[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 642-643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         THE MEXICO CITY POLICY

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I listened attentively to President Bush 
on Saturday when he called on all Americans to unite in a spirit of 
civility and common purpose. Those are sentiments we all share. I, for 
one, intend to make every effort, guided by conscience and my 
constituents, to work with the new administration for the good of the 
country.
  I was also impressed by some of the things he said yesterday to his 
staff about treating every person with decency and respect and never 
taking the White House for granted. Those are important messages, and I 
commend the President for setting a tone of civility.
  I also take the President at his word when he speaks of ``working 
together to unite the country.'' I assume he means that on issues that 
have long divided us, he and his administration will make a sincere 
effort to bring people together.
  But that doesn't happen simply by making a speech. Actions speak 
louder than words. On his first day in office, President Bush, by 
executive order, with no prior consultation with Congress, reinstated 
the controversial Mexico City policy on international family planning. 
The President explained his decision with these words:

       It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used 
     to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote 
     abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief 
     that the Mexico City policy should be restored.

  Madam President, if current law did, in fact, permit taxpayer funds 
to be used to pay for or promote abortions overseas, then the President 
might have a point. But our law does not allow that. Our law explicitly 
prohibits any U.S. funds from being used for abortion or to promote 
abortion.
  That is the settled law of the United States. It was passed by the 
Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It is something we 
have all supported. In fact, it has been the law for as long as I can 
remember, even during past administrations. It is already against the 
law to use taxpayer funds for purposes related to abortion. Somebody 
should have told that to the new President.
  In fact, the Mexico City policy, which he has reinstated, goes much, 
much further. Many have called it a ``global gag rule.'' It prohibits 
taxpayer funds from being used to support private family planning 
organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation. 
These organizations use a small portion of their own private funds--not 
taxpayer funds, but private funds--to provide advice, counseling, and 
information about abortions, and to advocate for safe abortion 
practices in countries where tens of thousands of women suffer injuries 
or die from complications from unsafe abortions.
  If we tried to impose the Mexico City policy on any family planning 
organization within our borders, it would clearly violate the First 
Amendment. It would be illegal. But we impose it on those same 
organizations when they work overseas beyond the reach of our 
Constitution.
  Proponents of the Mexico City policy maintain that it will reduce the 
number of abortions. The reality is the opposite. The distinguished 
Presiding Officer knows this very well. The International Planned 
Parenthood Federation, which is now going to be cut off

[[Page 643]]

from U.S. Government support, has used every tax dollar it received in 
the past to provide voluntary family planning services, like 
contraceptives, to couples who lack them. By providing for the first 
time modern birth control methods to people in countries where abortion 
was the primary method of birth control, the number of abortions goes 
down.
  Now, taxpayer funds to the International Planned Parenthood 
Federation, which is comprised of dozens of family planning 
organizations around the world, are cut off.
  I remember the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon, former 
Senator Mark Hatfield, a dear friend of mine, one of the most revered 
Members of this body, who became chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. Senator Hatfield was fervently pro-life, opposed to 
abortion, very strong in his beliefs. I remember a debate on the Mexico 
City policy when he stood here--and he probably said it best. I will 
quote what he said:

       It is a proven fact that when contraceptive services are 
     not available to women throughout the world, abortion rates 
     increase. The Mexico City policy is unacceptable to me as 
     someone who is strongly opposed to abortion.

  President Bush's decision was not unexpected, based on what he said 
during the campaign. But I am disappointed because one would have hoped 
that after pledging to change the way we do business in Washington, 
after years of successive Congresses and administrations tying 
themselves in knots over this issue, his advisers would have taken the 
time to consult with the Congress about how to avoid the quagmire the 
Mexico City policy has produced in the past.
  Now, had they done that, would an agreement have been possible? Who 
knows? There are strong passions on both sides of this issue, but they 
should at least have asked whether maybe, before unilaterally turning 
back the clock, there is a way to find common ground.
  President Bush has made much of his abilities as a consensus builder. 
Frankly, I think had he bothered to ask, he would have found a 
willingness to compromise, because contrary to the President's 
statement and contrary to a lot of the press reports, this issue is 
about far more than abortion.
  It is about protecting the health of women in desperately poor 
countries where more than half a million women die each year from 
complications relating to pregnancy, and where women have little 
control over their own bodies or their lives. We have the opportunity, 
at very little expense, to help. Instead--not to save money but to make 
a political point--we cut off that help.
  The Mexico City policy has been the subject of more political 
posturing, more press releases, more fund raising letters, more 
debates, more votes, and more Presidential vetoes, than virtually any 
other issue I can think of.
  I remember when President Clinton did the right thing by repealing 
the Mexico City policy 8 years ago. When he did that, a Republican 
Congress responded by sharply cutting funding for voluntary family 
planning--not funding for abortions but for voluntary family planning. 
The predictable, tragic result of that misguided, politically motivated 
act was an increase in the number of abortions and of deaths of women 
from botched abortions.
  Again, the evidence is indisputable that when family planning 
services are available, the number of abortions goes down. But 
apparently that didn't matter. Mexico City proponents cared more about 
scoring political points than preventing abortions or saving women's 
lives.
  President Bush has made a decision. He has a right to do that. But I 
believe it was the wrong decision--wrong because the Mexico City policy 
is not about taxpayer dollars, wrong because he ignored the bipartisan 
majority in the Senate that opposes the Mexico City policy, wrong 
because it will likely result in more abortions, not less, in poor 
countries where abortions are often unsafe.
  The irony is that if we had a vote a majority of Senators--
Republicans and Democrats--would vote the other way.
  I do appreciate that the administration has said it will provide the 
full $445 million the Congress appropriated for family planning this 
year. That is critically important, and we should discuss how to 
significantly increase that amount in future years. But by reinstating 
the Mexico City policy, by cutting off support for some of the most 
effective organizations involved in family planning and women's health, 
the President has set us on a collision course. We can now expect 
extended debates that we have all heard countless times before, votes 
to repeal the policy, vetoes of appropriations bill, and on and on.
  I hope this is not what the President meant when he spoke of working 
together. We can do better. We have to do better if we are going to 
avoid the pitfalls that divided us in the past on this issue.
  Madam President, we have moved foreign aid bills through this body in 
record time in the last few years. Senator McConnell of Kentucky and I 
have been the floor leaders year after year. But it used to take many 
days, and one of the reasons was that we got bogged down in debates on 
the Mexico City policy.
  The President could have waited until February 15 to make his 
decision. There was time to consult with Republicans and Democrats. He 
could have said: Look, I know this issue is divisive. Let us work 
together, come back and sit down again in a few days and work through 
this--because one thing we can all agree on is that with the abysmal 
state of women's health in so many parts of the world, we can make it 
better. That should not be a Republican or a Democrat or pro-choice or 
right-to-life issue. That is a human issue, a moral issue. This would 
be a good year to forget the political point making, and solve this.
  I have traveled to many parts of the world. My wife is a registered 
nurse. She has traveled with me. We have seen how bad the situation is. 
We have seen how a little help can move women in many parts of the 
world generations ahead of where they are today.
  The distinguished occupant of the chair has visited some of those 
same places, and many more. I know I preach to the converted.
  We have enough other ways to make political points, on either side.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________