[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16589-16613]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 AMERICAN EMBASSY SECURITY ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2415.


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and 
personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Miller of 
Florida (Chairman pro tempore) in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, amendment number 1 printed in part A of House Report 
106-235 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) had been 
disposed of.

                              {time}  1845


                Amendments En Bloc Offered By Mr. Gilman

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the authority granted in H. 
Res. 247, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The Clerk will 
designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Part B amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Gilman, consisting 
     of the following:
       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Capuano:
       Page 12, after line 4, insert the following:
       (F) International rape counseling program--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (1), $2,500,000 
     for the fiscal year 2000 are authorized to be appropriated 
     only for a United States based rape counseling program for 
     assistance to women who have been victimized by the 
     systematic use of rape as a weapon in times of conflict and 
     war.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Sanders: 
       Page 15, after line 20, insert the following:
       (6) Israel-arab peace partners program.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated under clause (i), $1,500,000 
     for the fiscal year 2000 is authorized to be available only 
     for people-to-people activities (with a focus on young 
     people) to support the Middle East peace process involving 
     participants from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Arab 
     countries, and the United States, to be known as the 
     ``Israel-Arab Peace Partners Program''. Not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit a plan to the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives for 
     implementation of such program, The Secretary shall not 
     implement the plan until 45 days after its submission to the 
     Committee.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 35, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC 211. GENDER RELATED PERSECUTION TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment of Task Force.--The Secretary of State, 
     in consultation with other Federal agencies, shall establish 
     a task force with the goal of determining eligibility 
     guidelines for women seeking refugee status overseas due to 
     gender-related persecution (including but not limited to 
     domestic and workplace violence and female genital 
     mutilation).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare 
     and submit to the Congress a report outlining the guidelines 
     determined by the task force under subsection (a).
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Page 46, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 257. DENIAL OF PASSPORTS TO NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS SUBJECT 
                   TO STATE ARREST WARRANTS IN CASES OF NONPAYMENT 
                   OF CHILD SUPPORT.

       The Secretary of State is authorized to refuse a passport 
     or revoke, restrict, or limit a passport in any case in which 
     the Secretary of State determines, or is informed by 
     competent authority, that the applicant or passport holder is 
     a noncustodial parent who is the subject of an outstanding 
     State warrant of arrest for nonpayment of child support, 
     where the amount in controversy is not less than $2,500.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       Page 57, after line 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 303. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISER TO SECRETARY OF 
                   STATE.

       (a) Establishment of Position.--Section 1 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Science and Technology Adviser.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be within the Department of 
     State a Science and Technology Adviser (in this paragraph 
     referred to as the `Adviser'). The Adviser shall have 
     substantial experience in the area of science and technology. 
     The Adviser shall report to the Secretary of State through 
     the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Adviser shall--
       ``(A) advise the Secretary of State, through the Under 
     Secretary of State for Global Affairs, on international 
     science and technology matters affecting the foreign policy 
     of the United States; and
       ``(B) perform such duties, exercise such powers, and have 
     such rank and status as the Secretary of State shall 
     prescribe.''.
       (b) Report.--Not later than six months after receipt by the 
     Secretary of State of the report by the National Research 
     Council of the National Academy of Sciences with respect to 
     the contributions that science, technology, and health 
     matters can make to the foreign policy of the United States, 
     the Secretary of State, acting through the Under Secretary of 
     State for Global Affairs, shall submit a report to Congress 
     setting forth the Secretary of State's plans for 
     implementation, as appropriate, of the recommendations of the 
     report.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mrs. Capps:
       Page 68, after line 20, insert the following:
       (c) Scholarships for Preservation of Tibet's Culture, 
     Language, and Religion.--Section 103(b)(1) of the Human 
     Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act 
     of 1966 (Public Law 104-319; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note) is further 
     amended by striking ``Tibet,'' and inserting ``Tibet 
     (whenever practical giving consideration to individuals who 
     are active in the preservation of Tibet's culture, language, 
     and religion),''.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Engel: 
       Page 75, line 7, strike ``The Secretary of State'' and 
     insert ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (b), the Secretary of State''.
       ``Page 75, line 8, strike ``that members'' and insert ``the 
     following:
       (1) Members''.
       Page 75, beginning on line 13, strike ``unless'' and insert 
     a period.
       Page 75, after line 13, insert the following:
       (2) Items designated as crime control and detection 
     instruments and equipment for purposes of section 6(n) of the 
     Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. app. 2405(n)) are not 
     approved for export for use by the RUC.

[[Page 16590]]

       Page 75, line 14, strike ``the President'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the 
     President''.
       Page 75, beginning on line 20, strike ``, in which case'' 
     and all that follows through line 21 and insert a period.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Engel:
       Page 84, after line 16, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 703. RECOGNITION OF THE MAGEN DAVID ADOM SOCIETY IN 
                   ISRAEL AS A FULL MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
                   RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT MOVEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is the mission of the International Red Cross and 
     Red Crescent Movement to prevent and alleviate human 
     suffering, wherever it may be found, without discrimination
       (2) The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement 
     is a worldwide institution in which all National Red Cross 
     and Red Crescent Societies have equal status and share equal 
     responsibilities.
       (3) The state of Israel has ratified the Geneva Conventions 
     which govern the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 
     Movement.
       (4) The Magen David Adom Society is the national 
     humanitarian society in the state of Israel.
       (5) The Magen David Adom Society follows all the principles 
     of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
       (6) Since the founding of the Magen David Adom Society in 
     1930, the American Red Cross has regarded it as a sister 
     national society and close working ties have been established 
     between the two societies.
       (7) The Magen David Adom Society is excluded from full 
     membership in the International Conference of the Red Cross 
     and Red Crescent Movement solely because the Society is not 
     an official protective symbol recognized by either the Geneva 
     Conventions governing the International Red Cross and Red 
     Crescent Movement or the Statutes of the International Red 
     Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
       (8) During the past 25 years the American Red Cross has 
     consistently advocated recognition and membership of the 
     Magen David Adom Society in the International Red Cross and 
     Red Crescent Movement.
       (9) The state of Israel has unsuccessfully tried in the 
     past to amend the Geneva Conventions to allow for the 
     emblematic recognition of the Magen David Adom Society.
       (10) Recognition of the Magen David Adom Society in Israel 
     as a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 
     Movement would help fortify the spirit of goodwill in the 
     Middle East peace process.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the President should, at the earliest possible date, 
     enlist the cooperation of all nations that are signatory to 
     the Geneva Conventions to ensure that the recognition of the 
     Magen David Adom Society in Israel as a full member of the 
     International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is resolved 
     at the forthcoming 27th International Conference of the Red 
     Cross and Red Crescent; and
       (2) the President should support a resolution by that 
     Conference requesting the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross to waive on an exceptional basis the 5th condition of 
     recognition in article 4 of its Statutes of the Movement, 
     thus enabling the full participation of the Magen David Adom 
     Society as a member of the International Red Cross and Red 
     Crescent Movement.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Delahunt:
       Page 84, after line 16, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 703. ANNUAL REPORTING ON WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST 
                   HUMANITY, AND GENOCIDE.

       (a) Section 116 of Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.--Section 
     116(d) of the Foreign assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2151n(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) wherever applicable, consolidated information 
     regarding the commission of war crimes, crimes against 
     humanity, and evidence of acts that may constitute 
     genocide.''.
       (b) Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.--
     Section 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2304(b)) is amended by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following: ``Wherever applicable, such report 
     shall include consolidated information regarding the 
     commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and 
     evidence of acts that may constitute genocide.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendments, as 
modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 9, as modified, offered by Mr. Rohrabacher: 
       Page 34, strike line 18, and all that follows through line 
     9 on page 35, and insert the following:

     SEC. 210. EFFECTIVE REGULATION OF SATELLITE EXPORT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Licensing regime.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary of State shall establish 
     a regulatory regime for the licensing for export of 
     commercial satellites, satellite technologies, their 
     components, and systems which shall include expedited 
     approval, as appropriate, of the licensing for export by 
     United States companies of commercial satellites, satellite 
     technologies, their components, and systems, to NATO allies, 
     major non-NATO allies, and other friendly countries, but not 
     to the Peoples Republic of China.
       (2) Requirements.--For proposed exports to those nations 
     which meet the requirements of paragraph (1) above, the 
     regime should include expedited processing of requests for 
     export authorizations that--
       (A) are time-critical, including a transfer or exchange of 
     information relating to a satellite failure or anomaly in-
     flight or on-orbit;
       (B) are required to submit bids to procurements offered by 
     foreign persons;
       (C) relate to the re-export of unimproved materials, 
     products, or data; or
       (D) are required to obtain launch and on-orbit insurance.
       (b) Financial and Personnel Resources.--Of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated in section 101(1)(A), 
     $11,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for the Office 
     of Defense Trade Controls for fiscal year 2000, to enable 
     that office to carry out its responsibilities.
       (c) Improvement and Assessment.--The Secretary shall, not 
     later than six months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, submit to the Congress a plan for--
       (1) continuously gathering industry and public suggestions 
     for potential improvements in the State Department's export 
     control regime for commercial satellites; and
       (2) arranging for the conduct and submission to Congress, 
     not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, an independent review of the export control regime for 
     commercial satellites as to its effectiveness at promoting 
     national security and economic competitiveness.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 12, as modified, offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       Page 35, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 211. REPORT CONCERNING ATTACK IN CAMBODIA.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and every 6 months thereafter until the 
     investigation referred to in this section is completed, the 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney 
     General, shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees, in classified and unclassified 
     form, containing the most current information on the 
     investigation into the March 30, 1997, grenade attack in 
     Cambodia, including a discussion of communication between the 
     United States Embassy in Phnom Penh and Washington.
                                  ____

       Amendment No. 16, as modified, offered by Mr. Salmon:
       Page 46, after line 22, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 257. REPORT ON TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN WHICH UNITED STATES 
                   CITIZENS WERE KILLED AND RELATED MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than six months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the 
     Secretary of State shall prepare and submit a report, with a 
     classified annex as necessary, to the appropriate 
     congressional committees regarding terrorist attacks in 
     Israel, in territory administered by Israel, and in territory 
     administered by the Palestinian Authority.
       (b) Contents.--Each report under subsection (a) shall 
     contain the following information:
       (1) A list of formal commitments the Palestinian Authority 
     has made to combat terrorism.
       (2) A list of terrorist attacks, occurring between 
     September 13, 1993 and the date of the report, against United 
     States citizens in Israel, in territory administered by 
     Israel, or in territory administered by the Palestinian 
     Authority, including--
       (A) a list of all citizens of the United States killed or 
     injured in such attacks;
       (B) the date of each attack and the total number of people 
     killed or injured in each attack;
       (C) the person or group claiming responsibility for the 
     attack and where such person or group has found refuge or 
     support;
       (D) a list of suspects implicated in each attack and the 
     nationality of each suspect, including information on--
       (i) which suspects are in the custody of the Palestinian 
     Authority and which suspects are in the custody of Israel;
       (ii) which suspects are still at large in areas controlled 
     by the Palestinian Authority or Israel; and
       (iii) the whereabouts (or suspected whereabouts) of 
     suspects implicated in each attack.
       (3) Of the suspects implicated in the attacks described in 
     paragraph (2) and detained

[[Page 16591]]

     by Palestinian or Israeli authorities, information on--
       (A) the date each suspect was incarcerated;
       (B) whether any suspects have been released, the date of 
     such release, and whether any released suspect was implicated 
     in subsequent acts of terrorism; and
       (C) the status of each case pending against a suspect, 
     including information on whether the suspect has been 
     indicted, prosecuted, or convicted by the 
     PalestinianAuthority or Israel.
       (4) The policy of the Department of State with respect to 
     offering rewards for information on terrorist suspects, 
     including any information on whether a reward has been posted 
     for suspects involved in terrorist attacks listed in the 
     report.
       (5) A list of each request by the United States for 
     assistance in investigating terrorist attacks listed in the 
     report, a list of each request by the United States for the 
     transfer of terrorist suspects from the Palestinian Authority 
     and Israel since September 13, 1993, and the response to each 
     request from the Palestinian Authority and Israel.
       (6) A description of efforts made by United States 
     officials since September 13, 1993, to bring to justice 
     perpetrators of terrorist acts against United States citizens 
     as listed in the report.
       (7) A list of any terrorist suspects in each such case who 
     are members of Palestinian police or security forces, the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization, or any Palestinian 
     governing body.
       (c) Consultation With Other Departments.--In preparing each 
     report required by this section, the Secretary of State shall 
     consult and coordinate with all other Government officials 
     who have information necessary to complete the report. 
     Nothing contained in this section shall require the 
     disclosure, on a classified or unclassified basis, of 
     information that would jeopardize sensitive sources and 
     methods or other vital national security interests or 
     jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings.
       (d) Initial Report.--The initial report filed under this 
     section shall cover the period between September 13, 1993, 
     and the date of the report.
       (e) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committee'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       Amendment No. 40, as modified, offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio:
       Page 84, after line 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 703. SENSE OF CONGRESS SUPPORTING HUMANITARIAN 
                   ASSISTANCE TO THE PEOPLE OF BURMA.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the United States 
     Government should support humanitarian assistance that is 
     targeted to the people of Burma and does not support the 
     State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and is only 
     implemented and monitored by international or private 
     voluntary organizations that are independent of the SPDC.

  Mr. GILMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments, as modified, be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our colleagues who have agreed to place 
their amendments in this en bloc amendment. This is the product of a 
bipartisan effort to incorporate amendments and to expedite 
consideration of H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act.
  As the Clerk read, we have included 13 amendments in this en bloc. 
These amendments make improvements such as adding the reporting of 
genocide to the Human Rights Reports, the establishment of a qualified 
science advisor to the State Department, requiring a report on the 
grenade attack in Cambodia, requiring a report outlining terrorists 
attacks in Israel, and establishing an Israel-Arab Peace Partners 
program.
  The report on terrorist attacks is important because it allows 
killers of American citizens to be brought to justice. It is important 
to the conduct of our foreign policy and to the oversight of our 
foreign aid that Congress know whether an entity receiving assistance 
is cooperating in the apprehension of those who kill and maim our U.S. 
citizens in terrorist incidents.
  We welcome the contributions these Members are making to this bill, 
and I urge support to the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, in 1976 Congress passed legislation 
mandating the State Department to produce reports on human rights 
practices in countries around the world. To the credit of the State 
Department, these reports have become the most accepted and widely used 
resource for highlighting human rights abuses and have become 
invaluable to the work of any individual or any organization serious 
about protecting human rights.
  Additionally, they have become a critical component in fashioning our 
own bilateral relationships with foreign governments. They also help us 
to determine how we should exercise our influence in multilateral 
organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank.
  However, the reports are not presently required to provide 
information on crimes against humanity, war crimes, or evidence of acts 
that may constitute genocide in a manner that most clearly profiles 
these most serious, I would submit, of human rights abuses.
  This amendment would address that omission and would mandate 
inclusion of such information in a separate section of the annual 
country reports. I would submit that evidence of acts of genocide 
should be particularly noted, as I would submit that genocide 
represents the ultimate violation of human rights.
  In fact, many of us in this Chamber were convinced to support the 
administration's policy in Kosovo based upon our concern that 
Milosevic's targeting of Albanians for ethnic cleansing would lead to 
another Holocaust.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1976 Congress passed legislation mandating the State 
Department to produce reports on human rights practices in countries 
around the world. To the State Department's credit, these reports have 
become the most accepted and widely-used resource for highlighting 
human rights abuses and have become invaluable to the work of any 
individual or organization serious about protecting human rights. 
Additionally, they have become a critical component in fashioning our 
own bilateral relationships with foreign governments. They also help us 
to determine how we should use our influence in multilateral 
organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank.
  However, the reports are not presently required to provide 
information on crimes against humanity, war crimes, or evidence of acts 
that may constitute genocide in a manner that most clearly profiles 
these most serious of human rights abuses. This amendment would address 
that omission and would mandate inclusion of such information in a 
separate section in the annual country reports. Evidence of acts of 
genocide should be especially noted, as I would submit that genocide 
represents the ultimate violation of human rights.
  Many of us in this chamber were convinced to support the 
Administration's policy in Kosovo based upon our concern that 
Milosevic's targeting of Albanians for ethnic cleansing would lead to 
another genocide. Unfortunately, in 1994 there were some in the State 
Department who debated whether what was happening in Rwanda constituted 
``genocide''--even as 800,000 people were slaughtered because of their 
ethnic origin. This House passed a Concurrent Resolution on June 15, 
condemning the genocidal acts and crimes against humanity committed by 
the Government of Sudan. And yet this year's country report on Sudan 
does not call those crimes what they are. If it is a war crime, call it 
a war crime. If it is genocide, call it genocide.
  Adoption of this amendment would focus the attention of the State 
Department on the issues of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and 
genocide in a timely manner and make that information available in a 
clear and unequivocal form to the family of nations. It should 
strengthen the genocide early warning initiative the Administration 
announced last year. It could save thousands--if not millions--of lives 
throughout the world by directing world attention to these atrocities, 
hopefully provoking early diplomatic intervention.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page 16592]]

                                    Amnesty International USA,    


                                  600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
     Hon. William Delahunt,
     1317 Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Delahunt: I understand that you have 
     offered an amendment that would ask the Department of State 
     to include information on the commission of war crimes and 
     genocide, where applicable, in its annual volume of Country 
     Reports on Human Rights Practices. We welcome your initiative 
     and feel that it can only serve to support the 
     Administration's announcement last December 10th of the 
     creation of a genocide early warning initiative.
       The Department of State's annual report has become an 
     important and very comprehensive treatment of human rights 
     conditions which already includes reports of individual 
     killings. However, a single murder may also amount to a war 
     crime or represent part of a pattern of genocide which should 
     be noted when applicable as well. Your proposal that the 
     Department look for and report patterns of behavior amounting 
     to genocide and war crimes is a useful one which we are 
     confident the drafters of the annual report sections will 
     support.
       Your interest in this issue and your continued strong 
     support for human rights are deeply appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Stephen Rickard,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                Centers for Religious Freedom,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1999.
     Hon. William Delahunt,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Delahunt: Freedom House applauds your 
     efforts to direct the State Department to report on genocide, 
     crimes against humanity and war crimes on a timely basis.
       Too many times the world has ignored serious evidence of 
     genocide while it was occurring. For example, the fact that 
     genocidal acts and crimes against humanity are being 
     conducted by the government of Sudan, as noted in House 
     Resolution 75 of June 15, has gone uncommented on in the most 
     recent State Department Human Rights Reports on country 
     practices. Improved reporting could lead to thousands, even 
     millions of lives, being saved. We enthusiastically support 
     your important initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Nina Shea,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                        The International Campaign


                                               to End Genocide

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1999.
     Congressman William D. Delahunt,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Delahunt: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Campaign to End Genocide, an international coalition of over 
     a dozen human rights groups dedicated to ending genocide in 
     the coming century.
       We strongly support the Delahunt Amendment to H.R. 2415, 
     which will require the State Department in its annual Human 
     Rights Report to include annual reporting on war crimes, 
     crimes against humanity, and genocide.
       Genocides and other mass murders have killed more people in 
     this century than all the war combined. ``Never again'' has 
     turned into ``Again and again.'' Again and again, the 
     response to genocide has been too little and too late.
       During the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, the world's 
     response was denial. In 1994, while 800,000 Tutsis died in 
     Rwanda, State Department lawyers debated whether it was 
     ``genocide'', and the U.N. Security Council withdrew U.N. 
     peacekeeping troops who could have saved hundreds of 
     thousands of lives. By focusing State Department attention on 
     war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, we hope 
     that such moral callousness in U.S. policy-making will never 
     again be repeated.
       We are encouraged that this amendment has received the 
     bipartisan support it deserves. Opposition to such heinous 
     crimes dates back to the beginning of our republic when 
     President Jefferson sent American warships to end the 
     depredations of the Barbary pirates. President Bush mobilized 
     the U.N. forces that defeated the genocidal war criminal, 
     Saddam Hussein. And now President Clinton has led the NATO 
     defeat of the indicted war criminal Slobodan Milosovic.
       Please let us know how we can be of further help.
           Sincerely,
                                           Dr. Gregory H. Stanton,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, the plane of the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson) has been delayed because of weather. She chairs the 
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  When I chaired that committee, we did a great deal of work as part of 
the welfare reform bill, the child support provision. In that, we put a 
provision into the law regarding passports. This goes directly towards 
what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has suggested in 
amendment number 17.
  I would ask that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) work with 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and Members of the 
Committee on Ways and Means in order that we not have an inconsistency 
in the law with regard to the issuance of passports on past-due child 
support payments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) that I appreciate the concern with regard to the work of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and will work with the gentleman on any 
concerns pertaining to the amendment he has referred to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. 
McKinney) seek to control the time of the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson)?
  Ms. McKINNEY. I absolutely do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Georgia will 
control the remaining 8\1/2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) 
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for their hard work 
on this bill.
  I am pleased that the amendment includes a provision that I have 
authored to encourage the study and preservation of Tibetan culture. 
For many years, the Tibetan people have suffered tremendously under a 
succession of oppressive regimes in China.
  The United States Information Agency currently offers 30 scholarships 
to Tibetan students who wish to study in the United States. My 
amendment directs the USIA to consider, whenever practical, individuals 
who are active in the preservation of Tibet's culture, language, and 
religion when granting these scholarships.
  My amendment is the result of conversations that I have held with 
U.S. experts on Tibet, some of whom reside in my district at the 
University of California at Santa Barbara. It is clear that these 
subtle changes to the program will be very helpful in our efforts to 
preserve this ancient culture.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of our committee.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc 
amendment to H.R. 2415. I have two provisions included in the en bloc 
regarding export of U.S. satellite technology, and I am the original 
cosponsor of a third provision that calls for the United States to 
support and defend the democratic Republic of China on Taiwan.
  I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his 
timely provision in support of the Taiwanese allies.
  My first amendment will strongly improve the State Department's 
process of approving export licenses for American satellites and 
related technologies.
  Last year, the Congress made a bipartisan decision to transfer the 
licensing of satellite exports from Commerce back to the State 
Department. Our intention was obvious. We wanted someone to scrutinize 
proposed exports to potentially threatening countries like Communist 
China. Instead, the bureaucracy clamped down on everyone, stopping even 
normal business transactions with friendly nations like Canada and 
Sweden.
  The en bloc amendment before us today includes my amendment forcing 
the State Department to create and properly fund a streamlined export 
regime which would apply to allies and

[[Page 16593]]

friendly countries, but which would not be available for Communist 
China and other hostile powers.
  I appreciate both the chairman's and the ranking member's acceptance 
of this amendment as well as the strong support shown by the U.S. 
aerospace industry. With all of their continued support in conference, 
I believe we can enact this mandate and funding into law that will 
serve America's security as well as our economic and commercial 
interest.
  My other amendment calls for the State Department to provide the 
appropriate congressional committee a report in classified and 
unclassified form on the March 30, 1997 grenade attack on Democrats in 
Cambodian. In this attack, where 17 Cambodian men, women and children 
were killed, among the 120 persons wounded was an American citizen 
named Ron Abney who is a member of the International Republican 
Institute. Thus, we need to see that report.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including my 
provisions in the en bloc amendment.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), 
the ranking member, for their cooperation in including in this en bloc 
amendment two amendments in which I have an interest.
  The first is a matter which I worked on with the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) 
which requires systematic and thorough reporting on the efforts of the 
United States Government to extradite those accused of committing 
crimes under the jurisdiction of U.S. law against U.S. citizens. These 
are important provisions that I believe will help us crack down on 
terrorism.
  I also thank the chairman and the ranking member for including my 
legislation which will deny passports to custodial parents who have 
accrued a child support obligation of more than $2,500. I think it is 
very important that, before Americans enjoy the privilege of traveling 
abroad, that they make meet their obligations to their own children 
here at home.
  This is an important tool in our effort to step up child support 
enforcement. I again thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
their cooperation by adding this to the en bloc. I urge the adoption of 
the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the amendment that I have 
proposed with Representatives Andrews and Saxton, which would require 
the State Department to issue periodic reports on the investigations of 
Palestinian terrorists who have murdered Americans, will be included in 
the American Embassy Security Act. I thank Chairman Ben Gilman for his 
personal involvement in this matter. The Senate unanimously accepted 
this anti-terrorism amendment to the Senate State Department 
Authorization bill.
  At least twelve American citizens have been killed by Palestinian 
terrorists in Israel since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 
1993. Over 20 suspects in the attacks currently reside in territory 
controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Several of these suspects are 
walking about free. Some have reportedly been given positions in 
Palestinian police forces.
  The United States has the right and the responsibility under U.S. law 
to prosecute the terrorist killers of Americans. The House of 
Representatives strongly endorsed this principle last year when it 
voted 406 to 0 in favor of a resolution declaring that the 
``[Palestinian] suspects should be tried in the United States unless it 
is determined that such action is contrary to effective prosecution.'' 
While the administration should be commended for sending investigative 
teams to Israel to investigate these attacks, the effort has been 
incomplete. For example, no rewards have yet been offered by the U.S. 
government for information leading to the capture of the Palestinian 
killers of the murdered Americans, even though multimillion dollar 
rewards have been offered in other cases of Americans killed by 
terrorists abroad. And despite reams of evidence implicating certain 
individuals in the murders of Americans--including in one case an 
outright confession--no indictments have been secured by U.S. 
authorities. The reports will help to respond to concerns that 
political considerations may be stalling these investigations.
  The bipartisan amendment responds to the lack of progress in the 
investigations. Specifically, the amendment would require the 
administration to provide Congress with regular, detailed reports on 
the status of the investigations into the killers of Americans. The 
report would also contain information on the policy of the State 
Department with respect to offering rewards for information leading to 
the capture of the terrorist suspects and a list of suspected 
terrorists serving in Palestinian security forces.
  Smartly, the language protects against the disclosure of information 
that would impede ongoing investigations. Obviously, the American 
families that have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks do not want 
these investigations compromised in any way.
  The families of the victims support our effort. I quote from a letter 
signed by three of the families: ``Your legislation addresses a serious 
and immediate problem. We have constantly been frustrated and 
disappointed at the difficulty of finding out the most basic 
information about the status of U.S. investigators into the attacks in 
which our children were killed. This legislation will help rectify the 
problem. Reports to Congress on these investigations will help to make 
it possible for Congress to play a crucial supportive role in 
facilitating efforts to apprehend, prosecute, and punish terrorists who 
have murdered American citizens in Israel or the administered 
territories.'' The letter continues: ``Keeping a spotlight on these 
issues is a crucial component in the process of achieving Middle East 
Peace. . . . The peace process can only be strengthened by a move 
toward justice.''
  The amendment is about achieving justice, and achieving peace for the 
families who have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks. It's about 
recognizing that American life isn't cheap, and that if you're an 
American citizen killed abroad, the United States will never forget 
you.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Engel's amendment 
(amendment #47, part of the en bloc) builds on Section 408 of the bill, 
a section which was added as a result of an amendment I successfully 
offered with Mr. Peter King of New York during consideration of this 
legislation in the International Relations Committee. Section 408--and, 
by extension, the language offered today--seeks to end the intimidation 
of defense attorneys in Northern Ireland, and to secure just and 
impartial investigations of the murders of two heroic defense 
attorneys, Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane.
  As adopted by the full committee, Section 408 cuts off funding 
authority for U.S.-sponsored training and exchange programs offered to 
Northern Ireland's police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), 
unless the President certifies that the United Kingdom has initiated 
independent investigations into the murders of two Catholic defense 
attorneys. It also conditions the funds on the President certifying 
that the UK is appropriately protecting other defense attorneys who 
have been harassed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).
  On September 29, 1998, Rosemary Nelson, a defense attorney from 
Northern Ireland, testified before the Subcommittee on International 
Operations and Human Rights and told us that, as a defense attorney 
working on high-profile, political cases, she feared the RUC. She 
reported that she had been ``physically assaulted by a number of RUC 
officers,'' and that the harassment included, ``at the most serious, 
making threats against my personal safety including death threats.''
  Six months later, on March 15, 1999, Rosemary Nelson was murdered, 
the victim of a car bomb. Because of Rosemary's own stated fears, and 
because of subsequent reports issued by Northern Ireland's Independent 
Commission on Police Complaints, several questions have been raised 
about RUC complicity in her murder.
  Amazingly, however, the British government insists that the RUC be 
the agency most involved in investigating Rosemary's murder.
  In addition to the Nelson family, numerous international human rights 
organizations, the European Union, the Northern Ireland Law Society, 
elected officials from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, 
and the U.S. Congress have all called for independent inquiries--RUC-
free inquiries--into Rosemary Nelson's murder. Similarly, leading human 
rights activists are calling for an independent judicial inquiry into 
the allegations of government collusion in the murder of slain defense 
attorney Patrick Finucane.
  In an extraordinary show of bipartisan support, this past April, the 
U.S. House of Representatives passed my bill, H. Res. 128, condemning 
the Finucane and Nelson killings and

[[Page 16594]]

calling on the British government to adequately protect defense 
lawyers. The resolution unequivocally linked Ms. Nelson's murder with 
that of Patrick Finucane, recognizing the hostile environment within 
which Northern Ireland's defense lawyers function, particularly 
aggravated by threats coming directly or indirectly from the police.
  Section 408 of this bill renews our previous calls for the 
independent inquiries as but one step toward accountability for human 
rights violations against defense lawyers in Northern Ireland. It 
blocks U.S. funds to RUC programs and requires the President and the 
State Department to do more to persuade the Blair government to 
mitigate the harassment of defense attorneys in Northern Ireland. Mr. 
Engel's amendment extends our efforts in Section 408 by restricting the 
export of law enforcement equipment to the RUC until the Section 408 
goals are met. While the RUC does not currently receive the equipment 
banned by the Engel amendment, the added language precludes them from 
doing so, or even qualifying for such equipment, until the standards 
are met.
  It is important to note that even while negotiations have been 
stalled and the future of the new Northern Ireland Assembly is in 
jeopardy, the British government can take some unilateral steps to 
restore confidence in the peace process. As recommended in this bill, 
the Blair government should pull the RUC off the Rosemary Nelson murder 
case, take decisive action to protect defense attorneys, and initiate 
an objective, public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
speak in support of my amendment to HR 2415, which would allow the 
Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or limit passports to non-custodial 
parents who owe $2,500 or more in child support. Current law sets the 
threshold at $5,000--an amount that does not go far enough to protect 
America's children.
  Only half of all custodial parents who are awarded child support 
actually receive the full amount ordered by a court. Over $5 billion is 
owed in delinquent child support payments each year. In a time when 
millions of American children live below the poverty level, the 
government must make a strong statement that significant delinquency in 
child support payments will not be tolerated. I believe we must stand 
up for personal responsibility and the well being of children around 
the nation and I thank the Chairman for offering this en bloc amendment 
and including this important provision.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I want to 
make clear why I do. One of the most depraved and beastly actions 
toward defenseless civilians by armed men in recent conflicts has been 
the commission of rape as a tool of war. It's been done in Kosovo and 
in Rwanda. This isn't ``date rape''; it isn't even rape by someone who 
knows the person he's doing it to. It is rape as a kind of ultimate 
demonstration of power and control and of contempt for the women being 
raped and the groups they belong to.
  As a result, the number of women who have been raped in this way and 
for these reasons has continued to grow. Like any other form of torture 
or degradation in wartime, rape as war crime leaves behind devastating 
physical and especially psychological effects that can last a lifetime. 
People become unable to sleep, unable to work, unable to trust other 
people, unable to escape from the constant feeling of the events 
themselves.
  The Human Rights subcommittee of which I am the ranking member just 
held a hearing on the U.S. response to victims of torture. It is 
obvious that one of the consistent characteristics of the 160 centers 
worldwide for torture victims--not enough to have live-in facilities 
for people in the greatest need, not enough to provide even outpatient 
counseling.
  We need to do more to help. I commend my colleague Mike Capuano for 
recognizing that fact and finding a way to start doing so. I strongly 
support this amendment and I encourage the House to adopt it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment 
and my two amendments contained therein.
  In the United States, people know that in the event of an emergency 
they can always count on the American Red Cross to come to the rescue. 
Other countries' Red Cross or Red Crescent societies perform similar 
functions.
  The Israeli counterpart to the American Red Cross is the Magen David 
Adom (MDA) society. MDA carries out all of the traditional roles of a 
voluntary medical aid society, such as emergency medical services, 
maintenance of blood supplies, first aid, and disaster relief. 
Unfortunately, unlike the American Red Cross and every other nation's 
ICRC component organization, MDA is not accepted as a member of the 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
  The Magen David Adom Society is excluded from full membership in the 
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement 
solely because the Red Shield of David, the organization's emblem, is 
not officially recognized by either the Geneva Conventions or the 
Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. I 
have the fullest respect for the religious traditions represented by 
the red cross and red crescent, but I also respect the decision of 
Israel, as a Jewish state, to choose a sign more in line with its 
religious tradition. With peace slowly but surely coming to the Middle 
East and Israel developing progressively more relations with its 
neighbors, it is time that the ICRC accepts the Magen David Adom as a 
full member.
  The amendment, which I offer with my friend, the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Weiner, seeks to shine light on this problem and presses our 
government to seek a solution. Specifically, it urges the President to 
work with other nations to achieve recognition of MDA as a full member 
of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement at the 
forthcoming 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red 
Crescent.
  My second amendment, Mr. Chairman, conditions exports of crime 
control equipment--such as batons, hand cutts, or tear gas--to the 
Royal Ulster Constabulary on independent investigations into the 
murders of defense attorneys Patrick Finucane and Rosemary Nelson. 
Section 408 of the underlying bill already conditions FBI and police 
training of the RUC on independent investigations of these suspicious 
murders. My amendment adds to that section by restricting exports of 
police items.
  I share the fear of many members of Congress and human rights groups 
that the RUC will white wash these investigations. My amendment and the 
bill, itself, are designed to send the signal that we will no longer 
stand for bungled investigations and cover-ups of politically-motivated 
killings. It is time that peace and justice came to northern Ireland.
  I would like to thank Chairman Gilman, Ranking member Gejdenson, and 
Subcommittee Chairman Chris Smith for their exceptional cooperation and 
support during this process.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Salmon-Andrews-
Saxton amendment to H.R. 2415, which requires the Administration to 
provide Congress with regular, detailed reports on the status of the 
investigations into the killers of Americans. Over 20 suspects in the 
deaths of twelve American citizens currently reside in the territory 
controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and several of these suspects 
are walking free.
  While the United States has a right and responsibility to prosecute 
the terrorist killers of Americans, the Administration's effort has 
been incomplete. This amendment would hold the Administration 
responsible for following through with the pursuit of justice. We must 
be active in our fight against terrorism, and this bill will aid in the 
maintenance of U.S. vigilance against terrorism.
  I would like to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues, Mr. 
Salmon, who are tireless foes of terrorism, and I would also like to 
thank Mr. Gilman for offering the en bloc amendment and for including 
this important provision in his amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, during this past week the 
Communist People's Republic of China started a series of events to 
threaten Taiwan:
  Starting just this last weekend and going into this week, China has 
been conducting the first military exercise in the Taiwan Strait since 
1996, with soldiers chanting ``We will liberate Taiwan'';
  Meanwhile the Communist Party newspapers ran the headline, ``Those 
who play with fire will get burnt'';
  In addition, last Thursday, China declared that it has mastered the 
design technology for the neutron bomb.
  In light of these imminent threats from mainland China, the U.S. 
Congress must send a clear message that we support our democratic ally 
Taiwan and that the U.S. will defend Taiwan from military attacks. 
Without that clear message, Communist China may be tempted to attack 
Taiwan and destabilize the world, hoping that the U.S. will stand 
aside, particularly when the Clinton Administration advocates for ``one 
China.'' If there were one democratic China, the U.S. Congress and the 
people of the United States would support it. For now, there is only 
one democratic State in China--The Republic of China on Taiwan--so we 
will support Taiwan.
  The people of Taiwan have spoken with their votes to stay separate 
from the Communist mainland until there is democracy for

[[Page 16595]]

all. We respect their votes and their voice. We commend them for 
building this flourishing democracy regardless of threats from the 
Beijing. I support the amendment from my colleagues Mr. Andrews, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Wu, and Mr. 
Bilirakis, to declare that we stand with our democratic allies, and we 
will defend democratic Taiwan.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 2 printed in part A of House Report 106-235.


           Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
       Page 19, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 
     17, on page 21, and insert the following:
       (d) Contribution to United Nations Population Fund.--
       (1) Limitation.--Of the amounts made available under 
     subsection (a) for United States voluntary contributions no 
     funds may be made available to the United Nations Population 
     Fund (UNFPA) unless the President submits to the appropriate 
     congressional committees the certification described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Certification.--The certification referred to in 
     paragraph (1) is a certification by the President that--
       (A) the UNFPA has terminated all activities in the People's 
     Republic of China, and the United States has received 
     assurances that UNFPA will conduct no such activities during 
     the fiscal year for which the funds are to be made available; 
     or
       (B) during the 12 months preceding such certification there 
     have been no abortions as the result of coercion associated 
     with the family planning policies of the national government 
     or other governmental entities within the People's Republic 
     of China.
       (3) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     ``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction 
     or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, and 
     severe psychological pressure.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk which was made in order by the Committee on Rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to offer his 
amendment at this time?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer it at this time, but if I might 
ask a parliamentary inquiry, it might be most efficient simply to 
allocate all time and divide it fairly between the two sides on the 
issue, whether it be on my second-degree amendment or the first-degree 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I would 
be willing to do so if that is possible.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, and actually 
this is an inquiry to the Chair, that the time on the Smith amendment 
will be divided. I would take that time in opposition. Then my 
understanding is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
would have some time on his secondary amendment, and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), I imagine, would be in opposition, and that 
would give us all an opportunity to divide the time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is perfectly 
acceptable with me. I simply wish to offer my second-degree amendment 
at such a time as to protect the opportunity to present that. If I have 
now done so, then I will wait until the time that has been allocated to 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is expired. Is that acceptable?

                              {time}  1900

  Is that acceptable?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman may 
offer the substitute amendment at this point and the debate time will 
be allocated accordingly, and debate on the two amendments will be 
consumed simultaneously.


 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Campbell as a Substitute for Amendment 
                No. 2 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment 
is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Campbell as a 
     substitute for Part A amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Smith of 
     New Jersey:
       Page 19, strike line 1, and all that follows through line 
     17 on page 21, and insert the following:
       (d) Contributions to United Nations Population Fund.--
       (1) Limitations on amount of contribution.--Of the amounts 
     made available under subsection (a), not more than 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 shall be available for the 
     United Nations Population Fund (hereinafter in this 
     subsection referred to as the ``UNFPA'').
       (2) Prohibition on use of funds in china.--None of the 
     funds made available under subsection (a) may be made 
     available for the UNFPA for a country program in the People's 
     Republic of China.
       (3) Conditions on availability of funds.--Amounts made 
     available under subsection (a) for fiscal year 2000 for the 
     UNFPA may not be made available to UNFPA unless--
       (A) the UNFPA maintains amounts made available to the UNFPA 
     under this section in an account separate from other accounts 
     of the UNFPA;
       (B) the UNFPA does not commingle amounts made available to 
     the UNFPA under this section with other sums; and
       (C) the UNFPA does not fund abortions.
       (4) Report to congress and withholding of funds.--
       (A) Not later than February 15, 2000, the Secretary of 
     State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees indicating the amount of funds that the United 
     Nations Population Fund is budgeting for the year in which 
     the report is submitted for a country program in the People's 
     Republic of China.
       (B) If a report under subparagraph (A) indicates that the 
     United Nations Population Fund plans to spend funds for a 
     country program in the People's Republic of China in the year 
     covered by the report, then the amount of such funds that the 
     UNFPA plans to spend in the People's Republic of China shall 
     be deducted from the funds made available to the UNFPA after 
     March 1 for obligation for the remainder of the fiscal year 
     in which the report is submitted.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to that, and I understand that under regular order the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) would proceed first?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) will 
control 15 minutes; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will 
control 15 minutes on the Campbell amendment; the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) will control 15 minutes on his amendment; and the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) will control 15 minutes in 
opposition.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, one further inquiry, I think it would be 
efficient, but would it be possible simply to proceed with both 
together; the 30 minutes times two? In other words, the 1 hour of 
debate all at the same time, with alternating between various 
spokespersons?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize for debate to be shared in the 
appropriate amount of time with each Member controlling 15 minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. So, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) 
would have 15, I would have 15 minutes to control, I would have 15 
minutes to control, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) would 
have 30?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. That is agreeable.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain all debate before putting the 
question of the vote on the subtitle amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to

[[Page 16596]]

the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-
Gilman-Gejdenson-Porter-Johnson amendment and in opposition to the 
Smith amendment.
  I remain as dedicated as anyone in this chamber to the cause of human 
rights in China. From the freedom fighters of Tianamen to the Dalai 
Lama's loyal supporters in Tibet we have, in the Congress, have 
supported the cause of human rights in China. But that is not what is 
under debate at this moment. Under current law, no U.S. funds can be 
spent on abortions. The U.N. Population Fund does not support China's 
one-child policy and has condemned the abuses of that program. UNFPA 
operates in only 32 of China's counties to support maternal and child 
health, and that is all.
  This debate should not be about China, it should be about the 
programs in over 100 other countries where UNFPA operates. And, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to highlight one Nation for which U.S. support 
would be cut off by the Smith amendment, and that happens to be Mexico.
  I believe that we can all agree that helping Mexican mothers space 
the births of their children is good for Mexico and good for our own 
Nation. Birth spacing is the best way to improve child survival and to 
limit Mexico's rapidly expanding population. We have no USAID mission 
in Mexico. UNFPA is the largest external donor to the Mexican family 
program. UNFPA is the only channel we have to support Mexican family 
planning. The Smith amendment, regrettably, would have the effect of 
cutting off all support to Mexico.
  We must support that program and other vital UNFPA programs such as 
their anti-AIDS campaign in Haiti, not just to benefit Mexicans and 
Haitians but to also benefit our own Nation. If the countries south of 
our border develop into strong stable societies, it will help our 
exports and relieve some of the immigration pressure on our own Nation. 
Population growth in Latin America and the Caribbean drive the 
environmental pressures on Florida, on Texas, on New Mexico, Arizona, 
California, and some of our other States. This pressure will be 
relieved if UNFPA's voluntary family planning programs move forward in 
these regions with our own support.
  The Smith amendment would have the effect of cutting off all U.S. 
support for those programs, like UNFPA's support to the victims of 
storms like Hurricane Mitch. It would also block U.S. support for 
UNFPA's program to stop the horrific practice of female genitalia 
mutilation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Campbell amendment has been endorsed by 47 
organizations, including the YWCA, the American Association of 
University Women, the American Public Health Association, the National 
Wildlife Federation, and the League of Conservation Voters.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the 
Campbell amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Barcia), and I have great concerns about the policies and 
practices used by the United Nations Population Fund.
  The United States cannot give taxpayer money to an organization that 
is intricately involved with human rights abuses that are taking place 
in China and other places around the world. I wish to read the words of 
a woman who worked to enforce China's population program. Mrs. Gao was 
the administrator at the Fujian Province Planned Birth Office from 1984 
to 1988. These are her own words before the Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on 
International Relations.

       My work at the planned birth office included establishing a 
     computer data bank of all the women of childbearing age in 
     the town. I also issued birth-allowed certificates to women 
     who meet the policy and regulations of the Central and 
     Provincial Planned Birth Committees and are, therefore, 
     allowed to give birth to children. Should a woman be found 
     pregnant without a certificate, an abortion is performed 
     immediately, regardless of how many months pregnant she is.
       This case about a Miss Chen Li-Ren who was a female 
     resident of a village outside of Yonghe Town. In 1996, she 
     became pregnant in spite of the fact she was not married and 
     did not have a certificate. It's a violation of the planned 
     birth policy to become pregnant without a birth-allowed 
     certificate.
       To avoid heavy monetary penalties and abortion, she in 
     order to save the child's life, when she was 3 months 
     pregnant, left the town. But when she was 9 months pregnant, 
     somebody informed on her. The planned birth enforcement team 
     of Yonghe Town began searching for her. They were unable to 
     find her, so they tore down her husband's family's house and 
     also threatened to also tear down the house of her parents.
       One day, when she was at her parents house, the enforcement 
     officials forced their way into the house. They found her and 
     immediately stuffed her into a car and escorted her to the 
     Municipality Planned Birth Induced Delivery Center where the 
     abortion was performed.
       This is the document that we issue to people who have 
     already given birth to a son. It's the birth-not-allowed 
     notices. Such notices are sent to the couple when the data 
     concludes they do not meet the requirement of the policy and 
     are not allowed to have any further children. Any couple who 
     has already given birth to a son will receive this notice and 
     such notices are made public. The purpose of this is to make 
     it known to everyone that the couple, if they are having a 
     second child, is in violation of the policy, therefore, 
     facilitating supervision of the couple. We also issue control 
     device inspection and pregnancy test notices.
       According to the specific data on each woman, every woman 
     of childbearing age is notified that she has to have a 
     contraceptive device, reliability, and pregnancy examinations 
     when necessary. Should she fail to present herself in a 
     timely manner for these examinations, she will not only be 
     forced to pay a fine, but our supervision team will apprehend 
     her and force her to have such an examination. This is the 
     document that we issue to women who must undergo 
     sterilization or other birth control methods.
       We also imposed monetary penalties on those who violated 
     central and provincial regulations. If they refused to pay 
     the penalties, our supervision team members would apprehend 
     and detain them until they paid such fines.
       We also analyze informant materials submitted in accordance 
     with the informing system and then put these cases on file 
     for investigation.
       Most planned birth offices in Fujian Province's rural areas 
     have their own detention facilities. In our town, the 
     facility is right next door to my office. It has one room for 
     males and one room for females, each with the capacity of 
     about 25 to 30 people. To catch violators, our planned birth 
     office does not need consent by the courts or judicial 
     departments, or the public security departments. Our actions 
     are completely independent of them. There are no paperwork 
     formalities and there are no time limits associated with the 
     detention. Detainees pay 8 RMB per day for food. They are not 
     allowed to make phone calls or mail letters.
       The majority of the detainees are, of course, either women 
     who are pregnant without birth-allowed certificates or women 
     who are to be sterilized or women who have been fined. As I 
     explained previously, if we do not apprehend the women 
     themselves, we detain their family members, such as a father, 
     a mother, a sister, brothers, or their husband. And we detain 
     them until the women themselves come forward to be sterilized 
     or to have an abortion.
       I led my subordinates to Yinglin Town Hospital to check on 
     births. I found two women in Zhoukeng Town had extra-plan 
     births. I led a planned birth supervision team composed of a 
     dozen cadres and public security agents. With sledge hammers 
     and heavy crowbars in hand, we went to dismantle their 
     houses.
       We were unable to apprehend the women in the case so we 
     took their mothers in lieu of them and detained them in the 
     planned birth office's detention facility. It wasn't until 
     about half a month later that the women surrendered 
     themselves to the planned birth office. They were sterilized, 
     fined heavily, and their mothers were finally released. I 
     myself did so many brutal things, but I thought that I was 
     conscientiously implementing the policy of our party and that 
     I was an exemplary citizen and a good cadre.
       Once I found a woman who was 9 months pregnant, but did not 
     have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, 
     she was forced to undergo an induced abortion. In the 
     operating room, I saw the child's lips were moving and how 
     its arms and legs were also moving. The doctor injected 
     poison into its skull and the child died and it was thrown 
     into the trash can. Afterwards the husband was holding his 
     wife and crying loudly and saying, what kind of man am I? 
     What kind of

[[Page 16597]]

     husband am I? I can't even protect my wife and child. Do you 
     have any sort of humanity?
       All of those 14 years, I was a monster in the daytime, 
     injuring others by the Chinese Communist authorities' 
     barbaric planned birth policy. But in the evening I was like 
     all other women and mothers, enjoying my life with my 
     children. I couldn't go on living with such a dual life any 
     more.
       It is also my sincere hope that what I describe here today 
     can lead you to give your attention to this issue so that you 
     can extend your arms to save China's women and children.

  Mrs. MYRICK. So, if Members of the House agree with the UNFPA that 
what Mrs. Gao described is voluntary and suits China's current 
conditions, then by all means support the Campbell-Gilman substitute to 
give them at least $20 million. I, for one, will never give my vote to 
an organization that could look the other way when such atrocities are 
being committed against women and children.
  I will vote for the Smith amendment and no on the Campbell-Gilman 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  If the gentlewoman wants to achieve a reduction in the kinds of 
incidents she just referenced, then she should vote for the Campbell 
amendment, because what is clear in every country where family planning 
activities have increased, abortions have been decreased.
  We only need to look at our experience. In Tunisia, as contraceptive 
use increased by 94 percent, abortion rates plummeted. In South Korea, 
abortion rates were halved as contraceptive use went up by 80 percent.
  What is absolutely clear is that if the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) gets his way, if the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) gets her way, there will be more forced abortions in China. It 
is as simple as that.
  If we cut back on the voluntary family planning funds, what will 
happen? More forced abortions.

                              {time}  1915

  Now, if my colleagues talk to some folks, they will say they have got 
problems with family planning, they are against some of the methods 
used for birth control. Get up and make that debate. It is a slight of 
hand to talk about the forced abortions in China and to try to use that 
as an assault on family planning.
  Every dollar that is cut from family planning, every time the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) succeeds, he increases forced 
abortion in China. It is absolutely clear. What happens is, if women do 
not have access to family planning, voluntary family planning, if they 
cannot get contraception, there will be more forced abortion.
  In every country's experience, as family planning dollars increase, 
abortions decrease. It is not the gentleman from New Jersey that will 
decrease abortions and forced abortions in China. It is the gentleman 
from California. And those of us who support family planning funds that 
will reduce the number of abortions in China and all other countries, 
support family planning and we will reduce abortion. Limit family 
planning funds, and we increase the number of abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give my colleagues a few statistics to 
think about as we debate whether to restore funding for UNFPA.
  If each woman averages two children, world population would rise to 
11 billion in the next century and level off.
  If women average 2.5 children each, our globe would face a world with 
27 billion people by 2150.
  But if the fertility rate fell to 1.6 children per woman, population 
would reach a peak of 7.7 billion in 2050 and drop to 3.6 billion by 
2150.
  It's clear that rampant population growth affects governments' 
ability to provide waste treatment and sanitation, schools, food, 
transportation, health care and environmental protection.
  World population is increasing by 78 million people a year--97 
percent of this increase is in developing countries, where access to 
family planning and reproductive health services is limited and where 
pregnancy and childbirth are still a risk to the lives and health of 
women.
  We know that in high-fertility countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 
between 36 and 55 percent of women report that their most recent birth 
was mistimed or unwanted.
  We have the tools to give these women access to needed services and 
combat this global problem--it's called the UNFPA (UN Fund for 
Population Assistance)--but last year we slashed UNFPA's budget to 
zero.
  In this one year alone, the impact of the U.S.'s decision to withdraw 
funding to UNFPA deprived 870,000 women of access to contraception. 
This resulted in 500,000 unwanted pregnancies, 234,000 unwanted births 
and 200,000 abortions.
  We also hurt UNFPA's ability to encourage safe delivery practices, 
resulting in the deaths of an additional 1,200 maternal deaths and the 
loss of 22,500 infants who couldn't access UNFPA services.
  I am here today to urge my colleagues not to make the same mistake 
again. The Smith Amendment will leave millions of women and men without 
a choice.
  In the 30 years since the U.S. Government began helping other 
countries provide their citizens with family planning services, the 
number of couples using contraception in developing countries has 
multiplied tenfold and the average number of children per woman 
declined from nearly six to fewer than four.
  As we all know, there are many countries around the world that have a 
population rate that is higher than their GDP. Their impressive 
economic advances become outweighed by their population growth, which 
means that they are effectively just treading water. By failing to fund 
UNFPA, we are leaving them to drown.
  Why oppose the Smith Amendment?
  First, the Smith Amendment requires UNFPA to leave China entirely or 
lose U.S. support. This puts UNFPA in an impossible Catch-22.
  China, as a member of the United Nations, can ask for--and UNFPA must 
give--family planning assistance. UNFPA cannot choose its clientele. So 
asking UNFPA to leave China is a provision that they can never satisfy.
  Second, conditioning UNFPA's funding on certification that there have 
been no forcible abortions in China by anyone--including the Chinese 
governments family planning program--is also an impossible task.
  UNFPA's funding is for UNFPA programs which operate under stringent 
human rights standards and with a firm opposition to coercion in all of 
its forms. UNFPA does not support abortion--in no case is abortion 
allowed as a method of family planning. UNFPA also opposes quotas or 
targets in family planning programs and only works in those counties in 
China that have abolished such measures.
  Contrary to what some people may think, UNFPA did not leave its 
conscience at the door when it agreed to provide family planning 
assistance to China.
  We must remember that we are funding programs of UNFPA, not the 
Chinese government. UNFPA conducts a voluntary family planning program 
with a rigorous commitment to human rights. The Smith Amendment won't 
change China's policies but it will continue to cause suffering around 
the world.
  Don't hold women and men in the nearly 150 other nations who need and 
use UNFPA's services hostage because you don't agree with the policies 
of one nation. Support UNFPA's lifesaving work in AIDS prevention, 
family planning assistance, and safe pregnancy and childbirth. Reject 
the Smith Amendment. Support the Campbell Amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for 20 years the U.N. Population Fund has poured 
millions of dollars, about $157 million to be exact, provided technical 
assistance, and given effusive praise to China's program that relies on 
forced abortion and forced sterilization to achieve its goals.
  For 20 years, the UNFPA has whitewashed these crimes, the kind the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) just talked about, and 
has heaped lavish praise on China's one-child-per-couple program. It 
has provided cover and covered up for the Beijing hardliners who 
oppress and victimize women and murder their children.
  In fact, Nafis Sadik, the executive director of the UNFPA, has had 
this to say about the Chinese program: ``The implementation of the 
policy in China and the acceptance of the policy is purely voluntary. 
There is no such thing as a license to have a birth.'' That is an 
unmitigated lie, I say to my colleagues.
  She has also said, ``The UNFPA firmly believes, and so does the 
Government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a 
totally voluntary program.'' That, too, is a lie.

[[Page 16598]]

  For 20 years, the UNFPA has participated with the perpetrators of the 
most egregious systematic abuse of women in history. My colleagues 
heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) talk about Mrs. 
Gao. She was one of those who ran the program in Fujian Province for 14 
years. That is what the UNFPA has covered up for all of these years.
  Let me just remind my colleagues that both Presidents Reagan and 
Bush, with the support of Democratic Congresses, barred all funding to 
the UNFPA because of its complicity and support of China's barbaric 
program.
  Last year Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act that included a total cut-off of UNFPA funding. Why? 
Because it includes heavily forced abortion and forced sterilization.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and I are 
offering would prohibit U.S. funding to the UNFPA unless the President 
certified that UNFPA has terminated all activities in the PRC; or, 
during the 12 months preceding such certification there have been no 
abortions as a result of coercion.
  This is all about forced abortion. The UNFPA has been complicit. They 
have supported it. And they have said it with their statements and have 
been part of a cover-up.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this does not provide for money for abortion in China. 
The Campbell amendment takes away money for family planning in China 
for every dollar that the U.N. spends there. So this debate is very, 
very serious, but it is not on China's abortion policy.
  The Campbell amendment authorizes no money for abortion, no money for 
China. And for every dime that the U.N. chooses to spend in China, we 
take back one dime from the U.N.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, who is the 
introducer of the substitute that I support very strongly, for yielding 
the time to me.
  So I rise in support of the Campbell substitute and in opposition to 
the Smith amendment.
  The U.N. Population Fund is one of the world's leading international 
agencies providing for women's sexual and reproductive health. It 
collaborates with government agencies and NGOs to develop and implement 
effective policies and programs dealing with female genital mutilation, 
HIV/AIDS, comprehensive care for refugees, as we saw in Kosovo, child 
and maternal nutrition, and family planning methods and services.
  Contrary to what we have heard this evening, UNFPA does not fund or 
provide abortion services or related equipment. The UNFPA does not 
support China's despicable population programs.
  The Campbell amendment prohibits U.S. funds from being used in 
UNFPA's China program. It addresses the concern of some Members about 
the fungibility of funding by reducing our UNFPA contribution dollar 
for dollar for the agency spending in China. It restates U.S. law 
forbidding funding for any abortion services.
  The goal of the Smith amendment is to force UNFPA to leave China, 
even though its current program gives it exclusive control of the 
family planning programs in 32 countries. Passage of the Smith 
amendment will cut off the U.S. contribution to UNFPA's work worldwide 
unless China stops its policies of coercive abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, more than 500 million women and girls live in China. 
That is one in every five women on this planet. The irony of the 
efforts of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is that if UNFPA 
were to pull out of China, the only source which Chinese women will 
have for family planning and reproductive health services is the 
Chinese Government. Again, if the Smith amendment passes, the Chinese 
Government will be women's only option for reproductive health care.
  It is important that we support the Campbell substitute.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman a question if she 
would return to the microphone.
  She mentioned a moment ago that this program will be run exclusively 
by the UNFPA. Is that her statement?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I said China is in charge of the 
reproductive health and services for the 32 countries.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, but who is 
running the family planning/population program?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
UNFPA.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just so the record is very 
clear on this, the question was asked by our former U.S. ambassador to 
the United Nations, what will be the role of the Chinese Government? 
And the answer back from the executive director of the UNFPA was as 
follows:

       The Chinese Government, at the central and provincial 
     levels, will be in charge of coordination, internal 
     monitoring, guidance, and evaluation, all of which will be 
     conducted in accordance with ICPD principles. The local 
     government will be in charge of the actual implementation of 
     project activities at the county level program.

  Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the problem. The Chinese Government, as 
they have been doing for the last 20 years, will run this program; and 
again, the UNFPA will give it more cover, which it certainly does not 
deserve.
  Women, it even says in the document, will be assessed a social 
compensation fee if they do not conform to the guidelines, the one-
child-per-couple program.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) but no money for 
UNFPA goes for Chinese abortion policies or abortion.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Smith amendment, with 
great respect for the maker of this amendment but in complete 
disagreement, because it would eliminate funding for international 
family planning under the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, and to 
support the Campbell-Maloney amendment.
  The Smith amendment, if enacted, would punish women and families 
around the world in a misguided effort to affect China's family 
planning program.
  I do not understand why the poorest women on this planet, year in and 
year out, must be held hostage to the conservative politics of the 
Republican party. And I say that, as I say, with respect for the 
individuals involved here.
  We should ask, who suffers from the Smith amendment? The World Health 
Organization estimates that nearly 600,000 women die each year of 
pregnancy and child-birth related causes. Nearly all of these women are 
in developing countries.
  The UNFPA funds program to reduce this mortality and related health 
problems. Women around the world, particularly impoverished women, will 
be harmed by this amendment.
  I understand my colleagues' concern about some of the horrible 
practices in China. That is why this amendment says that any funds used 
in China by UNFPA will be deducted from the UNFPA. None of us, none of 
us, support forced abortions or forced sterilizations.
  The Campbell-Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment addresses these 
concerns by specifically banning U.S. funds from being spent in China. 
Furthermore, it requires that for every dollar that UNFPA spends in 
China, America's contribution will be reduced, as I have mentioned.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I follow closely the human rights 
violations in China. The gentleman from

[[Page 16599]]

New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is a leader on that subject, and I support what 
he wants to do about China. And that is what we do in the Campbell-
Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment.
  While current law already bans U.S. funding for abortions or abortion 
services, to once and for all overcome any misunderstanding, this 
amendment once again reiterates that prohibition of U.S. funding for 
abortions.
  We should note that UNFPA is already on record in opposing coercion 
and UNFPA conforms to universal human rights standards. The UNFPA does 
not fund abortions nor abortion-related activities anywhere in the 
world. UNFPA opposes China's one-child-per-family policy.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment and to support the 
Campbell-Gilman-Maloney-Crowley amendment.
  With these legal protections and the tremendous need for family 
planning efforts around the world, Congress should not block important 
programs that promote women's safety and health.
  UNFPA programs work and these programs should be given the 
opportunity to go forward.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to 
how much time remains on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 19\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Smith-Barcia amendment 
to the American Embassy Security Act.
  The Smith-Barcia amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions to the 
UNFPA until UNFPA terminates its involvement with the Chinese coercive 
population control program or until China ends its brutal and abusive 
one-child-per-family policy.
  For 20 years, the UNFPA has been a supporter and defender of China's 
population control program, giving the Chinese Government over $150 
million.
  It is a tragedy that some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would even suggest that we should vote to send taxpayer money to 
support this brutal Chinese program. This is a tragic and wasteful 
expenditure of U.S. taxpayer money.
  Why would we contribute taxpayer money to a program that has been a 
partner to some of the most heinous population control programs in the 
world, including incarcerating pregnant women in barracks until they 
consent to abortions or sterilizations, forcing pregnant women to 
attend ``study sessions'' away from their families until they agree to 
have abortions, and carrying about sterilizations without the consent 
or knowledge of the women while rendering other medical services?
  The worst part of this is that UNFPA is turning a blind eye to these 
atrocities against the women of China. In fact, UNFPA has publicly 
praised their forced abortion program in China. UNFPA even provides 
cover for China's program by calling it voluntary.
  This program is anything but voluntary. Here are some horrifying 
examples. It is reported that Australia has deported at least three 
pregnant women to China, and one of them was very close to her delivery 
date. So what happened? Just days before this woman was to give birth, 
she was forced to have an abortion.
  This abuse is beyond tragic. I do not understand how anyone, in good 
conscience, could support UNFPA while they are funding and actively 
promoting China's oppressive population control program.
  Now, my colleagues will hear our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle push for a compromise with the Gilman-Campbell amendment. Do not 
be fooled.

                              {time}  1930

  The Gilman-Campbell amendment is merely an attempt to block an up-or-
down vote on this issue, an attempt to block an up-or-down vote on 
Smith-Barcia. It is window dressing for those who are afraid to admit 
they are supporting China's policy.
  In fact, this amendment proposal was defeated by the House when it 
was last offered in 1997 and it should be rejected again today. Why do 
we need to keep going over this again and again?
  This is plain and simple. The U.S. already contributes to activities 
to promote women's health and well-being by contributing to other 
international organizations and NGOs that work in this field. It is not 
necessary to finance organizations such as UNFPA which collaborate with 
programs that violate the fundamental human rights of women and 
children.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, in a show of our bipartisan strength the 
Republican side wishes to yield a 2- minute slot to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, there is something about the debate on 
UNFPA up to this point that has been really interesting. The people 
against UNFPA do not really want to talk about UNFPA. Instead, they 
want to talk about China and how bad China's policies are. You could 
never figure from these folks that UNFPA spends less than 2 percent of 
its worldwide budget in China and is active in only 32 of China's 2,700 
counties.
  Now, I do not like China's policies on controlling family size, 
forced abortion or forced sterilization and UNFPA's program in China 
moves China away from these practices.
  I would rather talk about the 98 percent rather than the 2 percent. 
In Uganda, UNFPA runs programs to eliminate female genital mutilation 
and reduce the number of mothers who die giving birth. In the 
Philippines, UNFPA helps women achieve economic empowerment. In Kosovo, 
UNFPA gave pregnant refugee women thousands of clean delivery kits. 
They did the same thing in Central America after Hurricane Mitch and in 
Papua-New Guinea after a tidal wave. In Africa, UNFPA is cooperating 
with UNICEF and WHO on a pilot initiative in seven countries to prevent 
mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
  This is what UNFPA does. What UNFPA does not do is support or fund 
abortions. UNFPA does not condone coercion in family planning nor do 
they support China's one-child policy and they do not support forced 
sterilization.
  If we vote against UNFPA, we will ensure that more mothers will die 
giving birth, that more children will contract HIV disease and that 
female genital mutilation will not go away. That cannot be what we want 
and that is why we have to support UNFPA.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Smith amendment to H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of 
1999, and in support of the Gilman-Campbell substitute amendment. While 
the Smith amendment claims to protect women from coerced abortions in 
China, its real effect is to deny poor women around the world access to 
voluntary family planning. Further, the Smith amendment fails to 
acknowledge that the United Nations Population Fund does not support 
abortion as a family planning method, opposes quotas in family planning 
programs, and works only in counties in China that have abolished such 
practices.
  The Gilman-Campbell substitute amendment, on the other hand, provides 
the needed funds for millions of women and men around the world who 
depend on international support for family planning, AIDS prevention, 
and approved infant and maternal mortality. Simply put, the lives of 
poor women around the world are at stake if we should pass the Smith 
amendment. Poor resources make these women highly vulnerable to death-
related delivery practices, sexually-transmitted diseases, and other 
horrible conditions.
  Please support the Campbell-Gilman amendment and let us defeat the 
Smith amendment.

[[Page 16600]]


  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Smith-Barcia amendment 
and to oppose the Campbell amendment. This amendment prevents U.S. 
funding for China's deplorable population control program which 
includes coercion, forced abortion and forced sterilization for both 
Chinese men and women.
  Women all over China are victimized daily due to their desire to bear 
children. Let me share with Members a few of the methods used in 
China's so-called family planning policy that are a matter of record:
  Arresting pregnant women and taking them to abortion clinics tied up 
or in handcuffs; incarcerating pregnant women in barracks until they 
acquiesce to abortions and/or sterilizations; forcing pregnant women to 
attend ``study sessions'' away from their families until they agree to 
have abortions; carrying out sterilization or abortion without the 
consent or knowledge of the women while rendering other medical 
services; crushing the skulls of babies with forceps during delivery or 
injecting iodine, alcohol or formaldehyde into the soft spots of their 
tiny heads as they are crowning so that they are born dead; imprisoning 
husbands until their wives submit to child-killing procedures; cutting 
off food, electricity, water and wages for couples who refuse to comply 
with the Chinese government's barbaric policies; confiscating the 
furniture, livestock and even homes of families who refuse to comply; 
finally, demolishing the homes of those who refuse to comply, as 
reportedly occurred in two Catholic villages in the Hepel province.
  When Steven Mosher wrote from his research in China, he said this:

       From Sandhead Brigade there were 18 women, all 5 to 9 
     months pregnant, and many red-eyed from lack of sleep and 
     crying. They sat listlessly on short plank benches arranged 
     in a semicircle about the front of the room, where He 
     Kaifeng, a commune cadre and Communist Party member, 
     explained the purpose of the meeting. He said slowly and 
     deliberately, ``None of you has any choice in this matter. 
     The two of you who are 8 or 9 months pregnant will have a 
     caesarean; the rest of you will have a shot which will cause 
     you to abort.''

  In order to return home to their families, the women had to agree to 
abort their babies no matter how far along their pregnancies were.
  This is not family planning. These are outright human rights abuses. 
I do not believe that this is a pro-life or a pro-choice issue. It is a 
human issue. It is a woman's issue. It is a family issue. This is an 
issue of blatant government abuse and the United States taxpayers 
should not in any way be a part of it.
  Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, we should agree that China's 
so-called family planning techniques are inhumane. Their slogan is, 
this is what China uses to market their campaigns, ``Better to have 
more graves than more than one child.''
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot stand by claiming that we see no evil, hear 
no evil as the UNFPA assists the China program, holding it up as an 
excellent example for other countries. Until the UNFPA stops aiding in 
the abuse of women in China, we should not fund it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Barcia amendment.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) control my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) have done here 
has been truly on a bipartisan basis.
  I was sorry to hear the comments of the gentlewoman from San 
Francisco (Ms. Pelosi) that seemed to put a partisan tinge on this. 
This is the Campbell-Frelinghuysen-Gilman-Greenwood-Horn-Houghton-Nancy 
Johnson-Kelly-Morella-Shays amendment and we tried to match every one 
of those with a Democratic Member of the House and that has been done. 
This amendment is truly bipartisan.
  When the Chinese Nationalists moved from the mainland to Taiwan in 
1949, they established one of the world's most dynamic economies. In 
the 1960s and the 1970s, there were billboards throughout Taiwan. On 
those billboards were happy faces and smiles in the family of four of 
which two were little kids. Then there was the family and maybe six 
little kids and they had unhappy faces. The government educated the 
population. They did that with contraception, not abortion.
  This is what we are talking about in the Campbell amendment. It is 
not funds for abortion. It is funds for contraception, not abortion. A 
wise population policy is sorely needed in this world. Over population 
is the most serious problem in the world today. There has been a 
population explosion in Africa, Asia, and the developing nations of 
Latin America. Without educating their people, those countries will not 
have a prosperous economy as is the Republic of China on Taiwan. The 
Taiwanese will have opportunities.
  I happen to be particularly interested in the country of Cambodia. 
There are 50,000 to 60,000 Cambodians in Long Beach, California, where 
I live. These refugees chose freedom and have opportunity. When I look 
at what is going on in the homeland which was devastated by the 
murderous Pol Pot. He killed more than a million of his fellow 
countrymen. People who live in Cambodia need a population program. 
Those in this chamber who want to stop an effective United Nations 
Population Program are just plain wrong. We need these funds for 
contraception. Women not only in the United States but in developing 
nations, in Africa, Latin America and South Asia, need those funds. The 
House should not be shortsighted as we have been too often in this 
Chamber. If you want to reduce abortions, then encourage contraception 
and family planning.
  How can you not have contraception and let impoverished women be 
forced to have abortions. Provide family planning and contraception? 
Then you will not need abortions. Think of the success on Taiwan. That 
is what other nations must do. Taiwan's success showed that a nation 
does not need to chew up its economic human resources. Taiwan has 
provided a good life for most of its people. The people Mr. Campbell's 
amendment would help do not have a good life. Vote for the Campbell 
amendment and help thousands of people out of poverty.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-
Maloney-Gilman amendment and in opposition to the Smith amendment.
  The debate is very simple. If you support the work that the United 
Nations Population Fund is doing around the world to reduce unintended 
pregnancies and abortions, encourage child spacing and proper nutrition 
for mothers and babies, and help women deliver healthy babies in high 
risk areas, then vote for the Campbell amendment. If you support 
cutting off this critical assistance and leaving women around the world 
without the resources they need to keep themselves and their babies 
healthy and strong, then vote for the Smith amendment. It is just that 
simple.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Campbell-Maloney-Gilman 
Amendment and in opposition to the Smith Amendment.
  This debate is very simple. If you support the work that the United 
Nations Population Fund is doing around the world to reduce unintended 
pregnancies and abortions, encourage child spacing and proper nutrition 
for mothers and babies, and help women deliver healthy babies in high 
risk areas, then vote for the Campbell Amendment. If you support 
cutting off this critical assistance and leaving women around the world 
without the resources they need to keep themselves and their babies 
healthy and strong, then vote for the Smith Amendment. It's that 
simple.
  The fact is: UNFPA does not support coercive abortion policies in 
China or anywhere else. UNFPA only operates in counties in

[[Page 16601]]

China that have eliminated the use of any coercive family planning 
measures, and encourages voluntary family planning and the elimination 
of coercive policies throughout China.
  No one can deny that the need for family planning services in 
developing countries is urgent and the aid we provide is both valuable 
and worthwhile.
  My colleagues, in forty years our planet's population will more than 
double. As a responsible world leader, the United States must do more 
to deter the environmental, political, and health consequences of this 
explosive growth.
  And let us not forget what family planning assistance means to women 
around the world. Complications from pregnancy, childbirth and unsafe 
abortion are the leading killers of women of reproductive age 
throughout the developing world. One million women die each year as a 
result of reproductive health problems.
  Mr. Chairman, this vote comes down to one question: Do you support 
family planning? If you support voluntary family planning to reduce 
unintended pregnancies and abortions around the world, you must vote 
yes on the Campbell Amendment and no on the Smith Amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Just let me remind the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) regarding 
his statement earlier, we provide about $385 million to nongovernmental 
organizations and governments. Hopefully it will have the Mexico City 
conditions attached to it. But that money goes for contraception and 
for family planning. We also provide AIDS money and child survival 
money. There is an enormous amount of humanitarian aid and I support 
much of that aid.
  Let me also point out, Mr. Chairman, that Amnesty International 
recently did a report on coercion in China. They pointed out with an 
absolute, declarative sentence, this is something that many of the 
human rights groups have pointed out, including the State Department in 
its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Here is Amnesty's 
statement: ``Birth control has been compulsory in China since 1979.'' 
There is no right to choice on birth control. That includes, by the 
Chinese government's definition, abortion. It is estimated that in 
excess of 10 million abortions are performed in China every year, 90 
percent of which are coerced in some way. Brothers and sisters, I say 
to my colleagues, are illegal in China. It is a one-child-per-couple 
policy. That is not family planning. That is Big Brother control.
  I would hope my colleagues would realize that the means to 
implementing that just happen to be IUDs, abortion, things that many 
people in this Chamber, particularly on the other side of this issue, 
have no problem with. But when it is coerced, when that line of 
demarcation is crossed and forced abortion, which was properly 
construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg War Crimes 
Tribunal, is looked at by the UNFPA year in and year out as being a 
voluntary program, that is where we have to draw the line and say, 
``Wait a minute. The judgment of this organization is suspect.'' It is 
a very coercive program. Read the State Department's report. It is 
replete with examples and statements about how coercive it truly is. 
And read Amnesty's report. These are human rights organizations that 
have come out and said it is coercive.
  I hope that we can draw the line and withhold this $20 million 
because an organization that does this kind of thing does not deserve 
it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman very 
much for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the Smith 
amendment and in support of the Campbell-Gilman-Maloney bipartisan 
amendment. Frankly I think it is important to emphasize what the United 
Nations Population Fund really does. The Smith amendment simply 
prevents it from doing the good work that it does all over the world. 
That is the important statement that we make today. The UNFPA is the 
largest internationally funded source of population assistance to 
developing countries. It is funded through voluntary contributions by 
88 member nations.
  This is not an isolated group. This is not a group that participates 
in coercing forced abortions in China. In fact, they stand up against 
it. Most of their work deals with family planning. Their donors are the 
United States, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, 
among others. They provide support to 150 countries in Africa, Latin 
America, the Caribbean, Asia, the Pacific, the Arab states and in 
Europe. Since 1969, UNFPA has provided almost $4 billion for voluntary 
family planning.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, I think it is unreasonable to suggest that someone who 
provides a safe delivery kit is involved in forced and coercive 
abortions. This is a kit that saves lives, and I would argue very 
vigorously, Mr. Chairman, that the work of the UNFPA should be 
supported and this amendment, the Smith amendment, voids what we are 
trying to do, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to support wholeheartedly 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) and all others in a bipartisan way to promote family 
planning.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by 
Representative Campbell, Gilman, and Maloney. This amendment restores 
funding to the United Nations Population Fund (``UNFPA'') but ensures 
that no U.S. funds will be spent in China. It allows the U.S. to 
maintain control over the funds it provides to the UNFPA and requires 
that any funds used for a program in China shall be deducted from the 
funds made available to the UNFPA.
  The UNFPA is the largest internationally funded source of population 
assistance to developing countries. It is funded through voluntary 
contributions by 88 member nations. The major donors are the United 
States, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Great 
Britain, Canada, Finland, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Australia and 
Italy. However, U.S. funding for UNFPA was eliminated for FY 1999.
  UNFPA provides support to 150 countries in Africa, Latin America, the 
Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific, the Arab states in Europe. Since 1969, 
UNFPA has provided almost $4 billion for voluntary family planning and 
reproductive health care. UNFPA does not provide support for abortions 
or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world.
  The services provided by the UNFPA are crucial in developing 
countries. Each year an estimated 600,000 women die as a result of 
pregnancy and childbirth where pregnancy and childbirth are among the 
leading causes of death for women of childbearing age.
  For example, this safe delivery kit is provided to women in 
developing countries. This kit contains a bar of soap, a disposable 
razor, a surgical blade, two rolls of umbilical tap, plastic sheeting 
and 12 rolls of gauze bandage. This kit saves the lives of the mother 
and the child.
  Women in these countries must have access to information that will 
allow them to make informed reproductive health decisions. These 
decisions can mean the difference between life and death.
  We all condemn the human rights abuses conducted by China. Therefore, 
this amendment requires that U.S. funds contributed to UNFPA be placed 
under specific restrictions. U.S. funds will be kept in a separate 
account and may not be commingled with other UNFPA funds. It also 
deducts dollar for dollar the funds that UNFPA spends in China.
  I urge my Colleagues to support this amendment. It restores the U.S. 
funding to UNFPA on behalf of women around the world. It also places 
restrictions on UNFPA funding to China. This amendment renews our 
commitment to save the lives of women around the world.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, governments in many countries that have 
experienced rapid growth for nearly two generations are now bursting at 
the seams and are unable to meet the challenge of providing even the 
most basic services for their citizens. This is the arena in which the 
UNFPA works, an arena in which every action has a reaction. In the most 
extreme cases, population growth along with poverty, ethnic tensions, 
and the misgovernance has resulted in vile conflict. The UNFPA is one 
of the most effective

[[Page 16602]]

means available to address the problems caused by rapid population 
growth around the world. Its 900 staffers work in more than 150 
countries to provide voluntary family planning and reproductive health 
services. By doing so, it allows women and men to freely choose to 
limit the size of their families, and it helps to reduce the number of 
unintended pregnancies and abortions.
  I would like to ask my colleagues to ask themselves a few questions 
when voting on this, questions like:
  Who would do this work if the UNFPA did not?
  Where would some countries be without UNFPA?
  I know the answers I think of are unsettling, and I am sure many 
here, when they stop and think about the bigger picture, will come up 
with their own stark conclusions.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Campbell amendment and support 
funding for UNFPA. And finally let me say in response to my partner in 
this effort, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) I am 
disappointed. I would like to point out that both Democrats and 
Republicans are supportive of family planning; just as, sadly, some 
Democrats and some Republicans oppose it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, at least 350 million couples worldwide 
do not have access to information about family planning and a full 
range of contraceptives. Each day, 55,000 unsafe abortions take place, 
95 percent of them in developing countries.
  Unsafe abortions result in nearly 600,000 maternal deaths. It is 
estimated that the impact of the $20 million cut off will lead to half 
a million more unintended pregnancies, 200,000 more abortions, 1,200 
maternal deaths, 22,500 infant deaths. And while we are worried about 
human rights in China, of course, we are, let us worry about what 
desperate women will do. They will try to induce abortions by inserting 
objects like sticks and wires and knitting needles into the uterus, 
drinking harmful or poisonous substances. They will take dangerous 
doses of over-the-counter medication, douche with poisonous and caustic 
substances, inflict physical abuse like falling down stairs and blows 
to the belly and jumping from heights.
  This is the kind of violence against women we need to worry about, 
and we can prevent if we support the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) and oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), my good friend.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith-
Barcia amendment and in opposition to the Campbell-Gilman amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been many efforts to make the Campbell 
amendment look reasonable and rational and easy for a cross-section of 
Members to support. However, this amendment merely masks support for 
the inhumane treatment of women in China and all around the world. We 
cannot overlook the horrendous treatment of women because the United 
Nations Population Fund provides some needed services.
  Just recently, the world was confronted with the reality of China's 
forced abortion policy when a woman who was deported from Australia to 
China was forced to go to the People's hospital just 10 days before she 
was due to give birth, and she was forced to undergo a mandatory 
abortion. Fellow Members of the House, this is totally unacceptable and 
intolerable, yet the organization we are talking about funding today, 
the United Nations Population Fund, does not even acknowledge a problem 
with China's policies. We should not add $20 million in funding to this 
organization.
  Mr. Chairman, China is not the only place where the United Nations 
Population Fund is active in implementing questionable and sometimes 
outrageous policies. Peru's population program has violated the human 
rights of women by coercing them into sterilization. This may include 
offering poor women food in exchange for sterilization or pressing 
health workers to reach sterilization quotas and women being sterilized 
without their consent.
  The U.N. Population Fund is also active in Vietnam and North Korea 
which have been credibly accused of coercive practices. They have not 
only turned a blind eye to forced abortions and sterilizations, but 
have even given China an award in its population control program.
  I believe we must stand up and say this is enough. We should not fund 
the United Nations Population Fund until the organization has reformed 
and renounced coercive and abusive policies. The United States of 
America should not give the United Nations Population Fund $25 million 
in taxpayers' money until they stop these practices.
  According to the Campbell amendment, we will give 25 million to the 
United Nations Population Fund, and we will take it away if we can 
prove that they are involved.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield since he 
referred to my amendment?
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Can the gentleman kindly point where in my amendment I 
give any money to the UNFPA?
  Mr. DeMINT. As I understand it, the gentleman's amendment does fund.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the 
underlying bill funds, and my amendment takes away from that funding 
dollar for dollar whatever UNFPA spends in China.
  Mr. DeMINT. Okay, but it does not address, reclaiming my time, this 
does not address what this organization is doing around the world, and 
it does not send a signal to the organization that we want 
accountability to this horrendous treatment of women.
  We must strike at the heart of the issue, we must do whatever we can 
to send a message to the world that while we appreciate the good things 
that this organization does, we expect them to stop this inhumane 
treatment.
  Please join me in sending a clear message to the Chinese, the United 
Nations, that we do not condone this behavior.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Ms. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to ask the gentleman from 
California, in a Dear Colleague dated July 15 signed by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) he points out as a truth UNFPA manages 
its own program in China.
  Does he stand by that statement?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the UNFPA arrangement 
with China yields to China the management of the program within China, 
and for that reason I do not, in my amendment, give a dime to China.
  In fact, if the United Nations spends one dime in China, my amendment 
takes that dime back from the U.N. so that the United States tax 
dollars are not going to China.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, the point I am trying to make is that in a Dear Colleague that 
was sent to every Member on the Hill, every House Member, the statement 
has been made that the UNFPA manages its own program in China. That is 
demonstrably false.
  As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, the United Nations 
Population Fund on January 7, 1998, assigned by Dr. Sadik what will be 
the role of the U.S. government or the Chinese government was the 
question. The answer: The Chinese government at the central and 
provincial levels would be in charge of coordination in terms of 
monitoring, guidance, and evaluation. It also points out that the local 
government; that is, the Chinese government, will be in charge of the 
actual implementation of project activities at the county level. The 
UNFPA will not

[[Page 16603]]

be managing this program, so that it is false and misleading, and I 
hope Members will take that into consideration.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
bipartisan Gilman-Campbell amendment, and I place into the Record a 
letter to the ambassador, the American ambassador at the U.N., 
outlining UNFPA's policy that states there will be no birth quotas, 
that all birth quotas are lifted, and if there is any coercion it will 
be investigated and the program will be suspended. And also, a letter 
from the State Planning Commission of China, I would like to have that 
placed into the Record, and I repeat that this debate is not about 
China. It is about helping the 149 other countries where UNFPA is 
saving the lives of women giving birth to children and family planning.
  The letters referred to are as follows:

                               United Nations Population Fund,

                                     New York, NY, 7 January 1998.
     His Excellency, Mr. Bill Richardson,
     Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent 
         Representative of the United States of America to the 
         United Nations, United States Mission to the United 
         Nations, New York, NY.
       Dear Mr. Ambassador: I am writing to provide you with 
     information in response to the questions and concerns raised 
     by your Government in your letter of 2 December regarding the 
     UNFPA Programme of Assistance to China, which will be 
     presented to the UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board at this month's 
     session.
       Your questions with our responses are attached. We hope 
     that this information will answer the queries to your 
     satisfaction. We shall stay in close contact with you and 
     your staff in preparation for the Executive Board, and remain 
     available to answering further questions you may have.
       I remain, dear Mr. Ambassador,
           Yours sincerely,
                                                      Nafis Sadik,
                                          Under-Secretary-General.

Responses to Questions Raised by U.S. Government on the UNFPA Programme 
   of Assistance to the Government of the People's Republic of China 
                              (1998-2000)


   1. which counties will be included in the program? what is their 
    population and how do they compare to national averages in ICPD 
 threshold indicators? how did unfpa ascertain the commitment of local 
               authorities to icpd goals and principles?

       Below is a list of the counties to be included under the 
     program. The UNFPA field office in Beijing is in the process 
     of preparing a detailed profile of all 32 counties. The most 
     important input into these profiles, however, will be a 
     baseline study which will be carried out in February 1998 
     with the technical assistance of an expert from Tulane 
     University, USA. Unfortunately, it was not possible to carry 
     out this baseline survey ahead of time owing to the fact that 
     no UNFPA funding was available to be spent in China in 1996 
     and 1997. This survey will provide a clear picture of the RH 
     situation prevailing in selected counties.
       ICPD indicators, while available nationally are not broken 
     down to the county level. This is because the sources of data 
     are sample surveys which may not be representative at the 
     county level. The counties were selected based on criteria 
     agreed to with the Government: the commitment of local 
     authorities to the projects and to the principles of the ICPD 
     and the availability and commitment to a minimum of 
     counterpart funding toward project activities; the existence 
     of a good working relationship between State Family Planning 
     Commission and the Ministry of Health at the county level; 
     counties were selected where we are optimistic that results 
     can be obtained within the three year time frame. Hence 
     counties that are too poor, too remote, or too lacking in 
     counterpart funding and enlightened leadership were not 
     chosen. For the same reason the selection process also tried 
     to include a cross section of counties from different regions 
     of the country.
       UNFPA worked with the national Government to ensure that 
     local authorities possessed a commitment to the ICPD, 
     political will and the availability of counterpart resources.
     County and province
     Fengnin--Hebei.
     Luanxian--Hebei.
     Wenshui--Shanxi.
     Aohanqi--Inner Mongolia.
     Guichi--Ahui.
     Xuanzho--Ahui.
     Jianou--Fujian.
     Yushui--Jiangxi.
     Dongmi--Shandong.
     Xinyang--Henan.
     Mengzh--Henan.
     Yingsha--Hubei.
     Qianjian--Hubei.
     Linwu--Hunan.
     Youxian--Hunan.
     Sihui--Guangdong.
     Lipu--Guangxi.
     Longan--Guangxi.
     Wencha--Hainan.
     Bazhong--Sichuan.
     Yilong--Sichuan.
     Pingba--Guizhou.
     Zhenfen--Guizhou.
     Xinping--Yunnan.
     Xiangyu--Yunnan.
     Luonan--Shaanxi.
     Xixiang--Shaanxi.
     Yuzhong--Gansu.
     Datong--Qinghai.
     Pingluo--Ningxia.
     Kuerle--Xinjiang.
     Rongcha--Chongqing.


2. will birth quotas remain in effect in these counties, and will women 
  face sanctions if they become pregnant or bear a child outside the 
                                 quota?

       No birth quotas or targets will be applied in the counties 
     participating in the project. Funds will be released only 
     after the UNFPA field office has received official written 
     commitment from the provincial authorities that quotas and 
     targets have been removed in each of the participating 
     counties.
       In the project counties couples will be allowed to have as 
     many children as they want, whenever they want, without 
     requiring birth permits or being subject to quotas; however, 
     they may still be subject to a ``social compensation fee'' if 
     they decide to have more children than recommended by the 
     policy. State Family Planning Commission has indicated that 
     it is the Government's intention to gradually eliminate 
     incentives and disincentives from the family planning 
     programme.


 3. Will foreign observers, including NGO's and diplomatic personnel, 
   have access to project counties and to relevant county officials?

       It has been agreed with the Chinese Government that the 
     project will follow all UNFPA procedures for monitoring an 
     evaluation. In addition, the government has agreed that the 
     project counties will be open to monitoring and evaluation 
     visits by foreigners and that county officials would be 
     available to talk to foreign delegations.
       As evidence to this openess it should be noted that 
     recently (28 November-3 December 1997) a delegation of 
     foreign diplomats representing 17 countries on the UNFPA 
     Executive Board participated in a field visit to project 
     counties to gain a better understanding of the prevailing 
     situation in the field and of the proposed project 
     activities. The delegation which included 6 ambassadors was 
     composed of representatives from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, 
     the Czech Republic, France, Ghana, India, Ireland, the 
     Republic of Korea, Libya, Malaysia, Norway, Romania, 
     Tanzania, Thailand, Ukraine and the U.S.A.


 4. What procedures will be in place to see that there are no coercive 
              practices in the counties assisted by UNFPA?

       Frequent and rigorous monitoring visits and activities will 
     be undertaken by UNFPA and independent consultants as part of 
     the project work plan, which includes inter-alia, surveying 
     client satisfaction, surveying FP service provider skills, 
     and qualitative and quantitative assessment of progress made 
     under the project.
       The first important crucial step is the written commitment 
     of the local Government authorities to the principles of 
     ICPD, and specifically to ensuring that no coercion takes 
     place in the selected counties. As mentioned earlier, no 
     funds will be released until written commitment has been 
     received from each of the local authorities of all the 
     participating Provinces.


 5. What will be the role of the Chinese government? What will be the 
                             role of UNFPA?

       The Chinese Government at the central and provincial levels 
     will be in charge of coordination, internal monitoring, 
     guidance and evaluation, all of which will be conducted in 
     accordance to ICPD principles. The local government will be 
     in charge of the actual implementation of project activities 
     at the county level.
       UNFPA's role will include monitoring and evaluation at the 
     county level (as discussed above).
       The projects will be executed by UN agencies and 
     international NGOs.


6. What procedures would UNFPA follow and what recourse is available if 
  physical, psychological or economic coercion is reported in project 
areas? Under what circumstances would UNFPA consider termination of all 
                        or part of its program?

       If UNFPA finds that there have been violations of the 
     project guidelines in any county UNFPA will suspend 
     operations of the project activities until the situation has 
     been corrected.
       If the situation is not corrected it will be reported to 
     the Executive Board.
                                         The State Family Planning


                                          Commission of China,

                                           Beijing, June 30, 1998.
     Dr. Nafis Sadik,
     Executive Director, United Nations Population Fund, New York, 
         USA.
       Dear Dr. Sadik: It has been a great pleasure to meet with 
     you last March during the

[[Page 16604]]

     High Level Meeting in Bangkok convened by ICOMP in 
     cooperation with UNFPA. As you have been informed the 
     orientation meeting for the project on RH/FP was held in 
     April of this year. The more than 160 participants to the 
     meeting include government officials from the State Family 
     Planning Commission (SFPC), the Ministry of Foreign Trade and 
     Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), Ministry of Health (MOH), 
     relevant provinces, prefectures and counties as well as 
     project managers, consultants and representatives from NGOs. 
     Mr. Sven Burmester, UNFPA representative in Beijing also 
     addressed the meeting.
       Agenda items of the meeting comprise the principles of 
     ICPD-POA, project objectives and activities, strengths and 
     challenges in achieving the project objectives as well as 
     project implementation plan. An outcome of the meeting is the 
     consensus on how to implement the project. Following the 
     meeting, the project counties have made considerable 
     preparatory work for the project: the setting up of project 
     leading groups headed by county governors or their deputies, 
     drafting of tentative work plans and even county-level 
     project orientation meetings in some cases.
       Following the ICPD, in the light of ICPD-POA, and China's 
     national reality and drawing on both China and other 
     countries' experiences, the Chinese government has made some 
     new decisions and initiatives in implementing its population 
     and family planning program. In 1995, SFPC announced that the 
     approach and practice of the family planning program will 
     undergo two transformations. In the same year, China's State 
     Council organized a national meeting to promote the 
     integrated approach for the family planning program. With a 
     view to meeting the need of the public on reproductive health 
     and family planning, a pilot project on quality service was 
     initiated by SFPC in 11 counties, and approaches of informed 
     choice of contraceptive methods are widely promoted across 
     the country. With still 50 million impoverished population in 
     the country, SFPC, in cooperation with other ministries and 
     departments, conducted activities which integrate family 
     planning with poverty alleviation, aiming at helping rural 
     women in income generation and thus improving their status. 
     Welcomed by the local people, these efforts have also created 
     favorable conditions and beneficial experiences for the 
     implementation of the project.
       After the orientation meeting, the project counties 
     reaffirmed their commitment to implementing the project in 
     the light of ICPD-POA, their local characteristics and with a 
     view of drawing on both domestic and foreign experiences. The 
     project counties promise to adopt an integrated approach: one 
     that will combine the promotion of family planning with 
     economic development, universal education, improvement of 
     women's status and provision of quality FP/RH services, and 
     ensure that implementation of the project is not in the form 
     of imposing birth quotas and acceptor targets on FP 
     providers. While the counties are fully aware that they will 
     be facing various challenges in the implementation of the 
     project, they have expressed their confidence in the 
     project's success, believing that the project objectives are 
     in conformity with that of China's reproductive health and 
     family planning program. Besides, China's post-ICPD 
     experiences in its reproductive health and family planning 
     program have also laid the required foundation for the 
     implementation of the project.
       I am very pleased to learn that the project document has 
     been finalized between the Government and UNFPA Beijing 
     Office and sent to the headquarters for approval. In the 
     meantime, we very much hope that the headquarters will speed 
     up the process to review and approve the project document so 
     as to ensure the achievement of the project objectives within 
     the limited project period. It is my belief that a good 
     implementation of the project will greatly facilitate the 
     fulfillment of the objectives set in ICPD-POA in China--a 
     country which is home to nearly a quarter of the world's 
     population and step up China's reproductive health and family 
     planning program. It is also the hope of both myself and my 
     colleagues that you yourself could come and visit some of the 
     project counties after the project starts.
       With my best wishes,
           Yours sincerely,
                                                       Li Honggui,
                                                    Vice Minister.

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the bipartisan Campbell-Maloney-Gilman amendment to restore funding 
to the United Nations Population Fund and in opposition to the Smith 
amendment. And in response to the most recent speaker on the other 
side, I think it is important to underscore once again the Campbell 
amendment provides no family planning money to China, it provides no 
family planning money for abortions. International family planning 
assistance is essential though in addressing two of the greatest 
challenges that face the developing world, providing better health care 
to women and reducing the rate of child mortality.
  That is what we ought to be focusing on here tonight. Over 585,000 
women a year die from complications due to pregnancy and childbirth. 
UNFPA extends prenatal and postnatal care and counseling, increasing 
the chance for survival for Third World children and their mothers. By 
simply teaching women to space their children 2 years apart, the UNFPA 
helps increase the survival rate for these children by almost 30 
percent.
  U.S. contributions to UNFPA also help prevent abortions, and we seem 
in some danger of losing sight of that tonight. I presume we all share 
that goal. Continuing to withhold U.S. funding for UNFPA will 
contribute to an estimated 500,000 unplanned pregnancies. That means 
abortions, perhaps 200,000 more abortions it has been estimated, as 
well as 1,200 maternal deaths, and 22,500 infant deaths. Studies show a 
clear link between the introduction of family planning services in 
Mexico, Columbia, Hungary, Russia, central Asian republics and a 
decline in the number of abortions.
  With this one vote, Mr. Chairman, we can help improve women's health, 
we can decrease child mortality, we can dramatically reduce the number 
of abortions worldwide. The United States cannot fail to meet these 
responsibilities. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Gilman-Campbell-Maloney 
amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and allowing me to participate in this debate. And I continue to 
wonder, if my colleagues do not support abortions, why would they 
oppose family planning? And when they oppose family planning, what it 
says to me is they want more abortions, because that is the direct 
outcome.
  And I also wonder why so many men stand up and do not want women to 
have knowledge about family planning, particularly in poor countries 
where they need it the most. I wonder what is humane about that? What 
is loving, what is kind about that? I am embarrassed by the opposition 
of so many to allow women to have family planning information. I 
support the measly $25 million that we would provide to the United 
Nations Population Fund, and I regretfully support the Campbell-
Maloney-Gilman-Crowley amendment of which I am cosponsor, which says 
that any money for family planning that goes to China would be 
deducted, so the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) cannot continue 
to make these false charges. There is no U.S. money going to China 
because we deduct it, and that is the bottom line.
  I support family planning because I am concerned about the projected 
growth of 800 million new people from 1990 to 2000, and projections of 
another 800 million new people from 2000 to 2010, and I wonder what 
this world is going to be like with so much poverty and death.

                              {time}  2000

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney-
Campbell-Gilman amendment and in opposition to the Smith amendment. I 
think it is very important that we get back to the facts here.
  As has been pointed out, the funding that we are talking about 
tonight goes into maternal and child health services and devices. This 
includes family planning; it includes birth control devices. These are 
exactly the types of tools that we need to put in the hands of men and 
women, particularly in our developing countries, who are seeking to 
improve the lives of themselves and their families and to better their 
own countries. There are many men and women in these countries who are 
struggling to support their families, and we should be encouraging them 
to engage in responsible family planning.
  Now, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has expressed a 
multitude

[[Page 16605]]

of concerns about practices in China. I think it is fair to say here 
that every Member of Congress standing here tonight deplores those 
activities. But it is also very clear and should be beyond dispute that 
there is not a single dollar proposed to go to China and to endorse any 
of those practices and, instead, will go to other countries.
  I urge adoption of the Campbell-Gilman-Maloney amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  I respect the previous speaker very much, and when he says every 
Member deplores what is going on in China, I believe that. The problem 
is the UNFPA does not deplore it. They have been fronting and 
whitewashing crimes against women for 20 years and they continue to do 
so. It speaks volumes of an organization when it says there is no 
coercion, when every human rights group and every Member of Congress 
says that there is.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Smith amendment and in very strong support of the bipartisan Gilman - 
Campbell - Greenwood - Porter - Horn - Johnson - Kelly - Morella - 
Shays - Boehlert amendment, and I thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for his leadership.
  Our amendment has deep and strong bipartisan support. What it says is 
that we want to do something to help women and the 149 countries 
receive maternal health care and child health care. Over 500,000 women 
die in childbirth each year. That is equivalent to one or two jumbo 
jets crashing every day. When there is just one crash, it is headline 
news for weeks; but the slow toll on women around the world is hardly 
on our radar screen.
  It is about giving out safe delivery kits as were handed out to the 
women refugees in Kosovo. These are handed out to poor women and 
children, and it saves lives. It is health care.
  Mr. Chairman, 179 countries support UNFPA. Let me tell my colleagues 
what it is not about. It is not about China; no money goes to China. 
And it is not about abortions, because no family planning money can be 
spent for abortions. If we continue the UNFPA cutoff, it will not hurt 
China. What it will hurt are women and children and lead to more 
abortions in the other 149 countries in which UNFPA works. It is about 
saving lives; it is about health care.
  There is a solution to the suffering, and that is family planning 
support. Support the Gilman-Campbell amendment, cosponsored by many, 
many others of our colleagues. I thank the deep, bipartisan coalition 
that has worked to correct the action of our country cutting off funds 
when 179 other countries have supported that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record at this time documentation in 
support of my position.

                [From the New York Times, July 15, 1999]

Vote Today To Support Maternal and Child Health--Family Planning Under 
                                  Fire


    support the gilman-campbell-maloney-crowley amendment to state 
                       department reauthorization

         (Submitted by Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of Congress)

       Last year Congress disgracefully cut off funding to the 
     United Nations Population Fund, an agency that supports 
     voluntary family planning services, maternal and child health 
     initiatives, and AIDS and sexually transmitted disease 
     prevention programs in 150 countries. In April the House 
     International Relations Committee wisely voted to restore $25 
     million for the program in 2000. A House vote on the State 
     Department authorization bill containing that contribution is 
     expected today.
       Once again, however, this worthy program is under attack by 
     anti-abortion forces. The Population Fund does not provide or 
     pay for abortion services in any country, and can actually 
     reduce the need for abortions. Yet Representative Christopher 
     Smith, a fervent abortion opponent, is expected to offer an 
     amendment to block funds for the program. He and others have 
     argued that the United States should contribute no money to 
     the agency unless it ceases all family planning activities in 
     China.
       This is senseless, because the fund's pilot project in 
     China is actually designed to end coercive population 
     policies. Under the program, the Chinese authorities have 
     agreed to abandon quotas like the one-child policy in 32 
     areas covered by the pilot project, and adopt instead new 
     strategies to slow birth rates, such as better contraception, 
     health care and expanded economic opportunities for women.
       Even so, as a tactical move, the program's supporters have 
     agreed to deduct any amount the Population Fund spends in 
     China, which is expected to be $5 million a year, from the 
     $25 million United States contributions. The House now has no 
     excuse for not financing family planning efforts that can 
     improve the lives of women all over the world.
                                  ____


              [From the Des Moines Register, May 28, 1999]

   Defusing the Population Bomb--Balance is Within Global Reach With 
                         Enough Unselfish Help

       It took 1,900 years from the birth of Christ to the dawning 
     of the 20th century for the world's human population to reach 
     2 billion. In a single century since, it will have tripled. 
     The 6-billion mark will be reached this October. An 
     additional billion should be on hand by about 2014.
       The good news is that life expectancy at birth has 
     increased by two-thirds in this century, as more infants 
     survive their first year. Further, while the population boom 
     continues, it has been slowed by family-planning efforts. Not 
     one industrialized country has a fertility rate higher than 
     the replacement level, according to the Population Reference 
     Bureau. The bad news is that, in the underdeveloped areas, 
     the slowing of population growth is due to a rising death 
     rate. Overtaxing the environment increases scarcities of 
     basic necessities, and could accelerate that increase.
       The world is running out of water to drink or use to grow 
     crops. Eight percent of the world's population faces chronic 
     water shortages, according to the United States Agency for 
     International Development, and by 2025, more than one-third 
     will face that danger. Hunger now kills 6 million a year. 
     Water shortages could reduce the grain harvest in India, 
     where already more than half of all children are 
     malnourished.
       The developed world, meanwhile, is reproducing responsibly. 
     Americans have achieved stability with a 2.0 fertility rate 
     (two children per woman). Our swelling population results 
     from immigration. Europe's fertility rate stands at 1.4. Asia 
     and Latin America show remarkable declines in the past 50 
     years, from 5.9 to 2.8 in Asia, 5.9 to 3.0 in Latin America. 
     But in Africa, the rate has fallen only from 6.6 to 5.6. And 
     where efforts to control population fail, starvation and 
     disease move in. World Watch Institute says the HIV virus is 
     reversing gains made in life expectancy in Africa. Since 
     1990, life expectancy in Botswana has dropped from 62 years 
     to 44.
       It means we have a very long way to go to find a healthy 
     population balance.
       The most hopeful note in the population statistics is that 
     50 percent of the world's married women of childbearing age 
     now practice family planning, compared to fewer than 10 
     percent just 30 years ago. The tragedy is that the percentage 
     isn't far higher than 50 percent.
       As the Population Reference Bureau notes, the decline in 
     childbearing was ``brought about by investments in family 
     planning and other health programs, in education, and in 
     greater social and economic opportunities, especially for 
     women.'' Control of their childbearing means greater health 
     and opportunity for both them and their children.
       The greatest accomplishment mankind could muster in the 
     coming century would be a guarantee that all of its newborns, 
     everywhere on the globe, enter the world with a decent chance 
     at a decent life. With unselfish help from the industrialized 
     nations, it is within our reach.
                                  ____


               [From the Houston Chronicle, July 7, 1999]

           Population Funding Will Help To Prevent Abortions

       As the century prepares to close, the world's population is 
     shooting inexorably toward the 6 billion mark and will 
     surpass it later this year. One billion will be teenagers 
     moving into their reproductive years, and the population 
     explosion can reasonably be expected to continue increasing 
     exponentially.
       This means a number of problems around the world, including 
     simply meeting the needs of education and jobs and the need 
     for family planning. World population has doubled since 1950. 
     What effect will it have on the environment, waste disposal 
     and immigration when it reaches 15 billion or more?
       The United Nations Population Fund, which plays a critical 
     role for millions of women and their families, has been made 
     a scapegoat in this country in recent years, with U.S. 
     funding for the UNPF caught up in a clash of ideologies that 
     is more about political grandstanding than about dealing with 
     the real issues and solutions to explosive population growth.
       In 1994 a program of action was adopted at the 
     International Conference on Population and Development, of 
     which the United States was a major architect. Five years 
     after its inception, significant progress can be cited in 
     nations where the plan is in place. But the

[[Page 16606]]

     greatest obstacles, say supporters, have been a lack of 
     financial resources and the unfulfilled commitment of donor 
     nations such as the United States. Congress, under the false 
     impression that tax money would be paying for abortions, 
     defunded the U.S. commitment last September.
       Earlier this year, the U.S. House International Relations 
     Committee took the first step in reversing this mistake when 
     it voted to restore funding. In the coming days, the full 
     House is expected to vote on that measure contained in the 
     State Department Authorization (HR 1211). Some in the House, 
     however, are threatening to strip this provision from the 
     funding legislation. That would be a very shortsighted and 
     misguided move.
       The sad irony is that the population program would actually 
     do far more in the way of family planning and the prevention 
     of unwanted pregnancies and abortions than its critics are 
     willing to admit. If the motivation for opposition to this 
     measure is truly to halt abortions, then those who would kill 
     it are actually doing the legislative equivalent of throwing 
     gasoline onto a fire.
       Members of the Texas congressional delegation will shortly 
     have an opportunity to do the right thing by leaving the 
     funding intact. Or they may opt to take the low road and 
     exacerbate the problem they claim they are trying to solve.
       We hope they choose the former over the cynical political 
     grandstanding and rhetorical sleight of hand.
                                  ____


                     [From the Star, June 16, 1999]

                            World Population

       The House of Representatives soon should consider renewal 
     of funding for the United Nations Fund for Population 
     Activities. That is always a difficult issue in Congress, 
     where last fall the House voted against this program as part 
     of the omnibus budget resolution.
       Family-planning assistance through the United Nations fund 
     is one of the most important foreign assistance programs 
     Congress considers because it contributes to universal access 
     to family planning, prenatal care and reproductive disease 
     services around the globe.
       Support for the $17 billion per year commitment to 
     population spending has been dwindling, particularly in this 
     country that formerly was a leader in international family 
     planning.
       Partly because of questions over paying for abortions in 
     China, Congress has capped spending for international family 
     planning at 70 percent of its 1995 level. However, the 
     legislation to be considered by the House would authorize $25 
     million in each of the next two fiscal years to the United 
     Nations fund as long as certain conditions are met. Among 
     them: None of the U.S. money would go to China and U.S. funds 
     would not be mixed with other United Nations funds.
       Further, the United Nations would have to meet other 
     restrictions in regards to its spending in China or the 
     United States could reduce its contributions. These 
     conditions should satisfy critics.
       World population growth is slowing, but it is problematic 
     in developing nations. This year the world reaches 6 billion 
     people. In another 14 years, the number is expected to rise 
     to 7 billion, a total that could be reached faster depending 
     on regional birth rates, the effect of AIDS, longer life 
     expectancies and family-planning programs.
       The United States plays a pivotal role, particularly in 
     leading other developed nations, in slowing population 
     growth. Congress should reauthorize effective programs 
     through the United Nations fund.
                                  ____


                [From the Courier-Journal, July 5, 1999]

          UN Population Efforts Need Our House Members' Votes

       Five years after the United Nations Population Fund's 
     historic Cairo conference, there's still no consensus on 
     issues such as abortion, family planning and sex education. 
     As a result, final agreement on an action plan was still 
     being blocked at the UN last week by a group of small nations 
     mostly Catholic and Muslim and including the likes of Libya 
     and Sudan.
       The good news is that population growth has, in fact, 
     slowed in many places, thanks in part to the UN's efforts. 
     But one big obstacle to more progress has been money. In a 
     week or so, the U.S. House of Representatives will be able to 
     do something about that, by restoring funds for the UN 
     population program to the Foreign Relations Authorization 
     Act.
       Supporters fear that, if past attitudes are indicative, GOP 
     members from this area will say no. But they hope that two 
     new Democrats--Ken Lucas of Kentucky and Baron Hill of 
     Southern Indiana--will say yes. We hope so, too.
       The Cairo conference produced surprising agreement among 
     disparate people: the Pope, Vice President Al Gore, leaders 
     of Christian and Islamic countries, feminists, greens, 
     scientists, prophets of doom, and condom salesmen. The 
     abortion issue stymied unanimity, but there was broad 
     commitment to more family planning, more education, and more 
     effort to improve women's and children's health.
       Sometime this fall, the world's population will reach 6 
     billion, one-sixth of them teenagers entering their 
     reproductive years. But, thanks to efforts by governments, 
     charities and the UN, there's still a chance to hold the 
     total to something like 9.8 billion by 2050. Mexico is 
     showing how it can be done.
       Earlier this month, New York Times reporter Sam Dillon 
     described the spectacular drop in Mexico's birth rate, from 
     seven children per woman in 1965 to 2.5 today. That decline 
     has produced what population experts call a demographic 
     bonus--what Dillon described as ``the opportunity to generate 
     higher savings rates and domestic investments that can bring 
     rapid development, if the bonus is managed shrewdly.''
       Such progress is crucial for a country that already can't 
     supply jobs for the 1.3 million new workers who enter the job 
     market each year. It's also important north of the border. 
     Economic troubles have pushed the yearly total of workers 
     leaving Mexico for the United States from 27,000 in the 1960s 
     to more than 277,000 now.
       Mexico's record is being duplicated, sometimes exceeded, 
     around the world, especially in Latin America. But more could 
     have been accomplished had it not been for the hundreds of 
     millions in cuts imposed on overseas family planning by the 
     GOP Congress, which defunded the U.N. effort last September.
       Democratic Reps. Lucas and Hill may have conservatives in 
     their districts pushing for a ``no'' vote, but they won't be 
     under the same pressure as their GOP colleagues to oppose 
     renewal of appropriations for the United Nations Population 
     Fund.
       They can do the right thing. And their GOP colleagues 
     always have the option of surprising everyone by casting 
     sensible, humane votes.
                                  ____


            [From the San Francisco Examiner, July 9, 1999]

   Reproduction Error--Congressional Conservatives Persist in Their 
Mistaken Notion That Global Family Planning Efforts Don't Deserve U.S. 
                                 Money

       Ample reasons exist to continue the worldwide fight to 
     control population. Survival is the first, but quality of 
     life is an important byproduct. Still, the battle expected 
     this summer in the U.S. Congress will be over whether 
     managing the Earth's population is a goal worthy to pursue.
       Capitol Hill, unfortunately, is where domestic politics and 
     notions of morality get mixed up with sound public policy and 
     good science. The Hill also is where this country will soon 
     decide whether to support the United Nations Population Fund. 
     Congress' action will occur shortly before the world's 
     population is predicted to top 6 billion (as soon as late 
     July). Last year, Congress nixed $25 million for the U.N. 
     office.
       The controversy is created by a misperception. Some 
     congressional conservatives are confused about international 
     family planning efforts. By law, the United States cannot 
     provide funds for abortions overseas, but the religious right 
     carries the debate further. It argues that the U.S. should 
     not give funds for other family planning activities to an 
     organization that also provides abortions or even just 
     abortion counseling. Its bizarre reasoning is that U.S. 
     support will allow those organizations to shift money into 
     promoting abortion.
       There's no evidence of that. But there's plenty of evidence 
     that denying women birth control information creates more 
     abortions, more unwanted babies and more misery. Where's the 
     compassion in these Capitol Hill conservatives?
       Experts say the world adds 78 million people a year, or the 
     equivalent of San Francisco's population every three days.
       The prospect of overpopulation ought to worry everyone. As 
     the Earth's resources become more and more strained, the 
     misery won't be confined to Third World women denied facts or 
     contraception. Hardship will intrude into middle class 
     neighborhoods, country clubs and even onto the floor of the 
     House of Representatives.
       Full funding of U.N. population efforts constitutes common 
     sense.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to announce the remaining time.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 6 minutes remaining; 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) has 2 minutes remaining; 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) will have the 
right to close.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is what the bill says. The bill gives $25 million 
to the United Nations Family Planning Agency and it says, no money for 
abortions. This is what the bill does. It says money from the U.S. 
taxpayer cannot go for abortion. It also says money from the U.S. 
taxpayer cannot go to China. That is what the bill says, the underlying 
bill. No money for abortion; no money for China.
  Our good friend from New Jersey says, but this is not enough, because 
the United Nations might give some

[[Page 16607]]

money of its own, some other people's money to China. So what the 
gentleman from New Jersey does is punish every other country on earth 
that might receive help from the United Nations Family Planning Agency.
  I have been to sub-Saharan Africa almost every break that I can over 
the last 5 years. Zimbabwe is facing 1 million orphans from AIDS. My 
colleagues heard about Uganda and its female genital mutilation. These 
are deep and important problems that are helped by U.N. family 
planning.
  Why can we not help some other way? Because the Brook amendment bars 
the United States assisting a country if that country has defaulted on 
its debts, and the truth is sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America have 
largely defaulted on their debts, so there is no other way that we can 
assist people in need in Africa, in India, in Bangladesh, in South 
America. Why would we punish them to make a statement, just to make a 
statement?
  We are not seeing any assistance to China under the bill. My 
amendment says if the U.N. gives one dollar to China, we take a dollar 
back from what the United States gives to the U.N. My amendment does 
not add a dime; it takes away money in order to be sure that the China 
issue does not control this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been at pains to explain this. If colleagues 
think it is the same vote as last year, it is not. The Mexico City 
issue is not in this. What is in this bill is compassion for the people 
of Africa, South America, and Asia. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the 
Maloney-Campbell amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder 
of my time.
  First of all, I believe and I hope the House will believe and vote 
that the Campbell amendment trivializes forced abortion and coercive 
population control. The Amnesty International report made it very clear 
that birth control, and I quote again, ``has been compulsory since 
1979.'' Get this, this is right out of the report: ``Women must have 
official permission to bear children.'' The government has to tell them 
when and if, by issuing, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) pointed out earlier, these coupons, these certificates that say 
that you can have a child. Who is the Chinese government to say that? 
And then the UNFPA comes in and says it is a voluntary program. It is 
anything but a voluntary program.
  Let me also point out, again from Amnesty International's reporting, 
that what happens in China constitutes cruel, inhumane, and degrading 
treatment of detainees and restricted persons by government officials. 
They hold women. They put them into cells until they have their 
abortions. This is outrageous, and the UNFPA has given its good 
housekeeping stamp of approval year in and year out to this egregious 
practice.
  Mr. Chairman, the supporters of the Campbell amendment, which is 
really a killer amendment, have made some arguments tonight. I would 
respectfully submit they are wrong, and most of them are internally 
contradictory. First, they argue that the UNFPA program in China is a 
force for good, that it helps the women and children in China and not 
the brutal PRC program of population control.
  But here is what Wei Jingsheng, the great Chinese democracy advocate, 
had to say about that argument, and I quote: ``When the United Nations 
gave the Chinese government its population control award, the Chinese 
people were flabbergasted. UNFPA,'' he goes on to say, ``extended 
extensive help to the Chinese Communist Government. By doing that, it 
has set itself on the opposite side of the Chinese people.''
  That is Wei Jingsheng talking, not Chris Smith or the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Barcia) or the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). That 
is the leading democracy activist who spent years in the laogai because 
of his beliefs. UNFPA's argument that they are not involved in the 
coercive aspects of the Chinese program, that just by being there they 
might make it more free and voluntary, is exactly what they argued in 
1986 when the UNFPA supporters sued the Reagan administration for 
finding that the UNFPA, and I quote, ``supports or participates in the 
management of a program of coercive abortion.''
  Here is what Judge Abner Mikva, who later became President Clinton's 
White House counsel, had to say. He and two other judges found that 
AID's, and I quote, ``careful explanation of how the UNFPA's activities 
in China aid the aspects of China's program that Congress condemned 
amply supports his conclusion that funding UNFPA is prohibited.''
  In other words, Judge Mikva, again he was the counsel for the White 
House and he was a judge, upheld the determination that UNFPA supports 
or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion.
  The second argument made by supporters is that UNFPA is not about 
forced abortion. It is about opposing female genital mutilation and 
other violations of rights of women and children.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an argument born of desperation. UNFPA is 
trying to reinvent itself in order to deflect attention from the real 
issue of UNFPA's complicity in the Chinese forced abortion program.
  Mr. Chairman, when this argument started to surface, I asked my staff 
to find out how much the UNFPA spends on female genital mutilation. But 
despite repeated inquiries by my staff and other congressional staff, 
they absolutely refuse to give us any statistics on what, if anything, 
it has spent on anti-FGM projects.
  The only mention of FGM in UNFPA's 1998 annual report is a single 
sentence describing the efforts of a super model who serves as a 
volunteer public relations worker for the UNFPA. The budget document 
that accompanied the report contained not a single mention of FGM.
  Dozens, I would point out to my colleagues, of international 
organizations and NGOs do work on female genital mutilation and other 
good works as well. We must help those organizations, but we do not 
need to fight this evil by giving millions of dollars to an 
organization that collaborates with an equally egregious evil.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, look at what the Campbell amendment would 
actually do. Contrary to the claims of some of its supporters, it is 
not really a cutting amendment. Let us dispense with that. It starts 
out by increasing UNFPA's funding from zero, which is what is in the 
fiscal year 1999 budget, to $25 million; then it reduces the increase 
by $5 million. So the net effect is that if their amendment passes, it 
would give the UNFPA $20 million more next year. It cries crocodile 
tears over the victims of Chinese forced abortion, but its net effect 
is to give a $20 million reward to the principal international 
collaborator with that program.
  Mr. Chairman, if someone proposed that we give millions of dollars to 
an organization that actively assisted in the management of a prison 
program in which prisoners were routinely tortured, what would we do? 
Would we say fine, you can have $25 million, but first we are going to 
subtract $5 million because that is what you actually contributed to 
the torture program? No, Mr. Chairman.
  I believe we would cut off that organization without a dime. We would 
want to disassociate ourselves completely from the torturers and their 
accomplices. But even more important, we would want to impose a severe 
punishment, and more importantly, a deterrent against possible 
collaboration in a program that included torture, because we want to 
put an end to torture. And the way to stop a bad practice, I would 
submit, whether it be torture or genocide or, in this case, forced 
abortion, is not to give $20 million to its collaborators. Vote ``no'' 
on the Campbell amendment and ``yes'' on Smith-Barcia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is recognized 
for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I rise in strong support of the United Nations Population Fund and in 
firm opposition to the Smith amendment.

[[Page 16608]]

  The United Nations Population Fund provides basic information on 
family planning. It is just that simple. It targets families in 
developing countries who otherwise would have to go without basic 
services such as prenatal and postnatal care. This United Nations 
program is also leading the charge in confronting the AIDS epidemic in 
Africa by working to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the AIDS 
virus. These types of infections account for roughly a third of new HIV 
infections.
  This program should be commended and not burdened with the irrelevant 
restrictions on China as found in the Smith amendment which will 
deprive women in dire economic and personal circumstances from 
receiving the essential family planning that this program provides. A 
vote for the Smith amendment is a vote against the thousands of 
refugees who are women in the Balkans who have received kits which help 
to prevent the infections and diseases associated with giving birth and 
in unsanitary conditions.

                              {time}  2015

  Furthermore, we should not accept the fact that an estimated 1,200 
additional women and 22,500 infants are projected to die if this House 
refuses to support the Nation's Population Fund. That would be immoral. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Smith amendment and for the 
Campbell - Maloney - Gilman - Crowley - Greenwood amendment for 
responsible family planning
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about 
reducing the number of abortions and improving the health and welfare 
of women and children around the world, then the U.S. must continue to 
contribute to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
  UNFPA works in more than 150 countries in the poorest regions of the 
world providing family planning services, maternal and child heath 
care, and the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted 
diseases. Cutting off the U.S. contribution to UNFPA only penalizes the 
more than 870,000 women who depend on this program for quality, safe, 
preventive and voluntary family planning services. Instead of 
preventing abortions, the loss of $25 million in funds will actually 
cause 500,000 additional unplanned pregnancies, more than 200,000 
abortions, 1,200 more maternal deaths, and 22,500 infant deaths. When 
women are unable to control the number and timing of births, they may 
have no choice but to seek an unsafe and illegal abortion. Each year, 
75,000 women in developing countries die from such abortions, many of 
which are self-induced. By denying women birth control information, we 
only create more abortions and more unwanted babies.
  Contrary to popular myth, UNFPA does not support or promote abortion 
as a method of family planning. It does not support or promote China's 
population. In fact, the UNFPA program in China explicitly prohibits 
coercive practices and forced abortions. What UNFPA does do is support 
the right of women and families everywhere to make free and responsible 
decisions about the number and spacing of their children. It does 
assist women and men to deliver healthy babies in safe and sterile 
conditions and to protect and promote their health.
  This debate is not about China. This debate is about empowering 
people across the globe so that they can plan both their families and 
their lives instead of forcing them to accept illness and poverty as a 
way of life. If we are to be a compassionate nation, then the U.S. must 
work to improve the lives and health of women all over the world and 
contribute to UNFPA.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned about protecting the 
health of women and children, not only in the United States, but around 
the world. No one in this chamber wants to see more abortions performed 
or more women forced into sterilization. Unfortunately, there are cases 
around the world, including China, where these kinds of actions take 
place. And, unfortunately, the United Nations Populations Fund is doing 
little to end these abuses. We need to send a strong message to the 
UNFPA that until they stop supporting China and its brutal one-child 
abortion policy, we will not support their efforts.
  At first glance, the Campbell substitute appears to be very similar 
to ours and even appears to achieve the same goal. We all agree that 
China is still involved in forced abortion and involuntary 
sterilization and we all agree that the UNFPA is doing nothing to 
discontinue this policy. We all agree that their actions and treatment 
of their citizens are horrific. That is why the Campbell Amendment 
decreases funding for the UNFPA, but our amendment goes a step further 
and will prohibit funding unless the President certifies that the UNFPA 
has either ceased its activities in the People's Republic of China or 
China stops using coerced abortion in the enforcement of its population 
control program.
  Mr. Chairman, the China policy is a violation of a most basic right, 
the right to life. The Campbell amendment is a simple slap on the wrist 
and does not address the underlying problem of a violation of basic 
human rights. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Smith/Barcia 
amendment and oppose the Campbell amendment.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Gilman/Maloney/
Crowley amendment to HR 2415. We shouldn't jeopardize international 
family planning efforts because of legitimate concerns about China's 
family planning policies. We are all against forced abortion. It is 
wrong, and must be unequivocally condemned. But that is not the issue 
here today.
  The issue here is: do we empower women and families across the globe 
with the ability to plan for the number of children they can have, or 
do we pull the rug out under these important efforts. For me, the 
choice is clear. We must continue to work to give every woman the right 
and educated choices necessary to plan the size of her own family, free 
of any coercion.
  I believe that opponents of international family planning efforts are 
using the issue of forced abortion as a stalking horse for an attack on 
our support of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA 
funding has nothing to do with Chinese government policy on abortion. 
First of all, none of the funds that we give to the UNFPA are used in 
China. Not one cent of US contributions can be used in China. Secondly, 
the UNFPA does not support abortion in any of its work in China or 
anywhere else. Its program is specifically based on the premise that 
abortion is not a method of family planning. And thirdly, the UNFPA 
program is fully voluntary. Women choose to participate in the program 
without coercion.
  Family planning is the best tool to eliminate unplanned pregnancies 
across the world. Better family planning means fewer abortions--
something that pro-choice and pro-life groups can all support. The 
UNFPA works in 149 countries. Cutting off US funds will lead to more 
abortions, not less.
  Let's work together to reduce the number of abortions. Let's join to 
support this amendment to help ensure that all women across the globe 
can receive access to voluntary family planning and allow them to 
control their own destiny.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for 
the vital work of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and to 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith/Barcia amendment and support the 
Campbell/Maloney/Gilman/Crowley amendment.
  The UNFPA provides essential primary health services to women in 150 
developing countries. It supports the right of couples and individuals 
to decide freely and responsibility the number and spacing of their 
children and to have the information and means to do so free of 
discrimination, coercion, or violence. UNFPA relies on voluntary 
contributions of member states to provide women and men with access to 
safe, effective, affordable, and voluntary contraceptive methods of 
their choice, as well as access to health care for safe pregnancy and 
childbirth. UNFPA does not support or fund abortion; rather it works to 
prevent abortion by providing effective family planning services.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the 
Campbell/Gilman amendment to restore funding to the United Nations 
Population Fund.
  H.R. 2415 provides $25 million for UNFPA, the world's largest 
organization providing family planning services to 150 countries in the 
poorest regions of the world. Restoring U.S. funding will help hundreds 
of thousands of women around the world gain access to family planning 
services.
  Five years ago, the U.N. set out a new approach to the complex 
problem of population control. This new approach emphasized improving 
the lives of women, improving the economic well-being of communities 
and women, and safeguarding the environment. This effort is called the 
United Nations Funding Program of Action (UNFPA) and is coordinated 
through the United Nations Population Fund (UNFP). The United States 
and other western nations pledged to share the annual $17 billion cost, 
but the Action Plan has struggled to secure those funds since the 
beginning.
  UNFPA provides reproductive health services, education of women and 
girls, involvement of men in family planning, education on HIV and 
AIDS, help with community-based

[[Page 16609]]

sustainable development, and environmental awareness programs. In Latin 
America, the program is credited with dramatically reducing fertility 
rates.
  The provision in H.R. 2415 balances the critical public health need 
for U.S. support for UNFPA and the human rights need to address 
concerns about coercive reproductive health practices in China. 
Although there are legitimate concerns about China's family planning 
program, the UNFPA program in China explicitly prohibits coercion and 
works to promote voluntary family planning.
  Withholding UNFPA funds has serious consequences: it increases the 
worldwide unmet need for family planning services; deprives 
approximately 870,000 women of access to effective modern 
contraception; results in 500,000 unintended pregnancies; results in 
234,000 births; results in 200,000 abortions; and results in thousands 
of preventable maternal and child deaths. In brief, it endangers the 
health and welfare of women and children and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Campbell/Gilman amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment offered by Mr. Smith. This amendment prohibits a contribution 
to the United Nations Population Fund (``UNFPA'') unless it ceases all 
activity in China. This amendment unfairly prohibits funding for 
reproductive health care and family planning services in developing 
countries.
  While we all condemn the human rights practices in the People's 
Republic of China, we should not penalize the rest of the world by 
withholding this funding.
  The UNFPA provides essential family planning and reproductive health 
care services to women in developing countries. All women should have 
access to quality reproductive health care. Family planning services 
are an important part of reproductive health care.
  Each year an estimated 600,000 women die as a result of pregnancy and 
childbirth in developing countries. In these countries, pregnancy and 
childbirth are among the leading causes of death for women of 
childbearing age.
  Women in these countries must have access to information that will 
allow them to make informed reproductive health decisions. These 
decisions can mean the difference between life and death. UNFPA funding 
puts this information in those communities.
  The choice between saving millions of women around the world and 
punishing the government of China is clear. No one condones the 
coercive practices of the Chinese government in terms of family 
planning. But, none of us can condone keeping women around the world in 
the dark about their reproductive health needs.
  I urge my Colleagues to vote against this amendment. Women around the 
world must have access to information that will ensure that their 
children will be born into a loving and stable environment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Smith amendment as written and in strong support of the Campbell, 
Maloney, Gilman, Crowley, Greenwood amendment. The Campbell, Maloney, 
Gilman, Crowley, Greenwood amendment clarifies once and for all, the 
purpose of the United Nations Population Fund which is not to provide 
abortion services for women in foreign lands, but rather to provide 
basic reproductive health care to women which reduces the number of 
abortions and provide pediatric health care for infants. It also 
clarifies that no U.S. funds will be used in China.
  The UNFPA has been portrayed by its opponents as a vestige of 
American imperialism bearing down on countries that are struggling to 
keep their nations free of the evils of abortion and aiding countries 
like China with a proven record of coerced abortion. The Smith 
amendment supports this portrayal by cutting all funding in the bill 
for UNFPA unless it complies with impossible demands.
  What this position fails so poorly to report is that international 
family planning programs supported and originally intimated by the 
United States have nothing to do with abortion except that they have 
the potential to reduce the number of abortions performed legally or 
illegally internationally. They do so by preventing unplanned pregnancy 
and educating women and men about the importance of planned and timed 
pregnancy. Sadly, what should be a common ground for debaters on both 
sides of the polar abortion issue has become a battleground for 
maternal and child health advocates on either side of the debate.
  The fact is that productive health programs represent a continuum of 
care for mothers and children that provide prenatal and pediatric care 
for children. Equally importantly, these programs provide lessons in 
how to effectively space pregnancies to prevent maternal and infant 
mortality. Planning and timing pregnancy is not just a theory that 
makes it easier for parents to manage their children. Children who are 
born less than two years apart are twice as likely to die as an infant. 
This nation has the resources to provide those less fortunate with the 
ability to control their own lives. With proper education, those in 
developing countries can plan their families just as we in the United 
States do. It is unconscionable, as leaders of the most prosperous 
nation on Earth, that we would deny these vital resources to the least 
prosperous on Earth.
  The Smith amendment claims to fund UNFPA after certifying the 
program's withdrawal from China, or certification that there are no 
forced abortions associated with China's population control program. 
This amendment shows a lack of understanding of the way UNFPA works. 
China has requested UNFPA assistance in 32 countries. When assistance 
is requested UNFPA goes to work. It cannot withdraw unless the country 
asks them to withdraw. Accordingly, the President cannot certify all of 
China's population control program because UNFPA does not operate in 
all China. They could, however, certify the countries in which they are 
engaged.
  The clarifying amendment offered by Representatives Campbell and 
Maloney, and others would simply prevent U.S. funds from being used in 
China by reducing our contribution to the fund by the amount UNFPA 
spends in China. In addition, the amendment would withhold the entire 
U.S. contribution if any UNFPA funds are being used for abortion 
services.
  I would ask my colleagues, if we can affirmatively certify that this 
money is not being used for abortions, and that no U.S. funds are being 
used in China, why would we not support maternal and child health 
programs? I urge my colleagues to support Representative Campbell's 
clarifying amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) 
as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) will be postponed.
  It is the understanding of the Chair that amendment No. 4 will not be 
offered.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in part B of 
House Report 106-235.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sanford

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Page 14, line 23, strike ``$17,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$12,000,000''.
       Page 15, strike lines 19 and 20, and insert ``$1,500,000 
     for the fiscal year 2000.''.
       Page 21, line 25, strike ``$15,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$8,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply set at 1998 funding, the 
funding for the Asia Foundation, the Center for Cultural Exchange East-
West, and the Dante B. Fascell North-South Center. It would save $13.5 
million each year, which though not viewed as a large amount of money 
in Washington, with many folks back home it is still, I think, a great 
sum of money.
  Finally, this is an amendment that is supported by Citizens for a 
Sound Economy, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National 
Taxpayers Union and Americans for Tax Reform. I think they support this 
amendment for a number of reasons, and I think it has a number of great 
things standing behind it.

[[Page 16610]]

  The first thing that I think stands out in terms of why this 
amendment would make sense would be, whether a Republican or whether a 
Democrat, whether a liberal or whether a conservative, I think all of 
us would agree on the simple idea that we would not want a foundation 
out there receiving in essence disproportionate care. In other words, 
we would not want the care for these foundations to be above or, 
frankly, below that of which a foundation in one's home district 
receives. In other words, we would want it to be on par.
  Yet, that is not at all the case, because these three foundations, 
which are each in university settings, receive disproportionate care 
and feeding from the Federal Government, because, unlike a foundation 
in any one of the 435 congressional districts across this country that 
have to go out and compete for grants, these three foundations receive 
not only a Federal guaranteed flow of money but then they can also pick 
up private grants as well.
  The Congress recognized that back in 1995, and as a result, cut 
funding for these three foundations by $25 million.
  Well, what has happened since then is that the funding has crept back 
up basically to the level prior to the cut. I do not think this is fair 
to foundations we might have in any of our respective congressional 
districts. I will give an example of just a few of the outside funding 
sources I saw here.
  For instance, East-West Center received $100,000 from the Taipei 
Economic and Cultural Office. The William H. Gates Foundation provided 
$2.3 million for population and health research to East-West Center. 
The government of Japan contributed $363,000 to the East-West Center, 
and I could go down a long list, again, of grants in the marketplace 
that have been received by these foundations when they are also 
receiving Federal Government money.
  Second, I would say there is a lot of duplication in each of these 
foundations. We could look up these topics, whether it is with the 
U.N., whether it is the World Health Organization, the Department of 
State, the Department of Commerce, there are a long list of agencies 
that also handle these type studies.
  Third, I would say maybe they deserved disproportionate funding 
during the Cold War, but the Cold War is over. As an instrument of 
national policy, that policy is now gone. I mean, Asia Foundation has 
been around for 44 years. East-West Center has been around for over 30 
years, and I think it ought to be brought back to par, again, which is 
what we did as a Congress in 1995.
  Finally, I would just mention the fact that a number of these grants 
are just plain bogus. I mean, I looked here at a number of the grants, 
methods of multiple stakeholding management of community forest, 
management in community-based forestry. Given the free enterprise 
system that we know works so well, if one really wants to manage a 
forest, put one person in charge of it and give them reason to be in 
charge of it, as opposed to community-based forestry whatever that 
means.
  I see a second grant here on young adult sexuality. This 
collaborative project involving institutions in the Philippines, 
Thailand, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Nepal, Taiwan, and the United States 
will assess the extent, nature, determinants and reproductive 
consequences of premarital sex.
  Call me old fashioned on this, but determinants I think simply to be 
attraction. Reproductive consequences I think are fairly simple. Sperm 
meets egg; somebody is going to get pregnant. I do not know that we 
need another study to tell us this.
  I see with the Asia Foundation, a study on nuclear weapons in North 
Korea. The study went on to argue that the media reports of the 
construction of an alleged underground nuclear facility in North Korea 
are the results of deliberate leaks by the U.S. intelligence community.
  Now how in the world is that in the best interest of the American 
taxpayer? How is that a benefit to U.S. overall interest?
  So I would just say that there are a number of these studies that are 
funded with American tax dollars that do not make a whole lot of sense. 
I would again remind folks of the fact that it is supported by Citizens 
for a Sound Economy, supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, 
the Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union. I would 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. 
Although this Member shares his colleague's interest in reducing 
wasteful spending, the institutions targeted by his amendment certainly 
do not fall in that category. On the contrary, on closer examination, 
the Asia Foundation, the East-West Center, the Dante B. Fascell North-
South Center, and other successful programs will confirm their cost 
effective contributions to American interests around the world.
  Indeed, our modest investment in these institutions is money well 
spent.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member 
would like to focus briefly on just one of the affected institutions: 
the Asia Foundation. The foundation has a 45-year proven track record. 
Programs and investments in reform-minded individuals in Korea, Taiwan, 
and the Philippines directly supported the incredible democratic and 
economic transformations there. The Asia Foundation remains on the 
front lines doing the same today in Asia's new, emerging democracies 
like Indonesia and Bangladesh and helping lay the foundation for 
positive change in authoritarian countries like China and Vietnam.
  Fundamental changes are happening in Asia as a result of the recent 
economic crisis. Now is the time to take advantage of this climate of 
change and expand programs advancing democracy, the rule of law, human 
rights, economic reform and sustainable recovery. That is why the 
International Relations Committee restored full funding for the Asia 
Foundation. Over \1/2\ of the world's population is within the Asia 
Foundation's operating area. The Sanford amendment would cut the 
foundation back to its FY1998 appropriated level--a level $7 million or 
46 percent below this authorization and also below last year's 
appropriation. The authorization in the pending bill merely returns the 
Asia Foundation to its FY1995 funding level.
  Helping Asia develop into a stable, market-oriented and democratic 
region is an important American national security objective. The 
programs of the Asia Foundation and others like the East-West Center 
support this national security objective. The Sanford amendment would 
severely cut these NGOs' programs and further restrict our ability to 
influence positive change. The long term cost of this amendment to U.S. 
feign policy objectives certainly outweighs any short-term savings it 
may have.
  For example, the developing countries in Asia are in desperate need 
of legal reforms. American commerce and local human rights are early 
beneficiaries of such Rule of Law programming. By defeating the Sanford 
amendment, we are supporting new legal reform initiatives for 
Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and China.
  All three institutions targeted by the Sanford amendment are small, 
very cost effective private institutions that play very important 
complementary roles in advancing U.S. foreign policy interests around 
the world. We need their effort. This Member urges his colleagues to 
support the authorization levels reported by the International 
Relations Committee and oppose the Sanford amendment.

                      Oppose the Sanford Amendment

       Asia Foundation, East-West Center and Dante Fascell North-
     South Center are small, but cost effective private 
     organizations that play very important complementary roles in 
     advancing US foeign policy interests around the world. We 
     need this effort.
       Asia Foundation: 45-year proven track record. Over \1/2\ of 
     the world's population is within its programming 
     jurisdiction. Following on its previous successes in Korea, 
     Taiwan and the Philippines, the Asia Foundation is now 
     focusing on emerging democracies like Indonesia and 
     Bangladesh and promoting reform in China and Vietnam.
       International Relations Committee authorized $15 million 
     (the Administration-requested level of funding). This 
     restores Asia Foundation funding to its FY'95 (and pre-FY'95) 
     funding levels. The Sanford Amendment would ``freeze'' the 
     Asia Foundation at the FY'98 appropriation level of $8 
     million. This is a $7 million or 46 percent cut and even a 
     reduction from the FY'99 level ($8.5 million).
       Fundamental changes are happening in Asia as a result of 
     the economic crisis. Now, is the time to take advantage of 
     this climate

[[Page 16611]]

     of change and expand programs advancing democracy, the rule 
     of law, human rights, economic reform and sustainable 
     recovery. The Sanford Amendment would severely hamper Asia 
     Foundation efforts supporting these U.S. national security 
     objectives.
       Now programming supporting much-need legal reform in 
     Indonesia would be jeopardized by the Sanford Amendment cuts. 
     With the ouster of Suharto and the recent elections, 
     Indonesia is in a very precarious transition. Asia Foundation 
     programs supporting democracy, human rights, rule of law and 
     economic restructuring will help steer this transition in the 
     right direction. This is new programming that would be lost 
     if the Sanford Amendment is adopted.
       The long term costs of the Sanford Amendment to U.S. 
     foreign policy objectives certainly outweigh any purported 
     short-term savings.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanford amendment that 
would reduce the funding for one portion of his bill, the Dante Fascell 
North-South Center. The Dante Fascell North-South Center is an 
independent policy research and educational center strategically 
located in Miami, which is the gateway to Latin America and the gateway 
to the Caribbean.
  The center is dedicated to economic and integration efforts, economic 
stabilization and growth, and furthering democracy and managing 
immigration. The center is a key player in the anticipated free trade 
area of the Americas. United States exports to Latin America climbed 
from $31 billion in 1986 to over $130 billion in 1997, comprising 20 
percent of United States global exports.
  The Commerce Department estimates that exports to Latin America will 
surpass exports to Europe in 2000 and surpass exports to Europe and 
Japan combined by 2010. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman perhaps 
has merit to his amendment. However, his net is far too wide and it 
should be defeated. I would urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Sanford amendment, 
which would reduce funding to the Dante Fascell North-South Center.
  The Dante Fascell North-South Center is an independent policy 
research and educational center, strategically located in Miami, the 
gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean. The center is dedicated to 
economic integration efforts, economic stabilization and growth, 
furthering democracy, and managing immigration.
  The center is a key player in the anticipated Free Trade Area of the 
Americas. U.S. exports to Latin America climbed from $31 billion in 
1986 to over $130 billion in 1997, comprising 20 percent of U.S. global 
exports. The Commerce Department estimates that exports to Latin 
America will surpass exports to Europe in 2000, and surpass exports to 
Europe and Japan combined in 2010. Clearly, trade and investment 
relations with Latin American countries are a vital interest to the 
United States.
  Global financial volatility has highlighted the fact that stability 
and growth abroad has a direct impact on the U.S. economy. An Asia-type 
meltdown in Latin America would result not just in further economic 
crises, but would also manifest itself by increased drug trafficking, 
illegal immigration, civil unrest, and challenges to democratic rule. 
The North-South Center plays a crucial role in finding solutions for 
stability and prosperity in the region.
  The North-South Center is an extraordinarily active force in 
education and discussion of U.S.-Latin American issues such as effects 
of the Castro regime, drug trafficking from Colombia, social causes of 
migration, food safety, and the role of the military in democratic 
society. The North-South Center is fueled by an internationally 
recognized staff which is dedicated to engaging diverse groups in 
inter-American issues from the perspective of the public good.
  At the beginning of this century, the focal point of United States 
foreign policy was in Europe. During the mid-1900's, the United States 
focus shifted toward Asia as a source of commerce and trade. In the 
21st century, the United States may very well be looking to Latin 
America as the center of economic cooperation and growth. We must be 
prepared for this shift, and we need the North-South Center to continue 
paving our way.
  The Dante Fascell North-South Center's proven track record in 
facilitating international dialog among governments, nongovernmental 
organizations, and business interests makes it a vital asset for the 
United States in this new era of inter-American relations.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to recognize the 
importance of the Dante Fascell North-South Center and oppose the 
Sanford amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in unambiguous and unequivocal 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think all of us here are concerned 
about government expenditures, but when we take a look at what these 
institutions do in helping develop Democratic institutions in countries 
throughout the world, resolve disputes, to have the kind of dialogue, 
think about what just happened in Kosovo. One helicopter, $16 million. 
We lost two of them; $32 million. One F-117 stealth fighter, in excess 
of $100 million. One F-16, $25 million. The money we spend here in 
these centers helps dialogue, helps democracy and helps defend and 
protect America's interests.
  I urge we defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I do have the greatest respect and 
trust in the integrity of my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) for introducing this amendment but I have to respectfully 
object to the amendment and I urge my colleagues not to pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1960 the Congress established the East-West Center 
in America's pacific to further the foreign policy interests of the 
United States by promoting better relations and understanding the 
peoples of the United States in the Asian Pacific region.
  Mr. Chairman, because of the essence of time, given the dynamic 
changes and the enhanced importance of the Asian Pacific region, where 
two-thirds of the world's population and one-third of the current trade 
that we conduct in that region of the world, Mr. Chairman, the mission 
of the East-West Center is more relevant and vital to U.S. interests 
than ever before.
  I urge my colleagues not to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with my esteemed colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle in strong opposition to the Sandford Amendment to H.R. 2415, the 
American Embassy Security Bill of 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, the Sanford Amendment seeks to reduce the funding level 
approved by the House International Relations Committee for the Asia 
Foundation, the East-West Center and the North-South Center. The 
amendment should be defeated, as each of these important institutions 
clearly pursues vital foreign policy objectives on behalf of the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1960 the Congress established the East-West Center 
(EWC) in America's Pacific to further the foreign policy interests of 
the United States by promoting better relations and understanding 
between the peoples of the United States and the Asia-Pacific region. 
The East-West Center accomplishes this vital mission by attracting 
present and future leaders throughout the region who participate, along 
with America's leaders and experts in the Center's programs of 
cooperative study, training, and research of the issues most crucial to 
the region and to our nation.
  Since the East-West Center's inception, over 45,000 individuals have 
participated in the Center's collaborative programs, providing the 
United States with an invaluable network of highly-placed alumni--an 
important link between the U.S. and the nations of the Asia-Pacific.
  Mr. Chairman, in recent years as the Asia-Pacific region has 
undergone profound changes, it has also grown in fundamental importance 
to the United States for many reasons. With China and Japan, the region 
contains more than half the world's population and provides almost a 
third of the world's trade markets. The Asia-Pacific region is now the 
largest market for US exports, an economic trend that will 
significantly grow in the new millennium, and the establishment of the 
East-West Center by the Congress almost forty years ago could not be 
more critical now--and what could be a better place to

[[Page 16612]]

house this internationally acclaimed institution and forum than our 
fiftieth state of the Union--the State of Hawaii.
  Mr. Chairman, over 100,000 U.S. military personnel are located in the 
Asia-Pacific, primarily in South Korea and Japan, underscoring the U.S. 
stake in and commitment to regional peace and security. With the recent 
disturbing developments in the Taiwan Strait, Mr. Chairman, this is a 
peace that is threatened as we debate today.
  Moreover, Mr. Chairman, no global problem--from nuclear and ballistic 
missile proliferation, to the prevention of AIDS, to damage control of 
regional financial meltdowns, to the reduction in greenhouse gases--can 
be effectively addressed without the participation of the major nations 
of Asia and the Pacific.
  Given the dynamic changes in and the enhanced importance of the Asia-
Pacific region, Mr. Chairman, the mission of the East-West Center is 
more relevant and vital to U.S. interests than ever before.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Pacific nation, America cannot afford not to take 
her rightful place of leadership in the affairs of the Asia-Pacific 
region. We must recognize the important work of the East-West Center in 
support of this vital mission.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot more strongly urge our colleagues to defeat 
the Sanford Amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is perhaps one of the most, 
I would say, harmful amendments I have heard in quite awhile on the 
floor. I respect the writer of the amendment but I am sure he does not 
understand the broad scope of the North-South Center named after Dante 
Fascell.
  First of all, our intent is to spread democracy throughout the world. 
No one or no center has done any better job of this than the North-
South Center. It is perhaps the only policy and research and social 
service kind of organization in this country. On the amount of money 
that it operates on, it is very, very good. It has a hemispheric agenda 
and it directly helps the American people in forms of jobs, prosperity, 
the drug program, the AIDS program.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this particular amendment by the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), though well designed, should be defeated.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Sanford amendment which will cap 
funding in this bill for the North South Center at its FY 1998 level of 
$1.5 million. The current bill authorizes ``such sums as may be 
necessary.'' The Administration requested $2.5 million for the North 
South Center for FY 2000 for a reason. Additional funding beyond this 
amendment's cap is sorely needed.
  The Dante Fascell North South Center is the only research, public 
policy studies, and information center of its type, exclusively 
dedicated to finding practical solutions to problems and policy issues 
facing the Americas.
  This public policy and research center promotes better relations 
between the U.S. and nations of Latin America, the Carribean and 
Canada, and is dedicated to developing practical responses to regional 
challenges.
  In carrying out its congressional mandate to promote better relations 
among the United States and the nations of Canada, Latin America, and 
the Caribbean, the center combines programs of public policy, 
cooperative study, research, and training.
  The center responds to the hemispheric agenda that directly impacts 
the American people in the form of jobs and prosperity, drugs, 
migration, export opportunities, environmental quality, and the 
promotion of shared democratic values. Programs foster national and 
international linkages and partnerships through fellowships and 
collaborative efforts in both research and training.
  Every Member of Congress who was here before 1992 remembers Rep. 
Dante Fascell. Throughout his decades of service in this body, Rep. 
Fascell worked fearlessly for an American foreign policy based on 
cultural, educational, trade and person to person exchanges between 
nations, in addition to normal government-to-government contacts. His 
vision became reality via the North South Center.
  The Dante Fascell North South Center has been the foremost 
institution in bringing together the private sector, NGO's, and 
government representatives to monitor and evaluate the implementation 
of democratic governance in the Americas.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this misplaced amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge strong opposition to the 
amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Hawaii is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I can fully understand why people 
would want to try and save money but this kind of approach is, I think, 
unpardonable. I wish the gentleman had discussed the issue perhaps with 
myself, with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), with some others 
who are familiar with these programs. They perform an invaluable 
service, and to simply take the position that we are going to hack them 
in half or chop dollars out and let them try to fend afterwards as best 
they may is such a cavalier approach to cost cutting that it 
undermines, I think, entirely the thrust of any attempt to try and save 
money genuinely.
  These institutions are providing an intellectual foundation that 
gives us the opportunity, as Mr. Gejdenson indicated, to formulate 
policy in an intelligent way that saves the taxpayer dollars and allows 
us to carry foreign policy, in particular, forward in a manner that 
befits the strategic interests of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is ill-timed. It is ill-founded and 
should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment to H.R. 2415, 
the State Department authorization for FY2000. The amendment makes an 
ill advised 31 percent reduction in the bill's funding for the Center 
for Cultural and Technical Interchange between East and West, more 
commonly known as the East-West Center.
  The East-West Center has already suffered severe budget cuts during 
this decade. Further cuts would seriously compromise the national 
interests of the United States by weakening our full and constructive 
engagement in the Asia-Pacific area, which is emerging as the most 
dynamic region of the globe.
  The East-West Center was established by the Congress in 1960 to 
improve mutual understanding and cooperation among the governments and 
peoples of the Asia-Pacific region, including the United States. The 
Center helps prepare the United States for constructive involvement in 
Asia and the Pacific through education, dialogue, research and 
outreach. The Congress and Executive Branch agencies turn to the Center 
for advice and information.
  During the Center's 39 years of existence, more than 50,000 
Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders from over 60 nations and 
territories have participated in the East-West Center's educational, 
research and conference programs. Presidents, prime ministers, 
diplomats and distinguished scholars and statesmen from all parts of 
the region have used the Center as a forum to advance international 
cooperation. The Center has become one of the most highly respected 
institutions in the region.
  The friendly relations which exist today between the United States 
and countries of Asia and the Pacific are attributable in large measure 
to the work of the East-West Center.
  The 21st century will be the Pacific Century. Our relations with the 
nations of the region will determine America's role in the Pacific 
Century. Will we retain our position of leadership, or will we be 
relegated to the margins of the Pacific Century? The answer depends to 
a large extent on our commitment to understanding the region, 
demonstrating our involvement with its future, and nurturing our ties 
to its leaders of today and tomorrow.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and send a clear 
signal that U.S. interest in and commitment to the Asia-Pacific region 
remain undiminished.
  Ms. McKinney. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote against the cuts called 
for in the Sanford Amendment and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
defeating this amendment.
  Those of us on the International Relations Committee have been here 
before. These proposals were all offered to us at our markup, and they 
lost--badly. On both sides of the aisle, the conclusion then was that 
the East-West Center, the North-South Center, and the Asia Foundation 
deserved a substantial level of support. We were right then, and this 
amendment is wrong now.
  These organizations do a lot of good for a small investment. The 
East-West Center is one of the best methods we have to build long-term 
relationships with the nations of the Pacific Ocean--places we neglect 
all too much. Part of the funding we proposed for the

[[Page 16613]]

East-West Center is intended to establish an Ocean Resources Institute 
to figure out the best way to use the great marine wealth in the 
Pacific in a way that is economically and environmentally sound. And 
the Asia Foundation, which has been in Indonesia for almost half a 
century, was one of the most important groups doing civic education 
before the Indonesian elections. They are also heavily involved in 
helping small to medium-sized businesses, especially those owned by 
women, get on their feet and keep going, even during Indonesia's 
economic crisis.
  The money that would be provided here is well justified and will be 
well used. Join me in demonstrating your support for a responsible 
investment with a long-term payoff. Vote against these cuts.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to 
the Sanford amendment to HR 2415, which seeks to delete $5.5 million in 
funding from the East-West Center, $1 million from the North-South 
Center, and $7 million from the Asia Foundation.
  These institutions are small but very cost-effective. They complement 
the foreign policy objectives of the United States by providing another 
dimension of engagement with leaders in Asia, the Pacific, and Latin 
America and help to increase the mutual understanding and cooperation 
that is essential for constructive relationships among the nations of 
these important regions.
  The East-West Center is the only national program that has a 
strategic mission of developing a consensus on key policy issues in 
U.S.-Asia Pacific relations through intensive cooperative research and 
training. Many who initially came to the Center as students or 
researchers have risen to positions of power and influence in 
government, academia, business, and the media in countries throughout 
Asia and the Pacific. These opinion leaders formed deep ties with the 
Center and understand first-hand the value of democracy, an open 
society, and a free press.
  The Center has earned the trust and respect of the nations of this 
region and enjoys a prestige disproportionate to its small size. We 
cannot afford to continue to starve this unique and valuable 
institution.
  I urge all my colleagues to defeat the Sanford amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) will be postponed.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Calvert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Miller of Florida, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 2415) to enhance security of United States missions and personnel 
overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for 
fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________