prevent an average of 1 in 4 infant deaths. Studies have also proved
time and again that access to family planning reduces abortion. In
Russia, where for decades abortion was the primary form of birth
control, contraception first became widely available in 1991. Between
1989 and 1995 abortions in Russia dropped from 4.43 million per year to
2.7 million per year, a decrease of 16 percent.
Someone must speak for the millions of women around the world who
desperately want access to family planning. Pregnancy and childbirth
are still a very risky proposition for women in many parts of the globe
that often lack electricity, clean running water, medical equipment or
trained medical personnel.
The statistics are grim. In Africa, women have a 1 in 16 chance of
death from pregnancy in childbirth during their lifetime. Over 585,000
women die every year from complications of pregnancy and birth. For
each woman who dies, 100 others suffer from associated illnesses and
permanent disabilities, including sterility.
According to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities,
family planning can prevent at least 25 percent of all maternal deaths,
and many of these are women with families who then leave their children
motherless.
How dare we in the United States, blessed as we are with information
overload and the best health care system in the world, attempt to deny
the only source of information and services to families in the
developing world? Who are we to dictate the terms under which these
groups provide essential services across the globe? We would be
outraged, and rightly so, if the legislative body of any other nation
had the audacity to impose its will over organizations operating
legally in our country by dictating the terms under which those groups
would continue to receive the financial support that they need to
operate.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and send this proposal
back to the committee for revision.
Other reasons that I have, Mr. Speaker, for not voting for this bill
is that Democrat Members of this House were completely excluded from
any participation in this conference report. Indeed, the Democrat
Members were not even shown a copy of the conference report until after
it was filed. All Democratic Members refused to sign the conference
report, and the partisan procedure undermines the longstanding
tradition of bipartisanship on foreign policy issues.
For these reasons and all others, Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on
the rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) a very distinguished Member from close by in
Maryland and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of
the rule but, reluctantly, in strong opposition to the bill itself.
What this bill does is to unfence $100 million that was fenced in
appropriations last year and sends it on its way to the United Nations.
It also authorizes another roughly $900 million, and this was about a
billion dollars total. All that stands between that and moving our
taxpayers' money to the U.N. is the appropriation of that money. The
GAO report indicated that from 1992 to 1995 we spent $6.6 billion on
legitimate U.N. peacekeeping activities. We were credited with 1.8
billion of that against dues. That recognizes the legitimacy of these
figures.
More recently, CRS, the Congressional Research Service, says that
between 1992 and May of last year we spent $11.1 billion on legitimate
U.N. peacekeeping activities.
{time} 1430
The Department of Defense, the Pentagon itself, says that, last year,
where he spent $3 billion dollars on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping
activities. We are shortly going to vote on an emergency appropriations
bill to cover the expenditures that are at $1.3 billion. We have spent,
since 1992, about $14 billion on legitimate U.N. peacekeeping
activities. We have been credited with only $1.8 billion of that
against our dues.
What we want is a recognition in this bill that we may owe them some
back dues, but they owe us five or more times as much money in
legitimate expenditures against U.N. peacekeeping activities. We want
an accounting of that before any of our hard-earned taxpayers' money
goes to support the U.N.
What we get in return for this, if we vote this bill, is, by the
admission of my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, a really
watered-down Mexico City language.
The President is going to veto this bill. The Senate voted 90 to 10
yesterday on a Helms amendment that there was no dues until there was a
tally. That is an accounting. The Senate has voted 90 to 10.
All we would do in this vote is to send the message that we owe a
billion dollars dues to the U.N., and we are not going to require an
accounting. That is the wrong message to send.
It is not the message that the American people want sent. I have been
on dozens of talk shows across the country. I have not had one caller
that called in to say cough up a billion dollars for U.N. dues.
I have had unanimous support for our position that we need an
accounting, we need an accounting before this becomes law. Please vote
no on this bill. Do what they should have done, take it back to
conference, and bring out a bill that the American people can support.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, there is some distance between myself and
the gentleman who just completed speaking on this subject. While our
interests may have differences, I certainly agree that we ought to
reject the rule, and we ought to reject the bill.
This is both bad policy and bad process. Bad process often is
ignored, but it is usually a symptom of an inability to confront the
real issues. It is wrong simply to take the Mexico City language and
tie in knots our entire foreign policy apparatus.
Additionally, I would say that those who are in favor of the Mexico
City language in this bill, as earnest as they
[[Page H1585]]
are, their logic is faulty. If their argument is that any dollars going
to organizations that help with family planning are fungible, and
thereby even 1 cent to tell people about birth control policies
actually increase the availability of abortion, one, statistically that
is wrong. If you look at countries where there is more information for
alternatives, for education, for contraception, there is less abortion.
But if you carry their argument to its illogical conclusion, you have
to come away believing that even food assistance to these countries
would somehow leave more dollars for family planning and other areas
where there is an objection.
I think the United States has a right to come to an agreement on a
family planning policy that may not necessarily reflect my own views
completely. But what is clear here is that the Congress and this
country is being hammered on this issue and preventing us from moving
forward on the fundamental foreign policy of the Nation.
There are serious issues at hand here. I have differences with the
substance of the underlying legislation, but it seems to me that, as a
Congress, the lesson we should have learned in the great government
shutdown was that the losers are, one, the American people. And they
get very annoyed at the political participants who will not compromise.
The right action to take is to reject this, to come forward with
legislation the President will sign. After all, the constitutional
responsibilities on us are such that we need to negotiate and come to a
compromise and then, try as they might, force their particular family
language on the rest of us.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York,
the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for regular C-SPAN viewers they are going
to think this Congress is topsy-turvy because, usually it is the
gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Connecticut, that is standing
up here arguing for this bill, and it is the Jerry Solomons of this
Congress that are standing up here arguing against it, and yet the
tables are turned here.
Besides that issue, and the gentleman makes his point, and I do not
question the gentleman's philosophy, but ordinarily he would be
supporting this bill. What is the gentleman opposed to, other than
that? The European Security Act is so terribly, terribly important. I
know the gentleman shares my view on that and shares President
Clinton's view as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The time of the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has expired.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I think, first of all, for us to
effectuate a policy, it is clear that we need to have a product that
can either be signed by the President or have a congressional override.
Since it is clear there will be no congressional override on this
legislation, what we are essentially doing is playing chicken in the
center of the road until there is some calamity.
I might tell the gentleman from New York one story. One of our
officers at the State Department during the great government shutdown,
I do not know if this really caused it, was on his way to meet with the
Kurds to try to broker a deal where the Kurds would all come together.
Well, we had the government shutdown, and it turned out that his
travel plans were deemed nonessential, and the meeting never happened,
and that is where all the turmoil happened with some of the Kurds going
over to the Iranians and others.
I would say that it is too important for the United States to
continue to tie this up in a process that has excluded the minority
party completely in this final presentation and that deals with an
issue that we know will not become law.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would let me use up the
balance of my time that I yielded him, I just think, in fairness to
those Members that are watching the debate or those people back home,
that the gentleman really ought to elaborate on the good points in the
bill like the U.N. restrictions that we are making, things that I know
you support. But all we talk is about the one issue.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I agree.
Mr. SOLOMON. I just wanted, sometime during debates, as Tony Hall
did, perhaps the gentleman can say that we are not opposed to the main
portion, of the bill, just that one portion. It would help, I think.
Mr. GEJDENSON. I think the honest answer is, however, that this
activity we are involved in is not going to lead to a law. It is clear
the President said he is going to veto it. It is clear that we do not
have the votes to override it. So we are involved in an exercise, but
it is not going to affect policy directly. We need to separate these
two, both sides, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who
believes very strongly as he does, has shown his commitment; the
President has shown his commitment. The only thing we are doing is
avoiding the responsibility to deal with those other issues.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is saying we should not pass the bill
because the President is going to veto it. I could also say, if the
bill comes back without the pro-life position in it, I am not going to
vote to pay these U.N. arrearages; and, therefore, we are at a
stalemate. We have to work to compromise.
Mr. GEJDENSON. If the gentleman would yield, we have been in that
fight, and that is why we need to separate the issues.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes again to the very
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make
very clear, when we talk about legislative process, the Mexico City
policy was offered on this floor, it mustered a clear majority vote
when it was considered. The House even went on record and instructed
conferees to retain the policy in conference. So it was a very real and
legitimate part of the House/Senate conference that occurred.
The flip side of it is that, on the issue of arrearages, that measure
did not pass here but passed on the Senate, but we acceded to the
Senate to move that ball forward.
Let me also make a point, when Members suggest that my friends on the
other side of the aisle were locked out of the price, let me just note
that I chaired the subcommittee that wrote the major product that
emerged as the State Department authorization bill. We had five
hearings that preceded the markup of the bill that is now before us.
My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the
Democrats were absolutely free to ask any question, to be part of that
process, as they so engaged themselves. We had a markup in
subcommittee. Twenty one amendments were offered. That markup went very
well and the bill passed onto the full committee.
We went to the full committee. During several days of markup we
considered 22 amendments to the State portion of the bill. The bill
came over to the floor. We spent 4 days on the floor of the House of
Representatives. Members who wanted to offer amendments on the other
side of the aisle were free to do so provided they were germane. A
total of 34 amendments were offered, fully debated, recorded votes
occurred.
We then went to conference. On issue after issue, our staffs, as well
as Members, met, talked about language and sections of the bill. There
were some things that we came to an impasse on. The major issue upon
which deadlocked the conference was the Mexico City policy.
This House instructed the conferees to stay with that the pro-life
position. We did so on the State Department bill as well. So this is a
clear manifestation of House sentiment. That is part of this bill.
I would argue that this has been a give-and-take. We have provided a
compromise Mexico City policy. We also provide the arrearages, which is
an anathema to many Members of this side of the aisle, and many on that
side of the aisle as well, but there are some reform provisions that
make it very meaningful.
So there is give-and-take in the legislative process. The President
regrettably or some on the other side want it
[[Page H1586]]
to be all give from us and all take by them. That's unacceptable. Let
me again say very clearly 77 amendments were offered to this
legislation in subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor. The
gentleman's side of the aisle had every effort to participate.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
rule. The bill cuts family planning funding and imposes the gag rule on
family planning organizations. It eliminates funding for the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency. The President has said very clearly
that he will veto this bill.
Let us put this vote in perspective. This vote is the 82nd vote
against choice in this body since 1995. This bill with this language in
it is yet another attempt by extremists on the other side of the aisle
to roll back a woman's reproductive choices, program by program,
procedure by procedure. Now anti-choice extremists are trying to
intimidate reproductive health workers restriction by restriction.
This agreement is a clear attempt to restrict the delivery of family
planning information. It is misguided and just plain wrong. In
developing countries, death from pregnancy-related causes is the single
largest cause of death among women in reproductive ages.
Simply providing unhindered family planning information to all who
need it could reduce maternal mortality by one-fifth. The proponents
say they want to prevent abortions, but we all know that international
family planning actually reduces the number of abortions around the
world.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak with former
Ambassador Wisner who represented our country in India. I asked him
what was the single most important thing that we could do as a country
in our foreign policy to aid the world's largest democracy? Quite
frankly, I was surprised by his response.
He said family planning money. He said that, in India, you could go
out into various cities and see families that were lined up for miles
just trying to get basic information on family planning.
This language has absolutely no business being on the State
Department authorization bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
I urge them to join the President in voting against it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the misguided Mexico City policy
is not the only reason to oppose this bill. This bill will have a
profoundly important impact on our nation's foreign policy.
We have heard today that this bill streamlines our foreign policy
agencies.
Mr. Speaker, this bill streamlines our foreign policy agencies in the
same way that last year's tax bill simplified the tax code. It is
riddled with inconsistencies. For example, it claims to pay back dues
to the United Nations, but actually increases them. It claims to
streamline the State Department, but it establishes a new regulatory
system to micromanage embassy staff. Never before have we tried to
micromanage what the State Department can do with its individual
embassies and their staffing policies.
It claims to get tough on war criminals like Saddam Hussein, but,
actually, it cuts U.S. involvement in the international criminal
justice system.
Furthermore, the reorganization plan has simply not been well thought
out in my estimation.
We need only look to the genocide that occurred in Bosnia and Rwanda
because of the hatred that was fanned by an evil propaganda machine.
How, then, can we abolish the United States Information Agency? In
reality, that is what we do by incorporating it within the State
Department. It needs its independence.
Misinformation is best attacked at the grassroots level in an
objective, credible fashion, not as part of a tightly controlled
foreign policy agenda.
{time} 1445
Our U.S. Information Agency should be able to provide the kind of
information that relies upon local opinion leaders, not merely heads of
state with all of their political agendas. I have great respect for the
State Department, but USIA is independent for a reason. It guarantees
that the focus will be on the unfettered, objective truth.
This bill zeroes out the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency at a
time when nonproliferation efforts have never been more critical.
Mr. Speaker, I also am especially disappointed that we have not been
able to include an agreeable compromise on the Mexico City policy. The
conference agreement still includes the inhumane Mexico City language
that denies some of the most destitute people in the world the ability
to choose healthy and safe family planning practices while also denying
them their health practitioners the fundamental right of free speech.
This is another of those misguided attempts that some people in the
majority have made to deny economically disadvantaged women, both here
and abroad, access to quality, reproductive health care and the
information they need to plan their families.
The leadership knows that the Hyde amendment already ensures that no
U.S. funding is being spent on abortions, and yet they would jeopardize
final passage of this important legislation by including this
regressive language under the guise of reducing the number of abortions
performed with U.S. tax dollars. Studies have shown that family
planning funds actually decrease the number of abortions performed.
Private, non-governmental organization funds save lives and empower
people. This bill does not let them accomplish this most critical
mission and should be defeated.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a very distinguished Member of this
body, who is a member of the Committee on International Relations.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon), the very fair chairman of the Committee on Rules,
for coming forth with a rule that all of us can adopt; and I would like
to especially thank the Chairman of the Committee on International
Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who held a very
long series of hearings on this bill where everyone had the opportunity
to present amendments and discuss the controversial issues in this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, there are some very good areas that we can all agree on,
I think, in this conference report. I would like to especially thank
our colleagues in the Committee on International Relations for allowing
me to present and to have them approve, without problems, some
amendments that I have dealing with the Castro dictatorship.
There are two provisions that I think are very important in
establishing a firm position of U.S. policy toward that dictatorship.
The first one stresses the concern of the United States Congress about
Fidel Castro's completion of the very dangerous nuclear power plant in
Juragua near Cienfuegos, Cuba.
Also, another amendment asked the Clinton administration to give us
information about individuals and companies that are not complying with
Helms-Burton, and this title IV gives us the opportunity to further
protect U.S. property rights because these are people who are
exploiting the Cuban worker and using illegally confiscated U.S.
property that used to belong to U.S. citizens. We want to make sure
that folks have the opportunity to take their cases to court, and that
the U.S. Government will bar entry to anyone who is not complying with
our laws.
So I would like to thank the chairs of both committees, the Committee
on Rules and the Committee on International Relations, for their very
fair process; and I urge my colleagues to adopt both the rule and the
conference report.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall),
a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding to me,
and I rise in opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because this bill was
put together without any involvement of the Democratic conferees. The
Democrats
[[Page H1587]]
did not see a copy of the 350-page conference report until after it was
filed. Because all Democrats refused to sign the conference report, a
member had to be replaced on the conference in order to obtain enough
signatures to sign the report.
The process had started in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, it
ended in a cynically political way. Sad to say that the Republican
majority did not want to bring this bill to the floor in a bipartisan
manner.
Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose this bill, and the many
reasons why the Democrats refused to sign the bill will be spelled out
by the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hamilton) when we take up the bill. But while we are on the rule, I
oppose the process under which it was brought to the Committee on
Rules, and therefore, oppose it on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons to object to this bill is that giving
our negotiators at the U.N. the tools they need to achieve reform, to
reduce our financial obligations, and to achieve consensus on issues
such as Iraq is what we should do in this bill. What it does instead is
to denigrate the U.S. in the eyes of the world because Congress has
insisted on micromanaging the U.N. once again.
Last fall, the Congress had the opportunity to get a good deal for
the American taxpayer. With a reasonable amount of arrears in place and
guaranteed by Congress, we had a good opportunity to achieve a lower
assessment rate, concrete budget caps, and even negative growth in U.N.
budgets. Congress made the mistake of not acting at that time, and now
Congress is making another mistake with the provisions in this
legislation.
The real impact of the inaction last fall was to raise the amounts
owed by the United States by at least $100 million. The bill is
increasing every day. Our responsibility now is to give our negotiators
at the U.N. the funds and flexibility they need to get the best deal
they can for the U.S. taxpayer. What this bill does, unfortunately, is
guarantee that any reduction in U.S. assessment rates will not occur.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report also makes good on the Republican
majority's threat to link two totally unrelated issues, the U.N.
arrears and the funding for international family planning. This
legislation includes an altered version of the Mexico City restrictions
on international family planning. Supporters of this language offered
today will call it a ``compromise.'' We who support family planning
call it totally unacceptable.
What we compromise with this language are the lives of poor women and
families throughout the world. The impact of this language will be
equally devastating as previous restrictive amendments on international
family planning. It will impose a global gag rule on family planning
organizations, dictating what materials they may distribute and
prohibiting them from participating in public debates; and this is
important, Mr. Speaker, with their own private funds. We would
certainly find a gag rule like this in violation of the First Amendment
were it implemented in our own country.
The use of U.S. funds to perform abortion has been prohibited by law
since 1993. No U.S. funds are used for the performance of abortion or
abortion-related activities. No U.S. funds are used to promote
abortion. That is the law. So there is no need to have this restrictive
gag rule put in place under the guise of supporting the language that I
just mentioned. It is already the law.
The cuts in funding set in motion by this language will limit the
ability of family planning and reproductive health services to poor
women and families. It will reduce access and quality of services.
Programs will be terminated which will cause the number of abortions to
rise and the number of deaths from unsafe abortions to increase,
exactly the reverse effect it would have if we put out the funds,
unrestricted, for international family planning, which would reduce
abortion; and I think that is the goal that we all share.
We have debated this issue many, many times over, at least six times
in the first session of the 105th Congress last year. Each time, we
stand here and agree that we want to reduce the number of abortions.
Voluntary family planning programs do just that. They prevent
unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortion and infant deaths. For these
reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
conference report.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening patiently to speakers
who oppose this rule and this legislation. The previous speaker, for
whom I have the greatest respect has fought many battles, along with
me, on human rights issues, and stated very clearly that, yes, it is
the law of the land that U.S. tax dollars shall not be spent on
abortions in America. And she is right. There are those of us that do
not believe that U.S. tax dollars should be spent on abortions anywhere
in the world; those are U.S. tax dollars. And yet we are hard-pressed
to prevent that, and therein lies the argument.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the point, perhaps this is
good news to the gentleman, there would be no Federal dollars spent
internationally to perform abortions.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman believes that, but I
have traveled throughout this world and what I have seen just does not
concur with that.
Nevertheless, we had another previous speaker from New York who said
that someone had told her that there were lines 4 miles long, I believe
she said, with people waiting to get information on family planning. I
will tell my colleagues, as a member of the Committee on International
Relations for many, many years, and someone who has been active for
more than 20 years all around this world on these issues, I have never
seen lines like that waiting for family planning information.
I find them in refugee camps waiting for food, but never have I seen
anybody waiting for anything other than food in lines 4 miles long.
Mr. Speaker, let me just talk to the conservatives in this body about
why they should come over here and vote for this bill. First of all, it
does have the pro-life issue, and that is a compromise, and whether one
is President of the United States or whether one is just a rank-and-
file Member of this Congress, one has to learn to compromise. Ronald
Reagan taught me that. We cannot always have it our own way, we have to
give a little bit; and that is the success of legislating.
Secondly, this does reorganize the State Department somewhat. It is
another step in the right direction to shrinking the size of the
Federal Government and making it lean and workable, and that is what we
are doing here. Jesse Helms and Madeleine Albright both agree with what
we are doing. So that is another reason why conservatives should come
over here.
But more than that, what this bill does, this is a 2-year
authorization bill, so listen up, conservatives. What this bill says is
that it must be certified to include that the United States has no
plans to tax U.S. citizens. There are people all around this world that
belong to the U.N. These leaders that want to have a worldwide tax,
they want to tax my people up in the Adirondacks and Catskill
Mountains; and in the Hudson Valley, they want to levy, have a tax.
Some One World government wants to levy a tax. This bill says we cannot
do that or else we do not give them any money; it is as simple as that.
It says that nothing in the U.N. will assume sovereignty over U.S.
parks and lands. That is very important to me and the people I
represent. It says that if there is any violation of the U.S.
Constitution, we will not pay any more dues. Now, conservatives ought
to come over here and vote for that.
More importantly, in the 2-year authorization bill, in the first
year, coming next year in 1999, this says there will be a reduction in
the U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget, down to 25 percent. That
means that we are going to get credit for all of this extra money that
we are spending on U.S. troops in Bosnia and in all of these
peacekeeping efforts.
[[Page H1588]]
{time} 1500
In addition, this says we are going to reduce the United States'
share of the regular U.N. budget down to 22 percent. That is in the
first year of this 2-year authorization bill.
In the second year of this 2-year authorization bill, it says we are
going to reduce that regular budget cost to the American taxpayer down
another 2 percent, down to 20 percent. Conservatives, what more do we
want? That is what we have been fighting for, to get a fair share of
the burden shared by other countries throughout this world.
I can go on and on with the reasons that we ought to come over here
and support the bill, but I think one of the best reasons of all is the
fact that this bill caps U.S. contributions to all international
organizations.
Let us face it, America pays most of the costs for all of these
international organizations, whether it is the IMF, the World Bank, or
any of the rest. This caps our total contributions to all of these
cumulative organizations to no more than $900 million, and we are
paying way over $1 billion now. We are reversing that sieve of U.S. tax
dollars going out of this country. We are turning it around. That is
the reason Members ought to come over here and vote for this bill.
I am going to talk to each of the conservative Members as they come
through that door. I ask them to please come by and say hello to me,
and I will further convince them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 172, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 75]
YEAS--234
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--172
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (WI)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--24
Bonilla
Brown (FL)
Cannon
Cardin
Conyers
Crapo
Edwards
Ford
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Harman
Houghton
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Millender-McDonald
Moakley
Payne
Rangel
Royce
Waters
{time} 1525
Messrs. RUSH, MILLER of California, HEFNER and VENTO changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 385, I call up
the conference report 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, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to the rule, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Tuesday, March 10, 1998, at page H956).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) each will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1530
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today our committee brings before the House
a
[[Page H1589]]
conference report on the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act
of 1998. This measure has three major components. It provides for the
consolidation of international affairs agencies. It provides funding in
other authorities to support the State Department and related agencies,
and it provides a U.N. reform and arrearage package.
Through this bill, support is provided for our government's
activities abroad to include U.S. embassies, American citizens'
services, passport and visa issuance, and international broadcasting
programs, such as Radio Free Asia and broadcasting to Cuba.
In addition, it funds U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada commissions that
have been tasked with matters related to fisheries, sewage disposal,
and other border issues. The bill authorizes $6.1 billion for fiscal
year 1998 and $6.7 billion for fiscal year 1999. The authorized level
for fiscal year 1999 is $125 million below the President's request.
Funding for a strong U.S. presence abroad is in our vital national
interest and provides a platform for a myriad of U.S. overseas
interests. Specifically, we need to have a healthy diplomatic presence
abroad to develop markets to maintain stability, to protect our friends
in this still dangerous world, and to meet humanitarian needs.
This bill incorporates the President's decision to consolidate the
U.S. Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
into the State Department. The consolidation is the first step toward
reforming the international affairs apparatus to meet the changed post-
Cold War world.
The third major component of this conference report is the United
Nations Reform Act of 1998, which includes payment of our U.N. arrears
for reductions in our U.N. assessments, freezing of our overall
payments to all international organizations, and the implementation of
major reforms throughout the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, according to a February GAO report on the U.N. financial
status, our unpaid arrears have impeded progress in reducing our
Nation's assessment rate and in encouraging other countries to pay
their fair share of the costs of running this international
organization. Many of our colleagues agree on the need for a plan to
repay our debts to the U.N. which is linked to implementation of
fundamental and thorough reform.
This conference report is a comprehensive multitrack approach that
advances our Nation's interest while also overhauling the entire UN
bureaucracy. It reduces our annual assessment to the U.N. down to 22
percent and ensures that our peacekeeping assessment rate would be
capped at 25 percent. It also ensures that U.N. imposes no taxes or
proposals for standing armies on member states. A further condition of
the package is that the U.N. agrees that our arrears would be reduced
to zero after implementation of the reform package.
In addition, this bill would cut through the underbrush of programs,
commissions, and other committees that have grown up over the past 50
years, and it sunsets unneeded programs and strengthens the office of
the U.N. Inspector General.
We can state that the American taxpayer comes out ahead with the full
implementation of this U.N. reform package. The implementation of these
reform proposals will save more money than the total of arrearages we
are proposing to pay off over a 3-year period.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge our Members to fully support this
measure to ensure efficiencies in our foreign affairs agencies and to
advance reforms with the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the conference report. This conference report
is presented to us through a highly partisan process. I oppose it and I
urge other Members to do the same.
We began last summer with a bipartisan product on this conference
report. The conference committee did its work in a bipartisan basis. We
halted our work at the end of July, as we got hung up on the Mexico
City provisions. Since that time, not a single meeting of the
conference has taken place.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) met with Senate Republican
conferees in recent weeks to craft a Republican conference report. They
gave no notice to the minority that they were reconvening the
conference. They did not consult us in any way. They simply were not
interested in the minority view.
In order to get this report to the floor, the Speaker of the House
removed a very distinguished and senior member on the majority side
from the conference committee. He appointed another member, and they
were able to vote out the conference report because of the change in
membership in the conference committee. With this kind of a process,
Mr. Speaker, we are not deliberating, we are politicking; we are not
making law, we are making political speeches; we are not working
together, we are working separately.
Let me call to my colleagues' attention some of the troublesome
issues, first with respect to the United Nations. This conference
report creates more U.S. arrears to the United Nations. We are not
going forward, we are creating larger arrears. And it fails to provide
sufficient funds even for our current dues. It does not pay what we
acknowledge we owe to the United Nations. It ties the funds to
conditions which are very desirable in this Chamber and all of us would
agree with them. The only problem is, those conditions are not doable
in the context of the United Nations. When we pay late and in part and
with imposed conditions, it is not likely that the United Nations is
going to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in debt that we say we
will not pay.
The United States is already being called into question in the United
Nations. We have already lost our position on the Committee on the
Budget, perhaps the key committee of the United Nations. The Secretary
General was here a week or 2 weeks ago, and he told us that we could
lose our vote in the General Assembly.
Secondly, this conference report micromanages the State Department.
It requires a whole new bureaucracy to report every single time a U.S.
government official from any agency travels to an international
conference. It tells the State Department how to staff its embassies
overseas. It even tells the State Department how to submit nominations
to the Senate for confirmation. It imposes a whole slew of new report
requirements on the executive branch on everything from a proposed
alliance on drug trafficking to child abduction in Vietnam and Laos.
It limits our ability to participate in the international criminal
court. It mandates $38 million in various types of assistance for Iraq,
but 20 million of that is for humanitarian assistance which Saddam
Hussein is supposed to be providing to his own people out of oil-for-
food funds. So the effect of this bill is to relieve Saddam Hussein of
some of his responsibilities.
Third, this conference report contains a number of provisions
designed to undermine the President's authority and undermine his
ability to conduct foreign policy. It cuts funding for voluntary
contributions to international organizations, including such key ones
as the IAEA, a key agency in the fight against proliferation. If
threatens the leadership position of the United States in helping
parties to negotiate peace agreements in the Middle East and in
Ireland. It requires the President to jump through all sorts of written
and legal hoops before providing any assistance to the United Nations,
even in an emergency, resulting in a holdup of a large number of funds
even for peacekeeping. It zeros out funding for the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency.
Mr. Speaker, this report is a political product. We must understand
it is not going to become law; it is going to be vetoed. It is not
designed to become public law. It is not a carefully crafted document
that would assert the role of the Congress in determining foreign
policy. I urge a no vote on the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding,
the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and for his work on
[[Page H1590]]
this very important legislation before us.
I just want to remind Members that during the course of the process
of consideration of this bill we had 77 amendments that were offered in
subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor from both sides of the
aisle, 4 days on the floor for consideration and a number of very
important and productive meetings of the conference committee. The
issue that it all came down to, frankly and in all candor, was the
Mexico City policy. It was the right-to-life issue.
Let me just say a couple of things on that this afternoon. I think it
is important to clear up some of this information about the compromise
language in the conference report that would impose some restrictions
on U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform and promote
abortions overseas.
During the last 3 years, the House has voted 10 separate times for
the pro-life Mexico City policy, which prohibits U.S. population
assistance to foreign organizations that perform abortions, violate the
abortion laws of foreign countries, or engage in activities that change
these laws. We have also voted to restrict aid to the United Nations
Population Fund unless the UNPF ended its participation in the forced
abortion program.
The People's Republic of China and the Mexico City policy was
enforced throughout the Reagan and Bush administrations. It did not
reduce family planning money by one dime. Rather, it protected genuine
family planning programs by erecting a wall of separation between
family planning and abortion. President Clinton repealed that policy.
We in the House, thankfully, again and again have gone on record saying
that wall of separation needs to be reerected.
Mr. Speaker, I and other pro-life Members were reluctant to agree to
the compromise, and I want to say that very candidly and up front. We
do give on this. Regrettably, we give but thus far there has been no
give by the other side on this issue. We have done so because we
believe this compromise is necessary to save some babies lives. We
believe it will protect some unborn children by prohibiting a
particularly ugly form of cultural imperialism in which U.S. taxpayers
support entities that are actively engaged in bullying smaller nations
into rejecting the traditions and moral values of their people.
Many of my colleagues have received some talking points sent out by
population control organizations. These talking points are misleading
and in many cases flatly untrue. First, the population control groups
tell us over and over again that they are using what they call their
own money to perform and promote abortions. This is a red herring. It
is designed to divert attention from the undeniable fact that millions
of our foreign aid dollars can and did finance some of the biggest
abortion providers in the world.
Similarly, some of the biggest international population control
grantees are actively engaged in efforts to overturn pro-life laws in
countries around the world. This is because existing laws require only
that the organization keep a set of books that shows that it did not
use our money to pay for the actual abortions or for proabortion
lobbying. This bookkeeping trick ignores the fact that money is
fungible. When we subsidize an organization, we unavoidably enrich and
empower all activities of that organization.
The Mexico City policy recognizes that money is fungible. Every
million U.S. tax dollars that go to an abortion provider frees up
another million dollars to pay for abortions and more proabortion
lobbying.
{time} 1545
The Mexico City policy also recognizes that our family planning
grantees are seen as representatives in the countries within which we
operate as extensions, as surrogates for U.S. foreign policies. When
organizations prominently associated with the United States family
planning programs perform and promote abortions, people in these
countries logically associate these activities with the United States.
Opponents of the Mexico City policy also claim that if we require our
family planning grantees to pledge not to perform or promote abortion,
they will not participate in our programs. Yet when the Mexico City
policy was in force, hundreds of population grantees agreed not to
perform or promote abortions. Only two, let me repeat that, only two
organizations decided not to agree to that and therefore were deprived
of that money. More than 350 grantees took the money, and that wall of
separation between destroying an unborn child and promoting violence
against children and family planning was erected.
Some of the talking points that my colleagues have seen in their
office claim that the compromise language would punish grantees for
merely attending conferences at which somebody else discusses abortion.
This too is demonstrably false. The Clinton administration knows it is
false and the population control groups know it is false as well. The
bill prohibits assistance of foreign organizations that, and I quote,
engage in any activity or effort to change the laws of foreign
countries with respect to abortion.
Every legislative provision has to be interpreted by the rule of
reason. It is unreasonable to claim that activities that change laws
includes merely attending a conference. As the conference report makes
crystal clear, there is a world of difference between mere attendance
and a situation in which an organization finances, sponsors and
conducts a conference that is clearly designed to bring about the
repeal of laws against abortion, as the International Planned
Parenthood Federation recently did in the Francophone countries of West
Africa and has done in other countries around the world.
Such sponsorship, financing and organizing should fairly be construed
as an activity to change the abortion laws. But nobody on our side of
this issue has suggested that such activities include mere attendance
at a conference.
Finally, when pro-abortionists run out of arguments, they fall back
on slogans that this is somehow a global gag rule because it says to
organizations they have to choose, either be international abortion
lobbyists or they can be representatives and surrogates of the United
States in family planning programs.
The administration says that the purpose of our family planning
program is to prevent abortions. If we want to prevent alcoholism,
would we hire the liquor industry to do it for us? If we wanted to stop
gambling, would we do it by giving grants to casino owners? If we
wanted to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an international
anti-drug campaign, would we give the money to organizations that use
their own money to lobby for the legalization of drugs? Of course not.
If Congress stands behind the position that there must be a wall of
separation between abortion lobbying and U.S. family planning programs,
we can save innocent lives. That is what this is all about. Nothing
could be more important. I urge a yes vote on the conference report.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that this measure is before us as the
President is in Africa with 17 of our colleagues, one of whom is the
chairwoman of the Black Caucus that asked that we not proceed in this
matter. The historic visit and the important foreign policy statements
by the President and our colleagues are undermined by our taking action
on this extremely untimely and partisan process. This report was never
even shared with Democrats before it was filed and the final product
was signed only by Republicans, but not even all the Republicans
originally on the conference committee.
Not surprisingly, the report that came out of the process is loaded
with bad policy. Let me give my colleagues an example. The President
announced last April that he would consolidate two foreign policy
agencies into the Department of State. Those agencies are the United
States Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The Republicans purport to have done that in this conference report.
They claim that they have done in this conference report only what the
President announced last April. This is just
[[Page H1591]]
not the case. The statement of managers for this flawed bill asserts
that the State Department will be responsible for designing foreign
assistance programs. This assertion is totally inconsistent with the
language of the underlying bill. The bill consolidates USIA and ACDA
into the State Department, but leaves to USAID the role of designing
foreign assistance programs under the overall foreign policy guidance
of the Secretary of State. Is this a mistake? Is this our Republican
colleagues saying one thing but really meaning something completely
different? We do not know, Mr. Speaker, because the regular process was
short-circuited and upended.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1757. This is a flawed conference
report, the product of a flawed process, and it will result in flawed
policy.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to my colleagues who
are fighting to get U.N. reforms and those who are fighting to protect
the rights of the unborn. I urge them to vote yes on H.R. 1757, the
Foreign Relations Authorization Act.
This bill has a version of the pro-life Mexico City policy supported
by pro-life organizations, by pro-life leaders like the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), which will end all U.S. subsidies to
organizations that lobby for legalized abortion in developing
countries. This bill denies funding for the United Nations Population
Fund if they support China's forced abortion or population control
programs.
Further, the bill scales back U.N. arrearages from the
administration's request and conditions the funding upon U.N. reforms.
The bill has a number of U.N. reforms which are very important. In year
number one in order to receive the $100 million appropriated in fiscal
year 1998, the U.N. must not require the United States to violate the
U.S. Constitution or any U.S. law, it must not attempt to exercise
sovereignty over the United States or require the U.S. to cede
authority, it must not make available to the U.N. on its call the armed
forces of any U.N. member nation, must not exercise authority or
control over any United States national park, wildlife preserve,
monument or private property of a U.S. citizen without that citizen's
permission, must not amend its financial regulations to permit external
borrowing.
In year two, in order to receive the second arrears payment, the U.N.
must reduce the U.S. dues from 25 to 22 percent of the total budget,
must reduce U.S. peacekeeping assessments from 31 to 25 percent.
In year three, they must agree to reduce their staff by 1,000
persons, agree to a no growth budget, must agree to hold no more global
conferences, among other reforms.
Mr. Speaker, we have a number of reforms in addition. Let us not lose
this opportunity to reduce taxpayer forced abortions. Let us not use
the chance to save babies overseas. This is a vote that is going to be
scored by the National Right to Life Committee. That is important for
the pro-life vote. I urge all the Members to vote yes on H.R. 1757 and
save the lives of children overseas.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Torres).
(Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TORRES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr.
Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the
State Department authorization legislation. As we have already heard
from the gentleman from Indiana, I object not only to its substance but
to the process that was used here and how we came about it today.
Democrats were not involved in the fashioning of this conference report
and there were no Democratic signatures on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the best way to conduct foreign
policy decisions. There is much in this conference report which I find
objectionable. First, once again it contains the Mexico City
restrictions on international family planning programs that are clearly
unacceptable to the administration as well as to many Members of this
body.
Secondly, the conference report does not solve the arrearages
problems of the United Nations. It makes it worse. Rather than
providing the extra funds, the conference report actually cuts
authorized funding for U.S. dues.
Thirdly, I would note that the conference report contains provisions
on Cuba which go really the wrong way. Certainly the Pope's visit, the
unprecedented worldwide publicity and exposure about life in Cuba, the
increase in religious freedom and practices and the recent release of
Cuban prisoners are clear signals that the Cuban government is seeking
a change in relationship to the United States. The conference report
makes it appear that our foreign policy turns a blind eye to the
signals for a change in Cuba or that we do not want a change, and we
want to continue to punish the Cuban people because we disagree with
their government. I urge my colleagues today here to reject this
conference report and to make a more responsible approach to dealing
with the crucial foreign policy questions of our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on
the State Department Authorization legislation. I object not only to
its substance but to the process by which it has come to us today.
Democrats were not included in the fashioning of this conference report
and there are no Democratic signatures on this measure. Mr. Speaker,
this is not the way to make important foreign policy decisions.
There is much in this conference report which I find objectionable.
First, once again, it contains the Mexico City restrictions on
international family planning programs that are clearly unacceptable to
the Administration as well as to many member of this body. The
conference report prohibits U.S. funding from going to foreign NGO if
the organization uses its own money to engage in advocacy. Ultimately,
its impact limits the availability of family planning services to poor
women and families around the world, and will, tragically, result in an
increase in abortions.
Second, the conference report doesn't solve the arrears crisis of the
United Nations. It makes it worse. Rather than providing the extra
funds, the conference report actually cuts authorized funding for U.S.
assessed dues to the U.N. and other international organizations by over
$40 million from the President's request. In essence, it creates even
more arrears.
Third, I would note that the conference report contains provisions on
Cuba which go the wrong way. Certainly, the Pope's recent visit, the
unprecedented worldwide media exposure about life in Cuba, the increase
in religious freedoms and practices, and the recent release of Cuban
prisoners are clear signals that the Cuban government is seeking a
changed relationship with the U.S. This conference agreement makes it
appear that our foreign policy turns a blind eye to the signals for
change from Cuba, or that we do not want change, and want to continue
to punish the Cuban people because we disagree with their government.
I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and take a more
responsible approach to dealing with crucial foreign policy questions.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr.
Speaker, we must reject this conference report and allow families in
the developing world to plan their families just as we insist upon
planning our own. How many times are we going to have to scrub this
bill of abortion to allow impoverished women and families life-saving
funds for family planning?
Do we care about life? We have taken care of the life of the fetus in
this bill because there is not one dime for abortion. It is time to
move on to care about millions of children in Africa and in South
America and in Asia.
Do we care about life? Then care about family planning, the most
important and effective tool against abortion.
Do we care about life? Then care about the 20 children and the one
pregnant woman who lose their lives per day in the developing countries
for lack of family planning.
Do we care about life? Then care about the 25 percent of women who
lose their lives in childbirth because they have no family planning.
Do we care about life? Then care about sparing the lives of millions
of children who are twice as likely to lose their lives before their
first birthday because they are spaced less than 2 years apart because
of lack of family planning.
[[Page H1592]]
First care about life, millions of these lives, and then care about
the freedom to speak and to petition your government. We do nothing in
this Chamber but talk and listen to our constituents talk. How can
Americans, flag bearers of the First Amendment, condition funds on
silencing people on any subject when we censor other nations for doing
just that?
You might oppose abortion, my friends, you might oppose family
planning, but not one of you would limit the right of any American to
advocate abortion or family planning. Who are we to tell Africans and
South Americans what they must say? We are Americans. We promote
speech. We do not pay people to silence them.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the conference
report and commend my colleagues on the Committee on International
Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and the Senate
Foreign Affairs Committee, for their hard work on this bill and
appreciate their perseverance in ensuring it is brought to the floor
for a vote.
Historically, it seems appropriate we are discussing the world today
because it was on this very day in 1979 that Egypt and Israel reached
an agreement for peace at Camp David that many thought was impossible,
was resisted by those on both sides within those countries, but
everyone understood that while the accord was not perfect, it was a
giant step in the right direction on a very significant issue. This
bill is as well not perfect, but a very good step in the right
direction on very important issues to this world. I believe the most
important provisions of the conference report will curb finally United
States support for overseas abortion programs.
Specifically, it contains compromise language on the Mexico City
policy that will deny funding to foreign organizations that perform or
promote abortions. In return, our leadership fulfills its promise to
provide authorization for arrearage payments to the United Nations,
provided long awaited and much needed reforms occur. Such reforms
include lowering our share of the United Nations budget from 25 to 22
percent, decreasing our portion of peacekeeping dues from 31 to 25
percent, and other reforms to streamline that huge U.N. bureaucracy.
The final version also ensures that no U.S. funds will go to the
United Nations Population Fund unless that agency ceases to assist the
People's Republic of China in implementing China's strict birth quota
plan. Mr. Speaker, as a pro-life Member of Congress, I am pleased to
support these provisions which will genuinely move us forward toward
the goal of protecting unborn children.
{time} 1600
Mr. Speaker, these very important provisions authorize assistance to
the democratic opposition in Iraq building toward the eventual end of
the Saddam Hussein regime.
I am also pleased that the bill reaffirms the position taken by
Congress in 1995 when it overwhelmingly passed the Jerusalem Embassy
Act which requires that official government documents list Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel and that the U.S. move its embassy from Tel Aviv
to Jerusalem by May 31 of next year.
Finally, this bill also accomplishes our long term objectives of
consolidating international affairs agencies within the State
Department.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the President to sign this bill into
law.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have noted, there is
little to like in this conference report, but the worst of it is the
restrictions on international family planning.
Let us be clear. We are not talking here about eliminating funding
for abortions overseas. We have already done that. What we are talking
about is eliminating U.S. funding for international family planning.
Well, if my colleagues want to increase abortions and jeopardize the
health of millions of women and children around the world, they should
vote for this conference report to limit international family planning.
If my colleagues promised their constituents they would work to deny
women across the globe desperately needed reproductive health services
and vital pre- and postnatal care, they should vote for this conference
report. If my colleagues want to drive women and families in developing
countries further into poverty and despair, then they should vote for
this conference report. And if my colleagues want to put a global gag
on people around the world talking about these issues, then they should
vote for this legislation. But if my colleagues care about saving lives
and improving the quality of lives, then they should vote no on this
conference committee report.
If enacted, this legislation will gut one of the jewels of the U.S.
foreign policy. Voluntary family planning services work. They work in
this country, they work around the world, and they work to reduce
unwanted pregnancies and improve the quality of life for millions of
families around the world.
I urge a no vote on this conference committee report.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, each year in the developing world, 600,000
women die from pregnancy-related complications. Maternal mortality is
the largest single cause of death among women in their reproductive
years. That is why, Mr. Speaker, support for reproductive health
services becomes more important every day. Voluntary family planning
services give mothers and their families new choices and new hope.
These services increase child survival, they promote safe motherhood.
Without support for international family planning, women in developing
nations face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty and more despair.
Mr. Speaker, it is 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. 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.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that we were here today to support legislation
that would pay for a full range of reproductive health services. But at
the very, very least, we should keep the doors open for more family
planning clinics. And we must do this so that we can provide these
individuals and these families with the information and the services
they need.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that family
planning has promoted the health and survival of women and children in
undeveloped nations. For over 30 years, the United States has been a
leader and a healer with family planning aid throughout the world. We
have led an international crusade to promote child survival in the
world, decrease maternal and infant deaths, and end the spread of
disease. We have saved the lives of young girls by encouraging them to
postpone childbearing. Because of our aid, our help, the size of the
average family in poor countries has dropped from six to three. This
reduction in family size has helped millions escape poverty. It has
increased the prospects of an education and a richer, healthier life
for women and children. It has given thousands of families a way up and
a way out and helped them survive and thrive.
Despite all of our success, despite the distance we have traveled,
there are some who do not understand the importance of our work. This
legislation effectively cuts funding for family planning. It has a
chilling effect on our family planning efforts abroad. This legislation
is a step backward, it is a step in the wrong direction.
Let me be clear. Not one penny of U.S. family planning aid has ever
been
[[Page H1593]]
used to fund an abortion abroad. Our laws prevent it. We are not trying
to change that. We are simply trying to continue a successful program
that saves human lives. It is cruel and barbaric to stand in the way of
poor families getting basic information about their health in this
country or some distant land.
I urge my colleagues to support healthy families worldwide and vote
down this destructive and mean legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate this legislation is coming to
us today when 16 Members of our body, black Members, are in African
countries, and I wish it could have been postponed and come up some
time later.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
conference report. At this critical time, we should not hold U.N. and
IMF funding hostage to the hardliners who oppose family planning
funding. Business' economic and financial experts have told us that
this IMF funding is needed to contain the Asian financial crisis and to
protect American jobs. Our economy is too important to play Russian
roulette with. But that is what this conference report does when it
adds Mexico City language.
I remind my colleagues, under current law not one dollar of U.S.
family planning funds can be used to perform or even counsel women to
obtain abortions anywhere in the world. Women and children around the
world depend on U.S. family planning funds to improve their health and
to give them a real chance at a healthy life. If my colleagues vote for
the Mexico City policy, they are voting to abandon these women and
children. The President has said he will veto this legislation if this
language is included.
Do not waste any more time. Vote against this bill. Remove this
language from the conference report. Let us protect American jobs and
let us get on with the people's business.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
conference report. Once again the lives and well-being of women around
the world are being held hostage. We are faced with a bill that forces
the Mexico City global gag rule upon us. This bill, like so many
defeated before it, prohibits organizations from receiving any U.S.
funding if they use their own funds to provide abortion services or
advocate on the abortion issue. The need for family planning services
to prevent unintended pregnancies in developing countries is urgent,
and the aid we provide is critical. When women are unable to control
the number and timing of births, they have more dangerous and
complicated pregnancies, and too many will turn to abortion, often
illegal, unsafe and life threatening.
Passage of this conference report will mean more abortions, not
fewer. It will mean women dying and children dying. It will mean an
increase in unintended pregnancies, and it will mean women taking
desperate, dangerous measures to end those pregnancies. And that is the
fact, that is the reality.
Mr. Speaker, I am also opposed to the provisions in this bill
regarding the United Nations. The funding level provided is too low,
and the requirements attached to that funding micromanage the President
as he attempts to push the U.N. to reform itself further. Our debt to
the U.N. leaves the United States with no leverage to reduce our annual
assessments and weakens our leadership in the organizations. This bill
will not solve the critical problem.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this bill was pushed through to the floor
with no bipartisan support and with a veto promise from the White
House. I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 1757.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished subcommittee chairman of our
committee.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise Members
that one provision in this legislation deals with the United Nations
Population Fund, and it says very clearly and unambiguously that unless
the UNFPA gets out of China, they lose the $25 million that they are
slated to get.
I want to remind colleagues that in China, it is illegal to have more
than one child. Brothers and sisters are illegal. The Government is
aggressively antibaby. Wei Jing Sheng, the great human rights activist
who appeared before my subcommittee just a few weeks ago, said he could
not believe, he said he was outraged that the U.N. Population Fund and
U.N. personnel were working side by side with those family planning
cadres, those oppressors of women, who enforce the one-child-per-couple
policy in China with forced abortion.
Forced abortion was construed to be a crime against humanity at the
Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. It is no less a crime against humanity
today. Our conference report says that we are serious in dealing with
those crimes against humanity and any organization like the U.N.
Population Fund will lose its funding unless they get out of China.
Earlier the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) said that for 30 years
we have been the leaders in family planning. That was no less true
during the Reagan and Bush years when the Mexico City policy was in
effect. We provided 40 percent--40 percent of all the population
control aid during the Reagan and Bush years. That is a fact, that is
not an opinion, with the Mexico City policy in full effect.
It is a red herring when Members on the other side stand up and say
that we are holding hostage family planning. Monies flowed; people were
given the opportunity to take that money and give out condoms and do
all kinds of family planning, but a wall was erected between performing
child abuse, killing unborn children, the promotion of violence against
children and preventive means.
One hundred countries around the world protect their unborn children
from the violence of abortion on demand. The main engine trying to
topple those laws are these so-called family planning organizations.
Some see it as their mission to nullify pro-life laws in other lands.
Planned Parenthood, in their ``Vision 2000'' statement adopted in 1992,
lays out an action plan to vanquish legal protection for unborn
children in other nations.
{time} 1615
Here is what it says in part. It declares that family planning
organizations around the world, and I quote this, must bring ``pressure
on governments and campaign for policy and legislative change to remove
restrictions against abortion.''
We provide the money to these organizations that ``campaign'' and
``pressure'' governments to topple their pro-life laws. That is what
this is all about. That is why my good friends and colleagues on the
other side of the aisle would not sign the conference report. The pro-
life safeguards in a compromise version were in there.
I think we have a moral obligation to say, if we are going to pour
hundreds of millions into groups that advertise as family planners, let
us have a truth in advertising. Let us separate abortion out of it,
because abortion takes a life, a life of a child--it is not family
planning.
Finally, just let me say, Mr. Speaker, this conference report and the
work that went into it was a bipartisan process, 77 amendments in
subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor of the House, and many,
many conference meetings
We went through a give and take. We had Democratic staff and
Republican staff studying and working on the provisions of this
conference report.
It is another red herring to say that they were not part of it. Yes,
maybe in the end, when it came to signing it, but that is because the
pro-life Mexico City policy was in there.
Again I say, if we are going to send out roughly $400 million to
abortion providers or family planning providers, and they wear the same
hat as abortion providers, those of us who do not want to see any more
babies die or any more women exploited or any more forced abortion in
China must stand up and say, well, on this bill or any other bill that
comes down the pike, we will be offering this language. It is
absolutely not going to go away. We have compromised as far as we can
go. We have half of Mexico City in here. It is a significant half, but
it is only half.
[[Page H1594]]
It is about time the President and those on the abortion rights side
met us halfway, and then those other issues could go forward
unencumbered. Fail to meet us halfway--and we will fight and
unceasingly raise this issue on every vehicle imaginable.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this
conference report, and I do it with some pain, because I have always
supported fully the men and women who work for the State Department and
who represent us so well around the world.
But no matter how emotionally one speaks or how strongly one feels
about both sides of this question, the fact of the matter remains that
we do not have to codify the Mexico City language. It is unnecessary,
because we know for a fact and we know from statute that U.S. funds
cannot be used for abortion.
Second, if the President waives the Mexico City restrictions, there
is the effect also that the bill would reduce the amount of money
available for family planning. This is unacceptable because we all
understand that family planning, and we agree, that family planning
saves the lives of both mothers and children in developing countries.
We do not think this should be the vehicle for reducing those funds.
But I think the thing that bothers me most, and I think worst, about
this conference report is it is such a sharp limit on debate and
discussion of the issue before us that is in contention: Choice.
Here we are today on the floor of this House, saying exactly how we
feel, saying it as strongly as we might want to. Some of us are feeling
very, really emotional about this issue, but understanding that we all
can have those strong feelings and express them on this floor and then
walk out and everything will be fine because we are in the United
States of America. But the limits we put in this conference report
would be unconstitutional in this country; and, yet, we ask other
countries to abide what we are saying in this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, as the United States seeks to lead the world into a new
century of democracy, I find it deeply disappointing that some seek to
deny people in other nations the opportunity that we are carrying out
and exercising at this very moment on this floor.
So as I say, with pain, I oppose this report. I do wish, as the
gentleman before me said, that we could get together and face it and in
the correct way.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, my friend from New Jersey says
that the antiabortion compromise with this bill leaves us with half a
loaf. In reality, it leaves us with a thin slice.
The President can waive the antiabortion provision and use hundreds
of millions of dollars to promote and perform abortions. And even the
thin slice we are left with will be vetoed by the President.
The fact that this report is scored both ways by family values groups
indicates how weak this language is. But let me tell you what this
report will do. It will send $100 million on its way that was
appropriated last year. It is unfenced by this authorization. It goes
to supposed U.N. dues. It also authorizes the rest of nearly a billion
dollars and starts it on its way.
But in this report, there is no recognition of a GAO report that says
from 1992 to 1995, we spent $6.6 billion on legitimate U.N.
peacekeeping activities, $1.8 billion that was credited to us for dues
that recognizes the legitimacy of these expenditures.
CRS, more recently, reported that between 1992 and May of last year,
we spent $11.1 billion. The Pentagon said that last year alone, we
spent $3 billion. Shortly, we are going to vote $1.3 billion, a
supplemental emergency supplemental for Iraq.
We spent, since 1992, about $14 billion. We have been credited with
$1.8 only. This is a fatal flaw in this bill. We need to send the
message that we cannot pass this bill until there is a recognition of
all the money that we have spent.
The Senate voted 90 to 10 yesterday, no dues without a tally of the
peacekeeping. Please vote no on this, send it back to the conference so
they can bring a bill to us that we can pass, recognizing the
legitimacy of our U.N. peacekeeping activities, and trade those off
against any dues we might owe them.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hamilton) for yielding, and would ask this question: Why would we want
poor children growing up in nations that are getting only poorer? Why
would we oppose family planning money which prevents pregnancies and,
in some cases, abortions?
It just does not seem logical to me that many on my side of the aisle
would oppose family planning money which actually prevents abortions.
Family planning money is not used for abortions or even to promote
abortions. It is used to help women have the number of children they
want and can afford.
When my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, talks about a
compromise, I think the compromise was struck a long time ago. That
compromise was the pro-life movement won. Federal dollars could not be
spent worldwide for abortions. But under this compromise, it seems
logical to me that family planning funds can be used to prevent
abortions.
I think in the pro-choice movement, there is an extreme group that
opposes the ban on partial birth abortions. The pro-choice movement
opposes the ban on partial birth abortions and uses it as a litmus
test. If you vote for the ban, you are not pro-choice. But I think
there is also an extreme in the pro-life movement that opposes family
planning. I just hope that this Congress can get to the point where we
can have the extremes fall by the wayside and we can have a sensible
policy.
I strongly support family planning money being used for family
planning, and I believe that nations throughout the world need the help
that we can provide them. As a country like Egypt sees its economy
grow, it sees its population outpacing this economic growth, and it
becomes a poorer and poorer nation. Why would we want children to
continue to grow up in such a poor environment? They are basically the
seed for the terrorists that ultimately may destroy this world.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the conference report, I think it is a
mistake, and I am sad that my party has moved forward on this issue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Hamilton) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana, the ranking
member of the committee, for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the bill. Undoubtedly, there are some
good things in the bill, and I really wish that I could vote for the
bill. But this bill is mixing apples with oranges. The Mexico City
language, the whole controversy over abortion, does not belong in this
bill. It sullies the bill and takes away from the bill. As far as I am
concerned, it is really improperly in the bill.
It is an embarrassment that our country is the biggest deadbeat in
the world of the United Nations. For the United Nations to function, we
say that we are the leaders of the world, and we are the leaders of the
world. We want to have influence on the world. We want to have
influence.
We encourage countries to turn to free market economies. We encourage
countries to turn to democracy. Then what do we do? We do not pay our
U.N. dues. So we owe a billion dollars. Then when we want to try to
attempt to pay our dues, we attach it to abortion language and Mexico
City language and other language to placate the lobby, the pro-life
lobby. But, in reality, it does not make any sense to put it in this
bill.
If we want to build an international coalition against Saddam
Hussein, if
[[Page H1595]]
we want to build a coalition to march forward into democracy, then we
really should not act irresponsibly. I believe this bill is acting
irresponsibly by mixing apples with oranges and putting this abortion
language in the bill.
We all know the President is going to veto this bill in its present
form. So we know, in essence, this is a game and a charade. I do not
know why we have to play again. We played this game last year, it was
an embarrassment to the world, and we are playing it again this year.
I think the language pertaining to abortion ought to be struck out,
and we ought to pass a bill that can go, pass a bill that will make us
proud, pass a bill and act like the leaders of the world which we are.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we continue to play these
games. I do not doubt the sincerity of anybody on the other side, or of
anybody else, but I think we ought not mix apples with oranges. This
bill should be defeated.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I do so for the purpose of reading a letter from the White House,
addressed:
Dear Representative Hamilton, I am writing to advise you
that if H.R. 1757, the Conference Report on State Department
Authorization, were presented to the President, he would veto
the bill.
Sincerely, Larry Stein, Assistant to the President and
Director of Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record.
The White House,
Washington, March 26, 1998.
Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Hamilton: I am writing to advise you
that if HR 1757, the Conference Report on State Department
Authorization, were presented to the President, he would veto
the bill.
Sincerely,
Larry Stein,
Assistant to the President and
Director for Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our
time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), senior
member of our Committee on International Relations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 8\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, ranking
member of our Committee on International Relations.
This has been an interesting debate, and not too complicated, because
there are a couple of ideas that are pretty crystal-clear that separate
us. First of all, we have a lot of conservatives who do not like
foreign aid. And anything that reeks of the U.N. is tainted and that
involves us overseas, and we ought not to get into those sort of
entanglements.
So we have a mountain to climb on our side to get enough people to
support this. After all, this pays our U.N. arrearages, not perhaps in
the manner in which the Democrats would like it paid, but it is $819
million plus $107 million in debt forgiveness over 3 years. That
certainly beats where we are now, with zero. So if you think our
membership in the U.N. is useful, I would think this is the best
opportunity to get caught up on the arrearages.
I have always had a couple of fantasies about the U.N. One is I would
like to move it from New York to Beijing. I think that would be a
wonderful headquarters. We have had the glory of the U.N. being in New
York and avoiding and evading our parking tickets. Let us give the rest
of the world a chance at it. But I do not decry the U.N. I think it is
useful. I think we should belong to it. I think we are a world leader,
and we should lead in the U.N.
{time} 1630
And so if we belong to it, we should pay our dues, and this is a
medium by which we pay our dues. So I think we should do this.
Now, a couple of other things about the U.N. that bother me. We pay
too much in peacekeeping cost, 31 percent. I would like to get that
down to 25 percent. And our dues, it seems to me, ought to be reduced
from 25 to 20 percent. We can do that with this bill. So that gives me
an added incentive for voting for it.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been heroic in
defending the defenseless unborn, talks about Mexico City, and I was
trying to communicate with him that he should explain Mexico City.
People think that is a page out of National Geographic.
What it is is a policy that we followed under Presidents Reagan and
Bush that said we will give you millions of dollars for family
planning, but not to organizations that advocate or perform abortions.
In other words, American money should not go to pay for killing unborn
children, even if they are Third World unborn children, especially if
they are Third World unborn children.
So that is the Mexico City policy, and that sticks in the craw of the
left. That is the one thing, that common theme, why, my God, we are
going to stop the torrent of abortions with this bill, and therefore,
this is a bad bill. Why American taxpayers' money should be used to
subsidize abortions overseas I cannot figure out.
Well, we hear that the money of the organizations spent for abortions
is their own money. They are not mixing our money in with theirs. I
wish my colleagues would stop insulting our intelligence. My colleagues
know and I know that if we give them a few million dollars, we free up
their own money for their own purposes. It is a bookkeeping
transaction. We are subsidizing, effectively, abortions.
Some of us think there is a moral issue here, that this cultural
imperialism of ours, telling a country, you have too many people, is
across the line. It goes too far.
Now, this bill has so many good things in it that may not come this
way again. One of them is the moving of our embassy to Jerusalem and
another is requiring the McBride fair employment practices in Northern
Ireland; there is full funding for Radio Marti to Cuba, Radio Free
Iran, Radio Free Asia to Communist China. This bill authorizes a new
assistance package to assist the democratic opponents of Saddam Hussein
and Iraq. This bill begins that process of rolling back Saddam
Hussein's tyranny in Iraq.
So there are so many reasons why this is a good idea, but most of
all, I would like to please make clear family planning is distinct from
abortion. Family planning is either getting one pregnant or keeping one
from getting pregnant, it is not killing an unborn child once one is
pregnant. Family planning, properly understood, does not include
abortion, so why should we subsidize organizations that lobby countries
to repeal their pro-life laws and that perform abortions?
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), compromised as far as he
could. Go ahead and perform abortions with a presidential waiver, but
do not advocate, lobby countries to repeal their pro-life laws. That
little speck of respectability you are unwilling to give us. You are
not compromising; there is no compromise here, and that is tragic.
There is much that is good in this bill; there is much that
strengthens our position in the international forum. It helps us get
back in good graces with the U.N., it starts to roll back the arrogance
of Saddam Hussein. There are so many good things.
It consolidates agencies that ought to be consolidated like the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, the United States Information Agency,
by putting them in the State Department. And so I just hope that my
friends, the conservatives who cannot move their hand to vote for
something that has foreign aid in it, would understand that this is
important. There are many things in this bill that we ought to take
advantage of, and most importantly, that little part of the Mexico City
policy that is salvaged in this bill.
My friends over here, I know the President is the premier pro-
abortion rights human being in the galaxy, but we have our own
independent responsibilities, and we should make a statement that child
survival, as I heard the gentleman from Georgia say, is important. One
cannot have child survival when one aborts that child. Please support
this legislation.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today the House considered H.R.
1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act conference
report and passed it by a stealth vote; with no warning, while most of
us were working in committees. This bill may contain some
[[Page H1596]]
good provisions, such as those that deny funding to foreign
organizations that perform or promote abortions, but Mr. Speaker, this
bill contains far more provisions that are harmful. Most notably, this
bill contains language that authorizes $100 million in FY 1998, $475
million in FY 1999, and $244 million in FY 2000 for payments to the
United Nations. This is a grand total of $819 million that is to be
paid to the United Nations for so-called ``arrearages.'' It was the
U.N., I remind you, that went to Iraq and let Saddam Hussein off the
hook.
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what I object to more, the U.N. funding or
the way this bill was passed. For you see Mr. Speaker, although the
voters of the 7th District sent me here to represent their views, on
this and other important legislation, I wasn't allowed to vote on this
important bill. I don't mind losing a vote; I understand the process.
But I do mind being denied the opportunity to do what my constituents
sent me here to do. It is a shame that this important bill was
steathily passed by an unannounced voice vote when it certainly should
have come up for an up-front, honest, recorded vote. This is not way to
run a railroad, Mr. Speaker, It may be good for the U.N. but it's not
good for America.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong
support for Title XVI of H.R. 1757, ``The European Security Act,''
particularly those sections relating to NATO enlargement. The language
contained in this section is designed first and foremost to preserve
the effectiveness and flexibility of NATO as a defensive alliance. For
nearly five decades, the North Atlantic Alliance has served and
advanced the interests of the United States in Europe by preserving
peace, promoting economic prosperity, and advancing our shared
principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. As a
long-standing advocate of NATO enlargement, and Co-Chairman of the
Helsinki Commission, I have consistently emphasized the importance of
Helsinki principles, including human rights, in the expansion process.
Today's consideration of the European Security Act language comes at
a critical time, Mr. Speaker, as the United States Senate will soon
vote on ratification of the necessary instruments for the admission of
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as full members of NATO.
Despite the fact that the NATO leaders committed themselves to a robust
`open door' policy concerning further accession, some seem determined
to slam the door shut to other candidates. Instead of spurning those
countries aspiring to future NATO membership, we should embrace those
states that have demonstrated--in word and in deed--their commitment to
the shared values enshrined in the North Atlantic Treaty.
The language designates Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Bulgaria as eligible to receive assistance under the NATO Participation
Act of 1994. Each of these countries has made important strides in
political and economic reforms. With respect to the Baltic States, it
is worth noting the Charter of Partnership, signed in Washington on
January 16, 1998, acknowledges the fact that the United States has a
``real, profound and enduring interest in the independence,
sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and security of Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania.'' In this historic document, the U.S. welcomes
the aspirations and supports efforts of the Baltic States to join NATO,
reiterating that enlargement of NATO is an on-going process. Mr.
Speaker, European Security Act provisions will advance U.S. interests
by supporting the efforts of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to provide
for their legitimate defense needs, including the development of
appropriate and interoperable military forces.
It would be an injustice of historic proportions, Mr. Speaker, if we
did not take advantage of the unique opportunity we have today to
embrace those countries of Central and Eastern Europe demonstrably
committed to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Having
persevered for 50 years and overcome the odds by regaining their
independence, the Baltic countries deserve to be fully integrated into
the West, including NATO, without further delay.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Gilman's willingness to
incorporate several of my suggestions into the text of Title XVI. The
first concern stems from the fact that Russia has not agreed to the
demarcation of its international borders with several neighboring
countries, including Estonia and Latvia. In addition, while a Framework
Treaty has been concluded between Russia and Ukraine and signed by
Presidents Kuchma and Yeltsin, the Russia's State Duma has yet to
ratify this key accord which would among other things demarcate the
Ukrainian-Russian border, including in the Sea of Azov. Moscow has
purposefully dragged its feet on this important issue with the aim of
intimidating a number of the countries concerned and erecting a
potential obstacle to those aspiring to NATO membership.
The second issue concerns the deployment of Russian forces on the
territory of other states. The language I introduced calls for the
immediate and complete withdrawal of any armed forces and military
equipment under the control of Russia that are deployed on the
territories of the independent states of the former Soviet Union
without the full and complete agreement of those states.
Today, there are thousands of Russian troops deployed in and around
the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol. Meanwhile, an estimated 3,010 Russian
troops continue to be stationed in Moldova along with a considerable
supply of military equipment and munitions which could prove
particularly destabilizing in the Trans-Dniester region.
Finally, the Title XVI calls for a commitment by the Russians to take
steps to reduce nuclear and conventional forces in Kaliningrad, where
Moscow has amassed a considerable arsenal that poses a potential threat
to the Baltic States and Poland.
Mr. Speaker, progress in resolving these outstanding security
concerns would go a long way to advance peace and stability throughout
Europe, a region of critical importance to the security, economic, and
political interests of the United States. I am pleased that the
language of the European Security Act is included in the bill. We have
an obligation to maintain the effectiveness and flexibility of NATO as
a defensive alliance open to the inclusion of new members committed to
the shared principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of
law, and able and willing to assume the responsibilities and
obligations of membership.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to register my strong opposition to
the conference report for the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring
Act.
I urge my colleagues not be fooled by some of the bill's features
such as payments to the United Nations because it also contains some
incorrigible features. For example, it eliminates the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, thereby denying our foreign policy makers the
benefit of an independent voice on arms control matters. H.R. 1757 also
resurrects the so-called ``Mexico City'' language that restricts
funding for abortions overseas--even if they are paid for with private
funds. But the offensive provisions in particular that I want to bring
to your attention today deal with Haiti.
On September 25, 1997, Congresswoman Waters and I wrote a letter to
the chairman and the ranking member of the International Relations
Committee, expressing our concern with provisions reflected in this
bill in Section 1228. We were joined by Charlie Rangel, Ed Towns, Jim
Clyburn, Ronald Dellums, Bill Jefferson, Earl Hilliard, John Lewis,
Bobby Rush, and Julian Dixon. I am enclosing this information for the
Record. Despite our efforts and those of the gentleman from Indiana,
the ranking member, this problematic language stands.
Section 1228 creates vague new authority by which the Secretary of
State can prevent certain Haitians from entering the Untied States. The
fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State already has the
authority to deny entry to persons who are suspected of human rights
violations or terrorism under Title 8 USC Section 1182(a)(3). This bill
has a new, ambiguous standard under which the Secretary of State can
deny entry to someone who has been ``credibly alleged to have ordered,
carried out, or materially assisted'' in specific killings listed in
the conference report.
This new language in H.R. 1757 will be inconsistent with the existing
law and create a new untested standard that will be open to
manipulation by anyone who simply makes an allegation. Rather than
promoting justice for all victims of violence, this will be used to
politicize the murders of some Haitians, rather than serving as a tool
to advance justice for all Haitians.
Furthermore, by singling out specific violators the bill fails to
send a broad message about human rights violators in general. Perhaps
worst of all is that the most egregious enemies of human rights, such
as Toto Constant, the head of the paramilitary group FRAPH, are already
in the United States. Constant slipped into the U.S. (and is
comfortably living in New York) not because the Attorney General or the
Secretary of State lacks the power to keep him out, but because like
other opponents of democracy from Haiti, he is an old CIA asset. We've
got to start dealing with these facts if we really want justice for
Haiti.
I oppose H.R. 1757 for all these reasons and I thank the gentleman.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 25, 1997.
Hon. Ben Gilman,
Chairman, House International Relations Committee, Rayburn
2170, Washington, DC.
We are writing in reference to amendment 383 of S. 903, the
Senate Foreign Affairs Reform Act, offered by Senator DeWine.
This provision would seek to deny entry into the United
States to those whom the Secretary of State ``has reason to
believe is a person who has been credibly alleged to have
ordered, carried out, or materially assisted in extrajudicial
and political murders'' in Haiti.
[[Page H1597]]
We strongly support the bill's basic premise that persons
involved in political murders be denied entry to the United
States. But, we believe this language raises a number of
problematic legal issues, may weaken the ability of the U.S.
to deal with extrajudicial killers, and may even make it
easier to evade prosecution. We also wish to note that the
substance of these provisions appear to be covered by
existing law. As a result, we urge you to strike this
contentious language and avoid the confusion and litigation
guaranteed to result if it becomes law.
U.S. Code currently grants the Secretary of State the legal
authority to deny a visa from individuals that the Secretary
believes have engaged in extrajudicial killings. The
Secretary of State can deny a visa application based either
on anti-terrorist or foreign policy grounds.\1\ A decision to
deny a visa based on these grounds is not reviewable by any
court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 212(a)(3) [8 U.S.C. Sect. 1182(a)(3)] re: terrorism
and Sec. 212(a)(3)(C) re: foreign policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the Secretary of State in the consular offices in
the field already maintains a list of people who fall into
one of these two exclusionary categories. This list, commonly
known as the ``lookout book'' is kept by every American
consulate. If your name is in the lookout book, the consular
officer will deny your visa application.
The DeWine Amendment lists specific individuals, specific
dates, and specific factual allegations. Although this may
seem to focus the legislation and get tough on the alleged
killers, in fact this language limits the ability of a
prosecutor to bring these killers to justice. Any skilled
attorney would recognize how any one of these named
individuals could escape justice if the fact or dates cited
turned out to be incorrect. By writing the legislation so
narrowly Mr. DeWine and his cosponsors risk giving human
rights abusers a legal escape hatch.
Beyond the legal problems with this proposed legislation,
we also believe the DeWine amendment fails on moral grounds.
In limiting the focus to Haiti this legislation fails to
convey a universal condemnation against extrajudicial and
political murders. We believe it is imperative to communicate
our country's worldwide aversion to political assassinations.
It is a matter of principled policy making to deny entry to
all persons involved in political assassinations, whether
they be from Bosnia, Russia, Guatemala, Haiti or anywhere
else in the world.
We hope you agree with our analysis of this bill. We urge
you to strike this amendment from the proposed legislation.
We look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Sincerely,
John Conyers; C.B. Rangel; James E. Clyburn; William J.
Jefferson; Julian C. Dixon; Bobby Rush; Maxine Waters;
Edolphus Towns; Ronald V. Dellums; Earl F. Hilliard;
John Lewis.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 25, 1997.
Hon. Lee Hamilton,
Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee,
Washington, DC
We are writing in reference to amendment 383 of S. 903, the
Senate Foreign Affairs Reform Act, offered by Senator DeWine.
This provision would seek to deny entry into the United
States to those whom the Secretary of the State ``has reason
to believe is a person who has been credibly alleged to have
ordered, carried out, or materially assisted in extra
judicial and political murders'' in Haiti.
We strongly support the bill's basic premise that persons
involved in political murders be denied entry to the United
States. But, we believe this language raises a number of
problematic legal issues, may weaken the ability of the U.S.
to deal with extra judicial killers, and may even make it
easier to evade prosecution. We also wish to note that the
substance of these provisions appear to be covered by
existing law. As a result, we urge you to strike this
contentious language and avoid the confusion and litigation
guaranteed to result if it becomes law.
U.S. Code currently grants the Secretary of State the legal
authority to deny a visa from individuals that the Secretary
believes have engaged in extrajudicial killings. The
Secretary of State can deny a visa application based either
on anti-terrorist or foreign policy groups.\1\ A decision to
deny a visa based on these grounds is not reviewable by any
court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec. 212(a)(3) [8 U.S.C. Sect. 1182(a)(3)] re: terrorism
and Sec. 212(a)(3)(C) re: foreign policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the Secretary of State in the consular offices in
the field already maintains a list of people who fall into
one of these two exclusionary categories. This list, commonly
known as the ``lookout book'' is kept by every American
consulate. If your name is in the lookout book, the consular
officer will deny your visa application.
The DeWine Amendment lists specific individuals, specific
dates, and specific factual allegations. Altough this may
seem to focus the legislation and get tough on the alleged
killers, in fact this language limits the ability of a
prosecutor to bring these killers to justice. Any skilled
attorney would recognize how any one of these named
individuals could escape justice if the fact or dates cited
turned out to be incorrect. By writing the legislation so
narrowly Mr. DeWine and his cosponsors risk giving human
rights abusers a legal escape hatch.
Beyond the legal problems with this proposed legislation,
we also believe the DeWine amendment fails on moral grounds.
In limiting the focus to Haiti this legislation fails to
convey a universal condemnation against extra judicial and
political murders. We believe it is imperative to communicate
our country's worldwide aversion to political assassinations.
It is a matter of principled policy making to deny entry to
all persons involved in political assassinations, whether
they be from Bosnia, Russia, Guatemala, Haiti or anywhere
else in the world.
We hope you agree with our analysis of this bill. We urge
you to strike this amendment by the proposed legislation. We
look forward to working with you on this important issue.
John Conyers; C.B. Rangel; James E. Clyburn; William J.
Jefferson; Julian C. Dixon; Bobby Rush; Maxine Waters;
Edolphus Towns; Ronald V. Dellums; Earl F. Hilliard;
John Lewis.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year's attempts by some in Congress to
tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United
Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come
back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life,
the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S.
taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the
``grand deal'' struck which will see liberals back down from their
opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members
voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action,
peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
mexico city policy detailed
The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt
to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain
abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy
forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy
to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy
when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by
itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say,
I consider it largely ineffective.
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty,
property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the
United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international
``family planning'' purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect
in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this
unconstitutional funding program.
In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the
pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn
its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due
to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it
does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many
abortions.
united nations
The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a
manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As
such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this
organization.
Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying
phony ``back dues'' which we supposedly ``owe'' this organization.
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett put forward a bill to stop any payment of
this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. Bartlett's
legislation.
linking these two issues
We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt
and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these
items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons
President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which
contains any anti-abortion language at all.
This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its
long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two
issues together an opportunity for a ``deal'' has become apparent, a
deal which will compromise principles on several fronts.
the so-called ``bargain''
The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City
language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United
Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double
negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take.
This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled
with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally
repugnant to undermine our nation's integrity by trading votes in this
fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing ``some'' members
have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order
to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn't exist in
the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been
diluted to state that ``the President could waive the restriction on
funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver
would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning
activities
[[Page H1598]]
to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words,
Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that's
not worth compromising principle.
``peacekeeping''
This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our
``police the world'' program carried out through various arms of the
United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently
ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the
former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to
international operation in the Sinai and Cypress.
addtionally
This ``agreement'' authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral
assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the
United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for
Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the
East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3
billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an
additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the
former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund
radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing
so in Iran.
Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-
increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world
mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in
Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions
in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the
International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation,
investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train
political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas
of Iraq not under the control of Hussein.
Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report
contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical
Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the
world's 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish
government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly
closed in 1971. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)
conclusion
Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty
groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called
``compromise.'' I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion
and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to
the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and
intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.
Ms. DANNER. Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that H.R. 1757, The State
Department Authorization Conference Report, was passed today on the
floor of the House of Representatives by a voice vote, thereby
authorizing payments to the United Nations by the United States of $819
million over fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
This legislation also includes language that would forgive up to $107
million in U.N. payments to the United States for U.S. military
contributions in peacekeeping efforts. I do not believe that this
widely-disputed amount takes into account all of the costs and expense
incurred by the taxpayers of the United States in various peacekeeping
missions.
I am very disappointed that I did not have an opportunity to cast a
recorded vote on this measure. Had I been given the opportunity to cast
a vote on this legislation in a rollcall vote, I would have voted
against H.R. 1757.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues I am not
completely happy with the final version of this bill. However, I have
been around here long enough to know that some times you have to take
what you can get.
While I am no fan of the United Nations, and I have serious
reservations about paying any of the so-called debt to the U.N., we
have an opportunity to make some very substantive changes to our
nation's foreign policy regarding abortions. We need to seize this
opportunity.
By ensuring that the Mexico City Policy is written into law we will
send an important message of how much we cared and understood the needs
of the unborn. For far too long, we have allowed the President to
provide foreign aid to organizations that promote the use of abortion,
even in countries that have laws on the books prohibiting the
procedure. This is wrong, and by passing H.R. 1757, we can hopefully
put a stop to it.
I understand that voting ``Yes'' on this bill is a tough pill to
swallow. But, if we don't take action today, millions of abortions will
occur around the world with the assistance of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
This is unconscionable and it is time Congress stopped it. Vote ``yes''
on H.R. 1757.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act. All I can think of as I stand before you this
afternoon is ``here we go again.'' It is disheartening to see certain
Members of this body once again hold funding to meet our nation's
commitment and investment in foreign affairs hostage to provisions
placing stringent and unacceptable restrictions on funding for
international family planning. And once again, those Members are
inaccurately attempting to characterize this as a vote about abortion.
Proponents of the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs
Reform and Restructuring Act wrongly claim that release of family
planning funds without restrictions will allow U.S. aid to support
abortion services abroad. These funds, however, can not by law be used
to provide or promote abortions. Proponents of this legislation argue
that funding is fungible, but the Agency for International Development
has a rigorous process to ensure that the current ban on the use of
U.S. funds for abortions is adhered to and that no U.S. funds are spent
on abortion services.
Funds to support family planning are not funds for abortions. Family
planning funds are used to provide contraceptives to persons who would
otherwise not have access to them. Family planning funds support
education and outreach on family planning options, family counseling,
health care, and technical training for personnel. These funds help to
improve the health and increase the survival rate of women and children
during pregnancy, in childbirth, and in the years after. Family
planning allows parents to control the number of children that they
have and the timing of those births. And in so doing it allows women
the opportunity to reach beyond the walls of their homes, to get an
education and to work outside of the family.
A recent report of the Rockefeller Foundation argued that devoting
less time to bearing children, reducing family size, and improving the
health and survival of women and children results in better economic
prospects in developing countries. Withholding these funds will reduce
access to contraception and in so doing increase unintended and
unwanted pregnancies. Experience demonstrates that as unintended
pregnancies increase, so does the abortion rate.
In fact, U.S. funding to Hungary has coincided with a 60% reduction
in abortions in that country. In Russia, increased use of
contraceptives has led to a 30% reduction in abortions.
My colleagues, this is not a vote on abortion. A vote against this
Conference Report is a vote to provide more options and opportunities
for the people of developing nations around the world. Once again we
are here debating language that will codify a global gag rule--language
that is clearly unacceptable to pro-family planning Members of this
Congress and to the Administration and that the Administration has
indicated that it will veto. For these reasons, I call upon each Member
to signal their support for the health and welfare of women, children
and families and vote against the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
Foreign Affairs Reform Act. In this time of competitive interests and
thoughts, the United States presence is more important to world peace
and progress then ever before. As our world becomes more interdependent
than ever before the United States must improve its relations. Most
Americans know this. We must not ignore the benefits of cooperation nor
must we ignore our own interdependence and responsibility as a leading
nation to share the blessings of the entire world.
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly reject the dangerous Mexico City
Policy. It is my determination that any delay will cause serious,
irreversible and avoidable harm. We must remember that in the balance
are the lives and well-being of many thousands of women and children
and American credibility as the leader in family planning programs
around the world.
For half a decade anti-family planning lawmakers have attempted
relentlessly to impose the Mexico City Policy on organizations that
receive U.S. international family planning money, and make this debate
a referendum on abortion. International family planning is not about
abortion. No U.S. dollars are used to provide abortion services and in
fact, access to international family planning services is one of the
most effective means of reducing abortion.
I oppose the provision which allows the U.S. to renounce its full
debt to the United Nations. The United States is $321 million behind in
its payment. There is a great international game is being played out
here today. Why must we continue to barter for the health and well
being of millions of people around the world? I think it is the wrong
time to do this and we will reap disastrous results.
We must remember and act as though this is an interdependent world.
It cannot be overstated that building the Global Village and a better
world for the 21st century requires a United Nations that is supported,
fully funded,
[[Page H1599]]
and respected. Achieving this momentous task must begin in the country
where the U.N. was born.
Lastly, I have grave concerns with the Haitian language of the bill.
I believe this is a step to decrease U.S. presence in a country which
so desperately needs intervention. The secretary of state already has
the authority to deny entry to persons who are suspected of human
rights violations. This language is inconsistent with the existing law,
which is working well, and I am worried this new untested standard will
be open to manipulation by anyone who makes an allegation.
I urge members to vote against this bill and vote for preserving
world peace, better conditions for the worlds families, caring for
refugees and sharing the blessings of progress around the world.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to register my strong
opposition to H.R. 3246, the misnamed ``Fairness for Small Business and
Employees Act.'' This legislation is an outright attack on the rights
of working men and women in this country and would erode many of the
fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. I
certainly hope that my colleagues will recognize this mean-spirited
attempt to discriminate against organized labor and vote against the
bill.
The right of workers to organized is a precious freedom, which I have
fought for many years to strengthen and protect. Employers currently
have at their disposal an arsenal of weapons with which to fight
unionization, and tens of thousands of American workers lose their jobs
illegally each year simply as a result of their support for union
organizing campaigns. I fail to understand how my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle can, with a straight face, claim that this bill
is a necessary tool for employers. This bill is anything but necessary.
Rather, it adds more injustice to an already uneven balance of power
between workers and employers and effectively allows working men and
women to be denied employment for exercising their federally-protected
rights to organize to protect their interests.
Mr. Speaker, I serve as a member of the Small Business Committee, and
I am proud of my strong efforts on behalf of the small business owners
of this country. I recognize their contributions and am committed to
working on behalf of their interests. But H.R. 3246 is not about
fairness for small businesses, and it most certainly is not about
fairness for their employees. Instead, it is nothing more than another
attack on the hard-fought and fundamental rights of America's working
men and women and a vicious attempt to further erode the already
precarious ability of workers to organize. I will oppose this bill, and
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of our foreign
policy initiatives, including payment of our arrears to the United
Nations but I cannot support passage of this bill. I have actively
supported the creation of Radio Broadcasting for Iran and Iraq and
strongly approve of the new money for Radio Free Asia. My concerns lie
with the reforms proposed in this bill for the UN and the restrictions
placed on the funds of international organizations that provide family
planning assistance.
The creation of the UN was prompted by United States leadership after
World War II. The UN provides a multilateral forum for peace to be
negotiated so that international tensions will never again escalate to
another world war. H.R. 1757 does help to pay off the arrears that we
have accumulated so that we can hopefully regain our leadership
position in this organization. However, this bill also conditions this
money on unilateral reforms that run in direct opposition to the spirit
under which the UN was created. This lack of U.S. support for and
leadership in the UN is an embarrassment which has also greatly
encumbered the performance of our foreign policy.
In addition to the conditions on funding for the UN, this legislation
also attaches extremely controversial and damaging restrictions on
private organizations that provide family planning assistance. There
has always been a prohibition on these organizations using U.S. funds
to perform abortions, However, many feel that this is not a great
enough safeguard and have chosen to also place an effective gag rule on
what these organizations can do with their own funds. This restriction
is in violation of our own Constitution yet many approve of requiring
it abroad. To me, this is the greatest form of hypocrisy to which I am
strongly opposed.
While I believe that nothing is more important to our foreign policy
at this moment than paying our UN dues and regaining our credibility
and leadership abroad, I cannot support this legislation because I
believe it may do more harm than good for the long term. Placing
unilateral conditions on UN funding and enacting unconstitutional
requirements for family planning organizations into permanent law will
only prolong the problems that have impeded our foreign policy. As we
continue to experience international crises, whether they are military,
economic or social, the UN and our foreign policy only become more
important. We need to fully support the UN now and free our foreign
assistance programs from restrictions that do nothing more than waste
money and damage the effectiveness of our international development
assistance programs.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.
This conference report accomplishes three important international goals
by authorizing assistance to the democratic opposition in Iraq;
reforming and consolidating the State Department; and most importantly,
denying funding to foreign organizations that perform or promote
abortions.
There is no justification for using our federal money to perform or
promote abortions overseas, or here at home for that matter. This bill
also takes an important step in consolidating two out of three
international affairs agencies back into the State Department. And, it
is important for the U.S. to support the democratic opposition in Iraq.
The problems in the Middle East have continued for too long. It is time
to put an end to Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.
I do not like the provision authorizing U.S. arrearages to the United
Nations. I am no fan of the United Nations, and do not trust that
institution to respect American sovereignty. It is our job as
constitutionally elected representatives of the American people to
protect our sovereignty. I am disappointed that this provision was
included in such important legislation.
Again, I strongly support three out of the four key provisions of
this bill, particularly regarding no U.S. funds being used to perform
or promote foreign abortions. American foreign policy should not
include promoting abortions, and no federal funding should be
authorized abroad or domestically to pay for abortions. I urge
President Clinton to do the right thing and sign this important
legislation.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today is
badly needed, but it is seriously flawed in its present form, and so,
I'm sad to say, it should be defeated. The bill authorizes funds for
the State Department and related agencies, and for money this country
owes the United Nations. But the addition of the international gag rule
on foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) relating to
international family planning funds is unacceptable. It attempts to do
overseas something that would be unconstitutional if done here at home.
The ``lobby'' ban means that the United States would be using the
threat of withholding U.S. money to blackmail foreign NGOs to promise
not to use their own money not to lobby their own governments. The
definition of ``lobbying'' is so broad that it includes making public
statements that may call attention to ``alleged defects'' in abortion
laws.
One of this country's most cherished foreign policy goals is to bring
democracy and the values of civil society to other countries. This
provision would stifle the kind of debate on a critical issue that we
are free to conduct in this country.
As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said: ``This is basically a
gag rule that would punish organizations for engaging in the democratic
process in foreign countries and for engaging in legal activities that
would be protected by the First Amendment if carried out in the United
States.''
The practical effects of the lobby ban would be ridiculous. For
example, the ``lobby'' ban would mean that a foreign NGO could lose its
U.S. family planning support if, with non-U.S. funds it writes a paper
or makes a public statement that cites the incidence of maternal death
due to illegal abortion, thus showing a ``defect'' in abortion laws.
Or, in a country where abortion is legal, an NGO could lose U.S.
support if it offered its own government advice on how to make abortion
safer.
The gag rule approach contradicts deeply-held American values of free
speech and participation in the political process. In the 104th
Congress, we rejected a similar attempt to use the leverage of federal
funds to prevent domestic NGOs from engaging in advocacy with their own
money. We should not impose on foreign NGOs an anti-democratic gag rule
that would be unconstitutional to impose on domestic organizations.
It is most unfortunate that this issue has delayed payment of U.S.
arrearages to the United Nations. This country uses the United Nations
to seek international support for many important foreign policy goals,
most recently to enforce compliance by Iraq with its commitment to
destroy its weapons of mass destruction. We risk influence in the
international community on critical foreign policy goals by being seen
as international deadbeats when it comes to paying our bills.
The same controversy over family planning funds last fall kept us
from paying our arrearages to the UN. As a result, we lost negotiating
leverage at the United Nations to lower the
[[Page H1600]]
percentage assessment that determines our annual UN dues. That mistake
is likely to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in lower dues
payments. Assessments were renegotiated last fall, and we have had to
ask to reopen those negotiations. And now it is very unlikely that we
can succeed in lowering our assessment from 25 to 20 percent, as called
for in this conference report.
By the year 2000, Japan's assessment will be 20 percent. Surely the
United States, which has a larger economy than Japan's will be expected
to pay more than Japan. Other Asian countries, which had expected to
take on larger assessments, are no longer able to because of the Asian
financial crisis. At best, we're likely to get our assessment lowered
to 22 percent, still saving taxpayers millions of dollars every year,
but only if we pay our arrearages.
The simply truth is that we will continue to suffer a loss of
influence and credibility in the United Nations if we continue to fail
to pay these arrearages. I see no reason why this critical
international responsibility should be held hostage to an extension of
our domestic abortion debate. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
conference report.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the State Department Authorization bill
would place an international gag rule on organizations that use their
own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services. It also threatens to
cut off $29 million from our international family planning efforts if
the President attempts to defer the ban on funding to organizations
that use their own private funds for abortion services. This policy is
clearly unacceptable, and is not supported by the President or by the
American people.
Why? Because the American people understand that family planning is
necessary, successful, and addresses a critical need. According to the
World Health Organization, nearly 600,000 women die each year of causes
related to pregnancy and childbirth. International family planning
efforts have been remarkably successful and have saved women's lives. I
am shocked that proponents of these so-called ``Mexico City''
restrictions claim that our family planning programs actually increase
the number of abortions, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true.
Studies show that our efforts, as part of an international strategy,
have prevented more than 500 million unintended pregnancies.
International family planning improves women's health, helps reduce
poverty, and protects our global environment. Our family planning
programs save lives, and they should be continued without unnecessary
restrictions.
There is no need to impose this type of gag rule on organizations
that use their own money to further their objectives and to make
women's lives safer. The ``Mexico City'' restrictions are pernicious,
unnecessary, and harmful. If this bill were to be enacted, it would
severely limit family planning efforts and simply result in more
unwanted pregnancies, more fatalities among women, and more abortions.
I strongly oppose these provisions of the State Department
Authorization bill.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address several aspects of this
legislation which authorize appropriations for activities under the
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, which I chair.
First, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from New York for
his hard work on this conference report. He has produced a product that
deserves our full support.
Sections 1104 and 1231 of the conference report authorize funds for
International Organizations and Programs and for Migration and Refugee
Affairs. There are several subauthorizations within these sections.
However, the level appropriated for the accounts in 1989 is such that
these subauthorizations will not result in the earmarking of funds for
the purposes specified. For fiscal year 1999, I do not feel bound by
the limitations imposed by the authorizations for specific activities
within these accounts. The programs mentioned may all be meritorious,
but they must receive funding on the basis of a balance among all the
programs within the appropriations accounts.
Section 1815 of the conference report would earmark not less than
$2,000,000 in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for activities in Cuba.
Despite the fact that the State Department has indicated that it will
be obligating at least this level of funds in fiscal year 1998, this
earmark does not conform with the proper roles of each committee in the
allocation of appropriated funds. It is the role of the International
Relations Committee to establish policy and to place a ceiling on the
amount of funds that should be made available for appropriations
accounts and activities. However, the allocation of funds within those
authorization levels is reserved for the Appropriations Committee.
I must respectfully inform the House, and the authorization
committee, that I will not be bound by such earmarks or limitations
when I make my recommendations for fiscal year 1999 for the Foreign
Operations appropriations act.
Once again, I congratulate the gentleman from New York for his work
on this legislation. Aside from these minor matters, it is a conference
report that deserves our full support.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde) for his remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________