[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 979-980]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING RESTRICTIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart as we 
acknowledge, unfortunately, that poor women and children all over the 
world will be unable to participate in the $425 million that this 
Congress passed in the Foreign Operations bill for family planning.
  Unfortunately, about 10 days ago, President Bush signed an executive 
order that would not allow international family planning clinics to use 
the 400-plus million for family planning educational services as this 
Congress passed.
  My colleagues might remember that, in that same Foreign Operations 
bill, we said, as a compromise, that no funds would be expended until 
February, 6 months after the beginning of the fiscal year.
  It is unfortunate now, after much trepidation, a lot of meetings, a 
lot of bipartisan cooperation, that we now find some of the poorest 
women in countries around the world who receive funds from several 
countries unable to use the appropriations that this Congress provided 
for family planning.
  People in need of health services unrelated to family planning are 
affected by this executive order. The executive order says that no 
monies from our Treasury, and it has been appropriated and approved, 
$425 million, can be used for health services in those countries that 
counsel on family planning.
  We think that is wrong. We think that because we have put so much 
time and effort into this, and because America is the number one 
country in the world, that we have a responsibility to help those 
poorer countries who are in need of those health dollars, health 
dollars for diabetes, health dollars for heart disease, health dollars 
for a myriad of illnesses that those clinics help.
  Our $400 million that was appropriated in a bipartisan way with the 
knowledge that those funds not be expended until February; now those 
funds cannot be used in those poor countries. We think it is a shame. 
It is called international gag rule because those countries across the 
world who use our dollars also get other dollars from other places to 
help them in their family planning efforts. We think it is unfortunate. 
We think President Bush has made a mistake and we hope that he will 
revisit this.
  Vulnerable populations around the world look to America for 
leadership. They look to us to help them with their family planning, to 
help them with their childhood illnesses, to help them with their 
health concerns.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs, we had much debate on this issue. We 
think it is unfortunate, now that we stand here, not to able to use 
funds that have been appropriated for the poorest of countries in the 
world, from the leaders of the free world, the citizens here in the 
United States.
  Madam Speaker, if in fact this policy stands, can my colleagues 
imagine the hardships that those poor families will feel around the 
world, not able to use their health dollars for those illnesses, 
including family planning.
  I hope, Madam Speaker, that we will take another look at this. I hope 
that President Bush will rescind that executive order. Family planning 
is one of the most sacred things that we have as women. God created 
women and created men with certain characteristics. Only women can bear 
children, and we want to bear them when we need them, when we want 
them, and when we can take care of them. That is what that 
appropriation did that we have in our Foreign Operations bill.
  So I call on President Bush to rethink his position. There are 
millions of women across the world who look to America for assistance. 
$400 million is a small piece of the pie, but it certainly can save 
many lives, help many families and ensure protection for children who 
are poor and who need our assistance.
  So, Madam Speaker, again, I ask President Bush, please rescind the 
executive order, lift the gag rule on international planning. We call 
on him today and we hope he will heed our call.
  Madam Speaker, the announcement of President Bush of his intent to 
reinstate the so-called ``Mexico City'' policy represents an 
abandonment of women and families in need around the globe. In 
December, Congress voted to lift from this year's foreign spending bill 
the unfair restrictions imposed on international family planning 
providers. Keeping out of future appropriations what is often referred 
to as the ``global gag rule'' is both a moral and economic imperative.
  The controversial Mexico City language specifies two major conditions 
that foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGO's) must meet in order 
to receive family planning funds from the United States. First, the NGO 
must not perform abortions, except in cases of forcible rape or incest, 
or where the mother's life is endangered if the pregnancy is carried to 
term. This condition refers specifically to NGO's using private funds 
to provide abortion services since no U.S. funds have been used to 
perform abortions abroad since 1973. Second, the NGO must not violate 
their country's abortion laws, or engage in any effort to

[[Page 980]]

change the laws of their country governing abortion. This means that 
participation in a rally, the lobbying of government representatives, 
or any advocacy efforts by an organization to either allow or even 
maintain legal abortions in their own countries would be grounds for 
the United States to rescind funding. Such a restriction is a clear 
violation of the right to free speech and would be unconstitutional in 
the United States.
  Let us intimately examine the very real and humanitarian effects of 
withholding funding for international family planning. Oftentimes, 
facilities which provide family planning information also provide the 
majority of health-related services to a given population. When the 
only health care facility in a rural community closes due to 
insufficient operating costs, who pays the price? The impoverished 
mother of seven seeking a tubal ligation to prevent future unplanned 
pregnancies pays the price. Young newlyweds desiring to learn about 
oral contraception and condom use, as well as natural family planning 
pays the price. A village in need of medical treatment for 
tuberculosis, malaria, iron-deficiency, or any other illness unrelated 
to reproductive issues pays the price.
  If the United States is serious about its resolve to enhance the 
democracies, economies, health and education infrastructures, and human 
living conditions in the developing world, then it must acknowledge the 
interdependence of these sectors in a country's development. Why should 
we realistically expect to witness significant increases in economic 
growth within the trade, banking, or manufacturing industries when much 
of a country's population remains formally uneducated without access to 
basic medical services and information?
  The difficult process of international development requires a 
comprehensive approach, congressional funds appropriated for this 
purpose have a proven track record of effectiveness, but are in need of 
continued support. NGO's and health care facilities provide invaluable 
services that a developing nation's government is often unable to 
provide for financial reasons. Understand unequivocally that no U.S. 
federal funds provide abortion services in this country or abroad. Let 
us never again allow this fact to be blurred within our discussions and 
debates with supporters of the global gag rule.
  The removal of the Mexico City language from the Foreign Operations 
appropriations bill was a declaration by the United States that it is 
truly committed to the democratic principles upon which the nation was 
conceived. The bill reaffirms our proactive concern for impoverished 
and underserved people throughout the globe. It is my sincere hope that 
the new administration will demonstrate the compassion and moral 
leadership of the United States by retaining as a top priority the 
health and well being of women, children, and families worldwide.

                          ____________________