[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 108 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. JERRY MORAN

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 16, 2009

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3170) making 
     appropriations for financial services and general government 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3170, 
the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for 
2010. This bill passed the House of Representatives on July 16, 2009, 
over my objection, by a vote of 219-208.
  I opposed H.R. 3170 because the bill adopts the Obama 
Administration's proposal to allow publically funded abortion in the 
District of Columbia. The ``Dornan Amendment,'' which has been included 
annually in this appropriations bill since 1996, prevents the use of 
any congressionally appropriated funds for elective abortions in the 
District. H.R. 3170 repeals this prohibition and replaces it with a 
meaningless watered-down restriction that applies only to funds 
specifically contributed for ``federal'' program purposes. Because 
``federal'' and ``local'' funds are commingled in the District, 
separating them is a mere bookkeeping exercise. By simply designating 
the funds that pay for abortions as ``local'' funds, D.C. will be able 
to fund abortion on demand.
  Stripping the Dornan Amendment from financial services appropriations 
bill is unacceptable. Our nation's capital already has one of the 
highest abortion rates in the country. Removing the Dornan Amendment 
from the bill will certainly increase those numbers, especially among 
teenagers.
  President Obama has repeatedly vowed that his goal is to reduce the 
number of abortions in our country. I question how providing taxpayer 
funding for abortions will somehow reduce the number of abortions. More 
than 40% of all pregnancies in the District already end in abortion. 
Even the Guttmacher Institute, an organization founded by a division of 
Planned Parenthood, reports that when public funding is not available, 
30% fewer women in the covered population have abortions. This means 
that 30% of babies whose mothers receive government subsidized health 
care survive because of abortion funding restrictions. No 
administration or lawmaker can support this policy change and still 
claim to support reducing abortions.
  Washington, D.C. has a troubled history when it comes to abortion 
funding. In the 1980s, when D.C. funded abortion, the District had one 
of the most permissive policies in the nation. A full D.C. abortion 
funding ban was enacted in 1989. In 1994, when the funding ban was 
lifted, D.C. took $1 million away from the Medical Charities fund, 
which was created to help AIDS patients, to instead pay for abortion. 
Then, the District needed additional funds to make up for the funds 
lost to abortion. After that, when the abortion funding ban was 
reinstated in 1996, the city continued to fund abortions in violation 
of the law for two more years.
  Including the Dornan Amendment in the Financial Services 
appropriations bill is a logical means to help reduce abortions, a 
common cause of both the Republican and Democratic parties, and protect 
our most vulnerable citizens. Directing taxpayer dollars to fund 
abortions is a clear violation of many Americans' deeply held beliefs 
and is simply bad public policy. For this reason, I stand in opposition 
to H.R. 3170.

                          ____________________