[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 48 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3649-S3652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the State Department 
authorization conference report debated on Friday and to be voted on 
tomorrow. Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the debate on 
Friday, and I appreciate the chance to take the time now to express my 
views on this legislation.
  I would like to express my extreme regret and disappointment that the 
debate over the important issues of the long-overdue payment of our 
arrears to the United Nations and the reorganization of the U.S. 
Department of State has once again become a sideshow to an exercise by 
some Members of Congress regarding the issue of reproductive choice. I 
find it astounding that these members insist on holding our 
international commitments hostage to a desire to score political points 
on a domestic issue.
  We should be on the floor talking about the important foreign policy 
priorities that were articulated during the Senate debate on S. 903. 
Instead, we are spending the majority of our debate time on this 
measure talking about one narrow issue that shouldn't even be in here 
in the first place!
  As we all know, a minority of our colleagues in the other body 
successfully inserted language in this conference report that would 
impose severe restrictions on U.S. assistance to foreign non-
governmental organizations engaged in family planning activities. These 
restrictions were inserted without consultation with the Democratic 
conferees. They were not consulted because they surely would have 
objected to these provisions. The restrictions fall into two basic 
categories.
  First, the conference report would mandate that no U.S. population 
assistance may be given to any foreign non-governmental organization 
unless that organization certifies that it will not use its own funds 
to perform abortions during the period in which it receives U.S. funds. 
If the President chooses to waive this restriction, which I am sure 
President Clinton would do, funding for family planning-related 
activities would then be capped at $356 million.
  The second category of restriction would prohibit funding for 
organizations that lobby to change abortion laws in their own 
countries.
  Mr. President, the authors of these restrictions see this version, 
that is, the provisions as written in this conference report, as a 
compromise of earlier iterations of restrictions on family planning. 
But--let us be very clear here--not only is this not a compromise, but 
the language is actually more restrictive than what we have seen 
before.
  First of all, unlike the so-called ``Mexico City'' language, which 
has been considered each year as a rider to appropriations bills, the 
restrictions in this conference report would become permanent statutory 
changes. That is a rather disturbing concept.
  Second, the waiver provision included for the President would result 
in a greater decrease in funding for family planning than we have seen 
in earlier versions. Many observers believe that the $356 million cap 
amounts to a decrease of $29 million, a cut that would come solely out 
of USAID's family planning account. But, the language in this 
conference report would also apply to ``all funds for programs

[[Page S3650]]

and activities designed to control fertility or to reduce or delay 
childbirths or pregnancies, irrespective of the heading under which 
such funds are made available.'' What this means is that the cap would 
also apply to certain birth-spacing related programs that currently 
fall under other USAID accounts, and in fact, would represent a larger 
total decrease than is immediately evident--about $44 million. That 
represents an 11 percent decrease in funding for these programs, which, 
Mr. President, I think we all would agree is rather substantial.
  Third, the definition of ``lobbying'' that is used in the second 
restriction is disturbingly broad in that it would ban all sorts of 
public statements or the participation of individuals at public 
meetings. It is so bad that many of us call it ``the global gag rule.''
  Finally, the President would have no waiver authority over this gag 
rule provision.
  Let me turn for a moment to the substance of these provisions.
  While proponents of the Mexico City language say they do not want 
U.S. dollars to pay for abortions overseas, the adoption of the 
restrictions in this conference report would actually increase the 
number of unintended pregnancies worldwide, and, correspondingly, the 
number of abortions and deaths of mothers and children due to high-risk 
pregnancies.
  The funding at issue here has nothing to do with performing abortions 
and everything to do with preventing them. It is about family planning, 
and about a woman's right to know about all options that are legally 
available to her. It is about helping non-governmental organizations 
educate women around the world about family planning and other health 
care issues.
  I firmly oppose all of these restrictions and will oppose this 
conference report because of them for several reasons, which I will 
discuss in turn.
  First, U.S. assistance for family planning initiatives abroad is a 
sound investment that pays dividends including healthy women and 
children. According to the Johns Hopkins Population Information 
Program, approximately 120 million women in developing countries who 
need family planning services do not have access to them. Family 
planning services educate women about contraception, pre-natal care, 
birth spacing, the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and 
other important, life-saving issues. These programs have proven to be 
enormously effective--not only in improving the health of hundreds of 
thousands of women and children, but also in reducing the pressures 
that rapid population growth places on food and water, housing and 
education, and the environment in developing countries.
  Second, this language reinstates--and expands--the Mexico City policy 
that prevents U.S. population assistance from being disbursed to non-
governmental organizations that use other funds to engage in abortion-
related activities. This restriction does not prevent abortions, Mr. 
President, it increases their likelihood by cutting off funds to 
reputable family planning organizations which happen also to use their 
own money for abortion-related activities.
  Finally, this language contains a troubling restriction on the 
freedom of speech of those working for family planning programs which 
receive U.S. funding. By linking funding for much-needed family 
planning assistance to the stifling of freedom of speech, the language 
runs counter to the very principles upon which our own nation was 
founded. We cherish our right to freedom of speech in this country, and 
the promotion of democracy and respect for basic freedoms around the 
globe represent an important aspect of our foreign policy.
  The language in this conference report is an assault on free speech, 
one of the most fundamental human rights. In this country, citizens are 
encouraged to speak their minds and participate in the political 
process. In fact, the First Amendment states that ``Congress shall make 
no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech * * * or the right of the 
people * * * to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
  If the language in this conference report were adopted, it would mean 
U.S. citizens who have this constitutionally-guaranteed right would be 
forcing people in other countries to give up similar rights if they 
wish to keep receiving U.S. funding for family planning programs. The 
only way I can interpret this, Mr. President, is as an attempt by some 
Members of Congress to control the free speech of people in foreign 
countries relating to one particular issue about which they may not 
agree: abortion.
  In essence, this language tells foreign non-governmental 
organizations which seek family planning assistance that they will get 
it if, and only if, they comply with a restrictive set of rules for how 
they may use their own money. It is a thinly veiled threat to pull 
much-needed funding if the word ``abortion'' is uttered to any woman 
seeking counseling at any foreign family planning agency that receives 
U.S. funds. This language violates the spirit of the Constitution which 
we have all sworn to uphold.
  I would like to talk about two family planning programs that would be 
jeopardized if this conference report were to become law.
  The humanitarian organization CARE is working with a local non-
governmental organization that promotes dialogue within local 
communities and at a national level regarding important issues facing 
Bolivian women, such as violence against women, sexual harassment and 
lack of appropriate medical services. One of the most critical issues 
for discussion is the alarmingly high rate of maternal mortality in 
Bolivia--the highest in Latin America. According to the World Health 
Organization, a women in Bolivia has a 1 in 27 chance of dying from a 
pregnancy-related cause. This compares to women in the U.S., who have a 
1 in 3,500 chance of dying from such circumstances. CARE's Bolivian 
partner works to educate women and men about the importance of family 
planning and the dangers of illegal abortion and how it contributes to 
Bolivia's appalling rate of maternal mortality.
  Under the language in the conference report, U.S. funding for this 
Bolivian organization would be at risk because the organization makes 
``public statements'' about women's health issues that may be construed 
as lobbying for abortion rights. This is a capable, effective 
organization that is addressing real needs within Bolivia.
  My second example relates to South Africa. As Ranking Member on the 
African Affairs Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity to learn much 
about the success of family planning programs in Africa and, indeed, of 
U.S. assistance to such programs in Africa.
  We all watched with awe and amazement as South Africans of all races 
participated in the first multiparty elections in that country in 1994. 
We were further inspired by the country's adoption of its first 
permanent, post-apartheid constitution which was signed into law on 
December 10, 1996, by President Nelson Mandela, one of the greatest 
heros of our time. The Government of South Africa continues to consider 
various proposed amendments to the constitution on outstanding issues, 
and is also working on the implementation of many of its provisions. 
Not surprisingly, the Government is consulting widely with a variety of 
groups and interested parties from around the country.
  Why, you may ask, am I talking about the South African constitution 
and South African legislation during a debate over family planning 
assistance?
  Because, the language of this conference report would actually put 
limitations on the ability of South Africans to participate in the 
democratic process in their country.
  The Government has asked Dr. Helen Rees, president of the Planned 
Parenthood Association of South Africa, to become an advisor to the 
National Department of Health and a member of the country's Medical 
Advisory Board to assist the Government in its implementation of a law 
enacted in 1996 concerning access to safe abortion during the first 
twelve weeks of pregnancy. Prior to this law's enactment, Dr. Rees had 
also helped in its drafting.
  Had this conference report been law at the time of Dr. Rees' 
participation in the drafting of that law, the Planned Parenthood 
Association of South Africa would have lost its U.S. family planning 
assistance, even though her activities related to the drafting process 
were conducted without U.S. funds.

[[Page S3651]]

  In other words, the Association might have been forced to suffer 
simply because the South African government chose to invest in Dr. 
Rees' expertise. Dr. Rees would have been forced to choose between 
allowing her organization to receive much-needed U.S. assistance or to 
become an active participant in the political process of her country. 
This is a totally unfair choice, and one that we, members of the U.S. 
Congress, should not be forcing foreign citizens to make. In fact, it 
contradicts what the Congress worked so actively for over the last 
several decades, and that is the freedom of all South Africans to be 
able to participate in their own political process.
  I want to make my last point very clear, Mr. President. The language 
contained in this conference report would be unconstitutional if this 
were a piece of domestic legislation because it violates the First 
Amendment.
  I repeat, this language would be unconstitutional if this were 
domestic legislation.
  Mr. President, the United States has a long history of promoting 
democracy and basic freedoms around the world. This global gag rule 
runs counter to that tradition. If adopted, this language would not 
encourage free speech--it would squelch it.
  None of these restrictions belong in this legislation in the first 
place, but now that they are there, I encourage all of my colleague, 
who all profess to support free speech and our constitutionally-
guaranteed liberties, to defeat this conference report.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a February 27, 1998, 
editorial from the Washington Post, which makes some excellent 
arguments as to why this report should be defeated, be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 1998]

                     Exporting the Abortion Debate

       It is scandalous that an unrelated domestic dispute over 
     abortion is holding up congressional approval of funds for 
     international purposes of vital American interest. One such 
     purpose is to enable the International Monetary Fund to help 
     troubled Asian economies, among other things, buy more 
     American goods. A second is to pay up American arrears to the 
     United Nations, an organization in the center of American 
     efforts to banish proscribed weapons from Iraq.
       The trouble arises from an amendment offered by Rep. 
     Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) and supported by the House 
     Republican leadership. Current law already bars any U.S. 
     funding for foreign abortion-related services, lobbying or 
     research. Mr. Smith would go on to revive the Reagan-Bush 
     ``Mexico City Policy.'' It denies American aid to any foreign 
     nongovernmental organization that performs abortions or 
     lobbies for abortion even with its own money.
       In the domestic debate we support the side favoring choice. 
     But of course both sides are principled in their fashion, and 
     both stir important constituencies. You could call it a 
     difficult but unavoidable fight among Americans.
       But why must this fight be exported onto foreign terrain? 
     The limitations that the Mexico City Policy imposes upon the 
     work of foreign nongovernmental organizations intrude 
     directly upon the options available to poor countries to 
     manage their own future. The anti-lobbying provision intrudes 
     especially egregiously not only into the medical standards 
     but also into the political practices of aid recipients. As 
     Secretary of State Albright put it, that provision punishes 
     nongovernmental 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 current House Republican position is to demand that the 
     administration negotiate a compromise banning lobbying but 
     allowing limited family-planning aid. The Clinton 
     administration is right to want no part of a compromise that 
     narrows the personal choices open to women abroad, interferes 
     in the development policies of other countries and invades 
     the public space they maintain for policy debate. House 
     Republicans have attached the abortion measure to essential 
     foreign-policy legislation, including United Nations reform 
     and State Department reorganization. Their amendment 
     constitutes a rank intervention into other countries' 
     domestic business, and deserves defeat.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senate 
adoption of the Conference Report on the State Department Authorization 
Bill, which we will be voting on tomorrow.
  I do so with disappointment, and concern. As an advocate of many of 
the good provisions in this bill, it is ironic to be arguing today 
against adoption of this Conference Report.
  With its provisions to reorganize America's foreign policy 
institutions and to press for reform at the United Nations while paying 
off our arrears, I think it is fair to say that the State Department 
Authorization bill is one of the most far-reaching and important bills 
that we will consider this Congress.
  I am disappointed, therefore, that Congress finds itself seemingly 
unable to pass this bill in a form which will allow it to become law.
  Now, we find ourselves in this position today is because a few hard-
line House Republicans, by insisting on the inclusion of language to 
restrict international family planning assistance, have been unwilling 
to compromise and be flexible in the interests of American foreign 
policy and national security.
  Let me briefly state 3 reasons why I think that without the family 
planning restrictions this is a good bill.
  First, this bill authorizes funding of both existing needs and the 
correction of long-time existing problems, such as a failing computer 
system, the construction of two major long overdue embassies, and the 
remediation of security and maintenance problems around the world. 
International law enforcement, narcotics abatement, and refugee 
programs are all increased under this bill.
  Second, the State Department Authorization Bill takes an historic 
step in working with the administration and Secretary Albright to 
reorganize the foreign policy bureaucracy of the United States, so that 
the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the United States Information 
Agency, and the Agency for International Development are brought within 
the State Department and other operations are streamlined.
  The reorganization plan presented by this bill preserves the unique 
skills and capabilities of each of the current foreign affairs agencies 
while creating a new, streamlined, structure capable of meeting the 
challenges of the twenty-first century. It is a plan supported by the 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee and by 
the President and Secretary of State.
  Finally, this bill also contains a package to allow repayment of our 
arrears to the United Nations, some $926 million, with much-needed 
reform benchmarks designed to ensure that the United Nations will 
remain an effective organization in the decades to come.
  I am an unabashed supporter of the United Nations. I believe a strong 
and effective United Nations is both important to the world and to the 
national interest of the United States.
  With little fanfare or recognition the United Nations serves American 
interests each and every day. Through the UN High Commission for 
Refugees, it feeds and clothes homeless refugees in time of war. The 
World Health Organization fights diseases like AIDS. The United Nations 
Children's Fund combats childhood poverty, hunger, and sickness. The UN 
Development Programs helps the poorer nations of the world develop 
their infrastructures. The UN provides a forum for negotiating 
multilateral agreements on arms control, protecting the environment, 
and other matters that affect all nations.
  The United Nations helps to protect peace and security in dozens of 
trouble spots around the world. Although we are often quick to 
criticize UN operations, we are slow to credit those successful U.N. 
peacekeeping operations in such places as the Golan Heights, Macedonia, 
Angola, and Kuwait--all important to American foreign policy concerns.
  This is not to say the United Nations is without its faults. The need 
to reform and streamline the UN bureaucracy, refocus the budget 
structure, eliminate duplication, and add transparency to all its 
operations are all included in the 3 year time-period of this bill.
  As the Ranking Member of the International Operations Subcommittee, I 
was involved in the initial discussions on UN dues payment arrears. The 
final result negotiated by the Secretary of State, the Chairman, and 
the Ranking Member is a tough, but achievable, series of reforms to be 
implemented by the United Nations over the next three years, during 
which time the United States will pay the $926 million it owes in back 
dues.

[[Page S3652]]

  Payment of these arrears is no trivial matter. The U.N.'s current 
financial difficulties are threatening to render it unable to implement 
many of its most important programs. Prompt payment by the United 
States of its arrears is the best way to ensure that the UN will be 
able to survive as a force for international peace and security in the 
post-Cold War era.
  As someone who values the United Nations, I regard the United Nations 
arrears and reform package included in this bill to be a major step 
forward, and one of which we can all be proud.
  That is why I find it so unfortunate that we are faced today with the 
prospect that all of these achievements will be for nothing. And why? 
Because a small group of abortion opponents in the House have tied up 
this Bill over the issue of the so-called ``Mexico City'' family 
planning language. In so doing, they are placing their own narrow 
domestic concerns and political agenda ahead of all the substantial 
achievements and reforms encapsulated in this Bill.
  In short, unable to advance their agenda through the normal channels 
of congressional policy making (an agenda unsupported by the vast 
majority of the American people, I might add) they have decided to hold 
this bill hostage to achieve a major blow to family planning throughout 
the world.
  Ironically, their opposition to family planning is antithetical to 
their goal of reducing abortions because family planning actually 
reduces the need for abortions, and without it terrible starvation and 
deprivation is visited upon millions in other lands. The irony is that 
no U.S. international family planning funds are spent on abortion in 
this or any other bill.
  Since 1973, U.S. law has prohibited any USAID funds from being used 
to pay for abortions as a method of family planning or to coerce any 
person to have an abortion. Today each and any program supported by 
these dollars are voluntary, and none involve abortion. All programs 
are rigorously monitored to ensure strict compliance.
  In Russia, where the average Russian woman used to have a stunning 7 
or 8 abortions in her lifetime, family planning has made a huge 
difference. An active family planning effort has actually reduced the 
number of abortions in Russia from 1990 to 1994 by over 20%, from 3.6 
million to 2.8 million. That is 800,000 fewer abortions in a four years 
period of time due to family planning efforts.
  The story repeats itself over and over, wherever family planning 
exists. As our esteemed former colleague Mark Hatfield, who was a 
proudly pro-life Senator, reminded us each time we debated this issue, 
family planning assistance prevents abortions.
  I also find the prohibitions placed on free speech contained in the 
Conference Report--in essence a global gag rule on responsible family 
planning discussions--to be unacceptable. Foreign family planning 
providers would only be eligible for U.S. dollars if they agree to have 
their voices silenced. They could neither lobby nor discuss or educate 
under the terms of this Bill. The fact that the language included in 
this Conference Report dictates what public statements can be made, 
what conferences can be attended, and what educational materials can be 
produced with an entity's own funds I find an overreaching and 
dictatorial edict by a country that prizes free speech.
  One of the most important and effective components of U.S. foreign 
assistance has for years been our family planning programs. These 
programs reduce poverty, improve health, and raise living standards 
around the world by enhancing the ability of couples and individuals to 
determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their 
children in some of the most overpopulated and depraved countries on 
earth. Most of us take these rights for granted. None of us knows the 
level of deprivation and suffering that exists outside our borders.
  What we can not do now--what we should not do now--is allow a small 
minority of this and the other body to effectively stop any U.S. family 
planning efforts worldwide.
  The President has stated that if the Conference Report passes with 
the family planning restrictions he will veto this bill. By including 
language in this Conference Report which we know will result in a veto 
we will sacrifice--needlessly and pointlessly--all the important work 
accomplished to date.
  I sincerely hope and urge that there are sufficient votes in this 
body to reject this Conference Report, return it to Conference, remove 
the counterproductive language, and develop a report which the Senate 
can support, and which the President can sign.
  I urge my colleagues to reject adoption of this Conference Report.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________