[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8176-8191]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2002 AND 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Pursuant to House Resolution 
138 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. 1646.

                              {time}  1036


                     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. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 107-62.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hyde:
       Page 27, strike line 9 and all that follows through line 2 
     on page 30.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 138, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and a Member opposed, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment. 
This amendment will greatly improve the bill by deleting a provision 
that would require the United States to subsidize abortionists and 
abortion lobbyists in foreign countries. That provision was adopted by 
a very close vote in committee; and it would overturn President Bush's 
benign and sensible policy, the Mexico City policy as it is called, 
that puts a wall of separation between U.S. family planning programs 
and the international abortion industry. Taxpayer dollars should not be 
used to export abortions.

[[Page 8177]]

  Mr. Chairman, opponents of our amendment have had some harsh and 
misleading things to say about the Mexico City policy. First, they say, 
without any evidence, that it is an anti-family planning policy; yet 
the Mexico City policy does not cut by one penny the $425 million the 
United States spends every year promoting family planning overseas. And 
the Mexico City policy strengthens family planning programs by ensuring 
that U.S. funds are directed to groups that provide genuine family 
planning, which is something entirely distinct from abortion.
  The opponents of the Mexico City policy like to call it a gag rule. 
They say it violates the right of free speech, although a Federal 
appellate court has held it is fully consistent with the first 
amendment. Everybody has a right to free speech, but nobody has an 
absolute right to Federal tax dollars. The right to free speech does 
not include the right to have the taxpayers buy a word processor.
  Organizations that work for the United States in foreign countries 
are our partners and our representatives in these countries. In a very 
real sense they are our ambassadors. Their advocacy in these countries 
on issues closely related to the U.S. programs they administer, as well 
as other activities such as the actual performance of abortions, is 
inevitably going to be associated with the United States. So must we 
use tax dollars to facilitate abortions overseas?
  Specifically, among the most important stated purposes of U.S. family 
planning programs overseas is to reduce the number of abortions by 
providing contraception instead. The U.S. has no obligation to 
administer these programs through agents who fundamentally disagree 
with this goal. Would we hire casino lobbyists to run an anti-gambling 
campaign or a distillery to run an anti-alcohol campaign? It makes no 
sense to hire abortionists or abortion lobbyists to run programs that 
are aimed at reducing abortions.
  Opponents of our Mexico City amendment also argue that U.S. family 
planning grantees should be allowed to perform and promote abortion so 
long as the abortion-related activities are carried out with their own 
money rather than U.S. grant money. This is nothing other than a 
bookkeeping trick. It ignores the fact that money is fungible. When 
money is given to an organization, it inevitably enriches and empowers 
all its activities.
  U.S. support also enhances the domestic and the international 
prestige of the organization by giving it an official U.S. seal of 
approval. And remember, the people we are trying to reach, poor women 
and men who have a need for family planning, are not very likely to see 
the organization's books, so they do not know which activities are 
funded from which spigot. So when the very same organization offers 
U.S. family planning assistance with one hand and abortion with the 
other, the message is the United States and its partners are perfectly 
comfortable with abortion as a method of family planning.
  The most outrageous claim made by proponents of the amendment, and 
this is a brand new one, as far as I can remember they have never 
claimed this in more than 20 years of debate about this Mexico City 
policy, is that it will interfere with efforts to address the HIV-AIDS 
epidemic. This claim is outrageously false. For one thing, the United 
States currently spends over \1/2\ of a billion dollars per year on 
fighting AIDS, $482.5 million in direct U.S. expenditures in fiscal 
year 2001, plus millions more in contributions to organizations such as 
the World Health Organization and UNDP, part of which funds anti-AIDS 
programs.

                              {time}  1045

  The President's Mexico City Policy has absolutely no application to 
this half-billion dollars. It only applies to population assistance 
which is a different set of accounts from HIV/AIDS programs.
  The proponents of the Lee amendment argue that population assistance 
has an incidental effect of reducing exposure to the HIV virus because 
part of it pays for contraceptive devices which may prevent infection. 
This argument misses the whole point of the Mexico City policy. The 
same identical amount of money will be available for contraceptive 
devices with or without the Mexico City policy. The same number of 
contraceptives will be available for distribution. The only difference 
is whether we hire abortionists or nonabortionists to distribute them. 
There have always been plenty of organizations willing to administer 
U.S. programs, including hundreds around the world that are very good 
that are in the business of family planning, not abortion.
  The claim that Members have to oppose the President's pro-life policy 
in order to support efforts to eradicate AIDS is total nonsense.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues, this amendment would make the 
bill abortion neutral. The amendment would not enact the Mexico City 
policy or any other policy on abortion. The only thing our amendment 
does is strike the pro-abortion language that was inserted in 
committee.
  When this bill was originally introduced, it said nothing at all 
about abortion. It was a foreign relations authorization bill, pure and 
simple. Unfortunately, supporters of an international right to abortion 
decided to use this bill as a vehicle for their attack on the 
President's authority in this area.
  So a vote for our amendment is a vote to restore the bill to its 
original abortion-neutral position. A ``yes'' vote will simply uphold 
the authority of the President to set reasonable terms and conditions 
on the distribution of U.S. foreign aid as the courts have held he has 
the power to do.
  Get us out of the abortion business. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment because I 
believe it strongly undermines our support for democracy, free speech, 
and human rights globally.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee), our lead speaker.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hyde-Smith 
amendment which will overturn the pro-family planning language that the 
Committee on International Relations added by a bipartisan vote of 26-
22, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the 
ranking member, for his tremendous leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to begin first by asking Members to put 
themselves in the shoes of someone who will be affected if we reinstate 
the dangerous gag rule with the Hyde-Smith amendment. Imagine being a 
20-year-old woman living on $300 per year in Africa, and going to the 
only health clinic within hundreds of miles of your home to get family 
planning counseling, and being denied access to the truly lifesaving 
information needed to decide when to have children or how to prevent 
HIV and AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, the use of condoms and information about sexually 
transmitted diseases is essential in preventing AIDS. Also, this is 
central to family planning counseling. We will be compromising the 
health and the lives of millions of women and children worldwide, and 
especially those in developing nations, who want and need to plan their 
families, if this Hyde-Smith amendment passes.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues what they oppose about the current 
language in the bill. Do they not support access to family planning 
which is proven to reduce the number of abortions? Do they not support 
access to HIV and AIDS prevention and education which could be 
eliminated at clinics under this amendment? Do they not support free 
speech and medical ethics and allowing health care providers in other 
nations to give complete information to their patients, as is the case 
in this country?
  Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues that not one penny of 
United States funds can go to providing abortions overseas as per the

[[Page 8178]]

1973 Helms amendment. The law states, and I have the law right here, 
the law states, ``None of the funds made available to carry out 
subchapter I of this chapter may be used to pay for the performance of 
abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any 
person to practice abortions.'' This has been law since 1973.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the dangerous Hyde-Smith 
amendment which will put the lives of millions of women and children at 
risk.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express strong support for the 
Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment. When President Bush took office, 
he reinstated the Mexico City policy. This policy does not reduce by 
one penny the $425 million allocated for population control funding. 
Under President Clinton in fiscal year 2000, we enacted a compromise 
Mexico City policy, where groups received their funding and they were 
required to certify that they would not perform abortions, violate the 
laws of the host country, or lobby to change the country's laws. Groups 
who refused to abide by these pro-life protections could still receive 
funds. Well, the sky did not fall. Women were not hurt. Family planning 
continued. In fact, 448 out of 457 groups agreed to abide by this 
simple policy. Only 9 international abortion groups refused, a mere 2 
percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we all want to ensure that our funding benefits the 
poorest women, helping them with actual family planning decisions. This 
will happen under the Mexico City policy. We all agree that AIDS is a 
tragedy. However, some supporters of the Lee amendment have been 
claiming that Mexico City will harm international AIDS programs. It 
should be said in no way will the Mexico City policy negatively affect 
efforts to eradicate this terrible disease. We are spending over a 
half-billion dollars per year in anti-AIDS efforts around the world. 
Nor is there any indirect effect on HIV-AIDS through reduction in 
population assistance which might help prevent AIDS because we will 
spend the same amount on population assistance. Do not be misled. While 
we differ on abortion, I urge that we support the Hyde amendment and 
stand with President Bush in protecting women overseas and taxpayers' 
consciences.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me strip this debate down to its 
essentials and talk about what it is really about.
  Mr. Chairman, the great religions of the world differ on when and if 
and under what circumstances a woman should have or it is moral for a 
woman to terminate her pregnancy. The Catholic Church thinks one thing. 
My church, Presbyterians, think something else. Jews think something, 
Muslims think something, and within those religions there are 
differences of opinions.
  Mr. Chairman, our country was based on religious tolerance and 
religious freedom. That is why most people came to this country 
initially. Let us talk about what this debate is about. This debate is 
about religious intolerance. This debate is about saying, because my 
religion tells me something about abortion, I as a Member of Congress 
have a right to impose my religious views on the women of America, 
regardless of their religion, and now the women of the world; and that 
I have the power of the purse to say to women overseas, regardless of 
what their religion tells them, we are going to deny their country and 
where they might go for their health care family planning funds because 
of our narrow religious views. That is unAmerican. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on this motion.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde-Smith 
amendment to reinstate Ronald Reagan's Mexico City policy prohibiting 
American taxpayer dollars to go to groups which violate foreign 
abortion laws.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly, by claiming that organizations performing 
abortions and receiving funds for lobbying activities are not using 
Federal funds in support of abortion is to engage in a shell game. 
Currently 100 countries restrict abortion, and it should not be the 
policy of the United States to undermine the laws of those countries. 
Critics of the Mexico City policy argue that the pursuit of such policy 
results in the denial of first amendment rights to free speech. 
However, the first amendment does not give anyone a constitutional 
right to receive Federal money. This bill is not about religious 
tolerance. It is about the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars. If one thinks 
taxpayer dollars should go to fund organizations that are going to try 
to overturn pro-life laws in foreign countries, then they should oppose 
the amendment.
  If my colleagues think this is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds 
provided by our hard-working American families, then vote for the 
amendment and stand with President Bush.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As 
a beacon of democracy and freedom for the entire world, the United 
States has a responsibility to do what is right and what is fair. The 
provision which the Hyde amendment seeks to strip from this bill 
embodies the principles on which our country was founded. The language 
this amendment seeks to strike says simply that we should not treat 
others the way we ourselves would not want to be treated; that we 
should not apply different, more onerous standards to overseas groups, 
damage which would be unconstitutional if we tried to apply them in our 
own country simply because we have the authority to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I cannot understand why some of my 
colleagues take issue with this. Proponents of this amendment are armed 
with the statistics that most overseas groups have accepted the gag 
rule when it has been imposed in the past. They have continued to 
receive U.S. funds and have not had to shut off all of their programs. 
But this misses the point. The statistics do not show the agonizing 
decisions organizations have to make in order to comply with the 
policy. They do not show the effects of denying medical advice to poor 
women. They cannot prove that the gag rule makes abortion more rare. 
And this returns us to the question of imposing the global gag rules 
because it is right, because it accomplishes the goal of making 
abortion more rare, or simply because we can.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, once again we see the 
pro-abortion advocates attempting to override the reinstatement of the 
Mexico City policy by attempting to paint this policy as anti-family. 
Yet their objections to this policy have nothing to do with families. 
This current attempt to repeal President Bush's executive order banning 
U.S. Government aid for U.S. and foreign contraception groups that 
perform abortions overseas is another disturbing sign of the pro-
abortion movement's contempt for the vast majority of Americans who 
oppose the spending of their tax dollars on abortions.
  The President's executive order protects the desires of millions of 
Americans who ethically and morally oppose Federal funding of abortion. 
The current misconception being spread that the Mexico City policy 
hurts family planning efforts overseas is simply not true. By 
withholding funds from groups that violate the Mexico City policy, the 
U.S. does not reduce the amount of foreign family assistance. In fact, 
the Mexico City policy increases family planning.
  From 1984 to 1993, when the Mexico City policy was in effect, U.S. 
family planning spending increased dramatically. This year, funding for 
U.S. international family planning is budgeted at $425 million, and 
reimplementation of the Mexico City policy will not reduce this.

[[Page 8179]]

  The only change that will take place under the Mexico City policy is 
that funding will be provided through representatives who are not in 
the abortion business.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion is not needed for family planning, and we must 
respect the views of millions of Americans who do not want their tax 
dollars spent overseas to promote abortion. The Mexico City policy 
continues family planning funding while respecting the views of 
millions who cherish life and oppose abortion.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), my distinguished Republican colleague.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise today to urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment. Recent research shows that 
voluntary family planning reduces abortion. Two separate studies, one 
by the RAND Corporation in Bangladesh and one by Princeton demographers 
in Kazakhstan, show the same conclusion: Abortion rates fall when 
contraception is prevalent.
  Mr. Chairman, across the former Soviet Union, abortion was the 
principal method of birth control under Communism. Princeton University 
studied Kazakhstan through the 1990s, looking at the effect of 
increased access to voluntary family planning. The results are clear. 
Contraceptive prevalence increased by 50 percent since the beginning of 
the 1990s, while abortion decreased by the same amount.
  ``The proposition that the occurrence of abortions can be reduced by 
increases in the use of contraception has been demonstrated again in 
the analysis of data from the 1999 Kazakhstan Demographic and Health 
Survey,'' said Charlie Westoff, Princeton University's demographer.

                              {time}  1100

  This amendment will not reduce abortion but the real way to reduce 
abortion is to increase voluntary family planning.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, today as we consider a bill to 
authorize funding for foreign relations, I find it puzzling that some 
of my colleagues would wish to include language to repeal President 
Bush's Mexico City policy. The issue of abortion as a method of family 
planning is one of the most divisive and controversial that we face as 
a Nation. Why should we be thrust into that debate in other countries?
  President Bush was right to remove the United States from promoting 
abortions in developing nations. After all, abortion is legal only in a 
fraction of these countries. Those who want American taxpayers to fund 
abortions overseas should consider the destructive impression that it 
gives others about the United States. As a Nation, the image we promote 
to the rest of the world should be one of life, health, and hope.
  The Mexico City policy allows the U.S. to support overseas family 
planning programs without tying those dollars to abortion. I urge my 
colleagues to support President Bush's Mexico City policy.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. 
First and foremost this is not about abortion. It is about women dying 
to the tune of 600,000 a year. That is equal to one or two jumbo jets 
crashing each day. And it is about saving women's lives. Since 1973, no 
U.S. Federal funds have been or are used for abortions around the 
world. During the time that we are debating this amendment, 65 women 
will die from pregnancy-related complications.
  The global gag rule restricts foreign NGOs from using their own 
funds. In America, this language would be unconstitutional. It is 
unconscionable that we would impose it on the world's poorest women. 
The global gag rule is enough to make you gag. The rule puts the U.S. 
in the position of deciding what speech is acceptable and what speech 
is unacceptable.
  Current Mexico City policy is not abortion neutral. Organizations 
receiving U.S. funds can use their own money to lobby against abortion 
but cannot use their own money to lobby to make abortion legal. Vote no 
on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of family planning, I rise in strong 
opposition to the Hyde-Smith amendment which reinstates the anti-woman 
antidemocratic Global Gag Rule.
  First and foremost, this is not about abortion. It's about women 
dying, to the tune of 600,000 a year. That is equal to one or two jumbo 
jets crashing every single day. And, it's about saving women's lives.
  Since 1973, no U.S. Federal funds have been or are used around the 
world for abortions. During the time we are debating the gag rule, 65 
women will die from pregnancy related complications because they don't 
have access to the most basic health care.
  The Global Gag Rule restricts foreign NGO's from using their own 
funds. In America, this language is unconstitutional. It's 
unconscionable that we would impose it on the world's poorest women. 
The gag rule is enough to make you gag. It cripples foreign NGO's 
ability to practice democracy in their own countries.
  We can't afford to stifle the international debate on family planning 
by tying the hands of NGO's with an antiwoman gag rule.
  The gag rule forces NGO's to choose between their democratic rights 
to organize and determine what is best in their own countries and 
desperately needed resources of U.S. family planning dollars.
  We know that family planning reduces the need for abortions. We know 
that it saves lives. The gag rule reduces the effectiveness of family 
planning organizations and should be eliminated.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lee language and oppose the Hyde-
Smith amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) and I commend their efforts in this important matter.
  Mr. Chairman, much has been said this day about the effects of the 
Mexico City policy. Our opponents claim that this is a gag on the first 
amendment and that it is an attack on family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, these claims are false and are simply an effort to 
change focus away from the real issue here which is federally funded 
abortions and abortion lobbying around the world.
  Regardless of one's personal stance on the sanctity of life, this 
body should be able to agree that the millions of pro-life taxpayers 
that have a moral objection to the practice of abortion should not be 
forced to pay for abortions or abortion advocacy internationally. 
America has always and should ever stand for life and liberty across 
the globe.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to choose life today and to 
vote for the Hyde-Barcia-Smith amendment and end forced taxpayer 
funding of abortion and abortion advocacy internationally.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hyde-
Smith amendment. What we are talking about today is not abortion. No 
U.S. tax dollars are used for abortions. Zero. Zilch. That has been the 
fact since 1973 and it is the same today. The Lee amendment does not 
change that one single bit.
  Mr. Chairman, we have all read stories in the newspaper and seen on 
television reports on the ravages of HIV/AIDS throughout the world. It 
is easy to forget those stories and the plight of millions of people 
around the world who are so far removed from today's debate. Last year 
I visited one of those far-off places, Malawi, in sub-Saharan Africa. I 
saw how in one location in a small village family planning is provided 
in the same place as immunizations for kids and HIV and TB testing for 
adults.
  With up to 35 percent of the population in some countries in sub-
Saharan Africa infected with HIV/AIDS and

[[Page 8180]]

with India and the South Asia region on the horizon as the next HIV 
time bomb, the U.S. must be more actively involved in funding programs.
  A one-size-fits-all solution is not what we need. What we need to do 
is work with the local NGOs and health care organizations to provide 
the highest quality of service, education, and care that we can 
possibly provide.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think the fundamental issue with the 
Mexico City policy is whether or not we will use our American tax 
dollars to promote the abortion industry overseas.
  We are known for our exports, beautiful cars, commercial jets, music, 
and movies. The Lee amendment will add abortion to our list of exports 
and does so at taxpayer expense. I believe this is the wrong message to 
send the world. Instead, let us promote life, the arts, new technology, 
not the industry of death. And above all, not with taxpayer dollars.
  I encourage my fellow Members of Congress to support the Hyde 
amendment and raise the standard of exports from America.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Hyde amendment and for international family planning 
assistance that we know makes a difference in the lives of women and 
children across the globe.
  Our international family planning assistance should not be 
encumbered. It should be enhanced. Overpopulation leads to the 
suffering of women and children, poverty and environmental degradation. 
Family planning is critical for the survival of the planet and the 
people on it, and it plays a critical part in preventing the spread of 
diseases like HIV/AIDS, which I believe is the moral issue of our time.
  In one of his first official actions, President Bush decided to 
restore the so-called Mexico City policy and reinstate controversial 
restrictions on U.S. family planning assistance. The President said he 
wanted to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars were not being spent on 
abortions abroad. Respectfully, I believe this is a misunderstanding of 
our law. Since 1973, U.S. policy has prohibited taxpayer funds from 
being used in any way, shape, or form to provide abortions. But under 
the Mexico City policy, nongovernmental organizations, with their own 
funds, cannot inform women about their options, nor can they advocate 
their own government's laws regarding reproduction. I believe these 
Presidential restrictions are harmful and will reduce the availability 
of family planning services to some of the world's poorest and most 
needy women.
  There is talk about compassion. In my view, this is not 
compassionate. In fact, these restrictions placed on overseas family 
planning organizations would be illegal in our own country. We are 
imposing restrictions on free speech, putting on a gag order that would 
not be allowed in the United States of America. We are asking 
nongovernmental organizations in other places, in other countries, to 
live under a restriction that we would not impose here in the United 
States.
  So the issue is simple. Do we empower women and families across the 
globe with the ability to plan for the number of children they will 
have, as is the case here in America? Or do we pull the rug out from 
under these important efforts? For me, the choice is clear. We must 
continue to work to empower women with the ability to make their choice 
necessary to plan the size of their own family.
  I was in Cambodia recently and we visited a family planning clinic. 
There were no abortions going on. There was no effort at abortion. They 
were simply giving women needed advice and education and help with what 
they desperately wanted, which was family planning. I could not see 
that without coming to the floor here today to try to change this 
policy. I think it is the right thing to do morally. I think it is the 
right thing to do for our leadership role in the world. I ask Members 
to examine their conscience and to examine the facts. If they will do 
that, I believe a majority here today will vote to overrule the 
President's ill-advised order on international family planning.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
full committee for yielding me this time and for his courage in 
offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the sole purpose of the seemingly benign title of this 
language that we are seeking to strike, the Global Democracy Promotion 
Act of 2001, is to provide Federal funds to organizations that perform 
and/or promote abortions overseas as part of this legislation, as part 
of our population account.
  The Lee language has nothing whatsoever to do with building democracy 
and the rule of law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
protection of human rights, all causes to which I have devoted and many 
others have devoted their entire lives to. The Lee language is not 
about protecting people. Indeed, the absolute contrary is true.
  I am sure many others like myself find it highly offensive when a 
legislative proposal that seeks to abolish the most fundamental, the 
most elemental of all human rights on the face of the Earth, the right 
to life, is euphemistically cloaked as a democracy builder, which it is 
not. The Lee language is designed to repeal the pro-life, pro-child 
Mexico City policy which as Members know was recently reinstated by 
President Bush to ensure that we do not fund the killing of unborn 
babies, either directly or indirectly.
  Mr. Chairman, it is high time we came to the recognition that 
abortion is violence against children. Abortion methods are cruel. 
Abortion procedures, referred to in the language as medical services, 
rip and dismember the innocent child or they chemically poison the baby 
with some toxic substance. Today, Mr. Chairman, the pro-life laws and 
policies of about 100 countries around the world are under continuous 
siege. Regrettably, the forces, the engine behind the pro-abortion push 
are nongovernmental organizations, pro-abortion groups that we fund and 
we are the primary provider of subsidies to those groups.
  The Bush executive order, like the original Reagan-Bush executive 
order, permits funding only to those organizations that provide family 
planning. Abortion is not family planning, and by funding only family 
planning, innocent children are not put at risk. As one of my previous 
colleagues pointed out so well, an overwhelming number of 
organizations, including some Planned Parenthood affiliates, accepted 
the Mexico City policy. For several years, there was a wall of 
separation between abortion and family planning. And the Bush policy 
ensures that as well. Who we subsidize, not just what, but who we give 
millions upon millions of dollars to has profound consequences.
  The simple fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that as far back as 
1984, we recognized that the longstanding law that said no funds could 
be used directly to pay for abortion was very infirm, it was incomplete 
and it was not working.

                              {time}  1115

  Money is fungible. The millions of dollars we gave to a family 
planning group to perform abortions immediately freed up millions more 
that were used for the performance and promotion of abortion.
  It should matter to us, not just what an organization does with our 
specific subsidy, but what else they do. It is a package deal. Many 
groups, regrettably, use family planning as a Trojan horse to conceal 
their real agenda, which is abortion on demand.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that Members of Congress are getting blitzed by 
Planned Parenthood and other abortionists who oppose the Hyde-Barcia-
Oberstar-Smith amendment. I appeal to you to resist. I ask you to stand

[[Page 8181]]

with the victims, both mother and child, and against the victimizers. 
When we subsidize and lavish Federal funds on abortion organizations, 
we empower the child abusers; and Planned Parenthood, make no mistake 
about it, both here and overseas, is ``Child Abuse, Incorporated.''
  Here in the United States, for example, and I would say 
parenthetically, this is not a domestic amendment, but the example 
gives you an insight as to what is happening overseas, Planned 
Parenthood has been given $2 billion and performed 2.6 million 
abortions since 1977. That is 2.6 million girls and boys who will never 
know the joys and challenges of living or the thrill of learning or 
marrying or playing soccer or raising their own families some day. That 
is 2.6 million individual dreams and talents and creativity the world 
will never see.
  The loss of children's lives directly attributable to Planned 
Parenthood is staggering; 2.6 million dead babies and counting. And if 
that is not enough, Planned Parenthood both lobbies and litigates 
against virtually every child protection initiative, including parental 
notification, women's right to know laws, abortion funding bans, 
partial-birth abortion, and, again, most recently, the Unborn Victims 
of Violence Act.
  Sadly, they do exactly the same thing overseas; and these non-
governmental organizations will be affected by this legislation we pass 
today. Members should be aware that the International Planned 
Parenthood Federation, which is based in London, is leaving no stone 
unturned in its misguided, obsessive campaign to legalize abortion on 
demand. If they succeed, millions of babies will die from the violence 
of abortion. I urge Members, please, let us not add to the body count.
  Mr. Chairman, Planned Parenthood's Vision 2000 strategic plan makes 
it very clear that they want family planning organizations to bring 
pressures on governments to campaign for abortion on demand. They do 
not cloak it; they do not disguise it. They wanted to undermine Central 
and South American countries that protect their babies, as well as 
Ireland and many other countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong vote in favor of the Hyde amendment, in 
favor of family planning and against abortion promotion.
  Mr. Chairman, Title I Subtitle C of the pending Foreign relations 
Act, inserted by amendment over the Prime Sponsor's objection during 
committee markup, is breathtakingly misleading.
  Subtitle C hides its sole purpose--providing federal funds to 
organizations that perform and/or promote abortion overseas, under the 
seemingly benign title of ``Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001.''
  Don't be fooled, I say to my colleagues.
  Subtitle C has nothing whatsoever to do with building democracy and 
the rule of law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protection of 
human rights--all causes to which I have devoted my entire life.
  The Lee language is not about protecting people. The absolute 
contrary is true.
  As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 
former Chairman of the International Operations and Human Rights 
Subcommittee, and today as Vice Chairman of the International Relations 
Committee--I not only have traveled on numerous human rights trips and 
chaired over 160 hearings on human rights and democracy building in the 
People's Republic of China, Russia, Vietnam, France, Sudan, Rwanda, 
Indonesia, Cuba, Peru, Turkey, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and 
the Ukraine (to name a few)--I am also the prime sponsor of:
  Public Law 106-386--the ``Victims of Trafficking and Violence 
Protection Act of 2000,''
  Public Law 105-320--the ``Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998,''
  Public Law 106-87--the ``Torture Victims Relief Authorization Act of 
1999,'
  Public Law 104-319--the ``Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign 
Relations Provisions Act of 1996,'' as well as
  Public Law 106-113, Division B--the ``Admiral James W. Nance and Meg 
Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 
2001,'' which is filled, like the other bills I have listed, with human 
rights and democracy provisions.
  In addition to authoring human rights legislation, I have offered 
scores of amendments to boost the Child Survival Fund, Refugee 
Protection, and Freedom Broadcasting, like Radio Free Asia.
  I and, I'm sure, many others find it highly offensive when a 
legislative proposal that seeks to abolish the most fundamental human 
right on the face of the earth--the right to life--is euphemistically 
cloaked as a democracy builder.
  It is not.
  Amazingly, no specific mention is made of abortion in either the 
findings or operative clause of the amendment. Why the unwillingness to 
be candid and transparent?
  Abortion is referred to as ``a particular issue'' or ``medical 
service.''
  But I guess one would have to be blind to not understand the precise 
nature of this section. It is designed to repeal the pro-life, pro-
child Mexico City Policy--recently reinstated by President Bush to 
ensure that we do not fund the killing of unborn babies, either 
directly or indirectly.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion is violence against children.
  Abortion methods are cruel. Abortion procedures--referred to this 
section as ``medical services''--rip and dismember the innocent child, 
or chemically poison the baby with some toxic substance.
  This--and only this--is the ``particular issue'' referred to in the 
section we seek to strike.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, the pro-life laws and policies of approximately 
one hundred countries that restrict abortion are under continuous siege 
and the forces behind the pro-abortion push are non governmental 
organizations funded by the US Government.
  The Bush executive order--like the original Reagan-Bush executive 
order--permits the funding of only those organizations that provide 
family planning--and abortion isn't family planning. Innocent children, 
therefore, are not put at risk.
  Who we subsidize--not just what--but who, we give millions of dollars 
to has profound consequences.
  The simple fact of the matter is that as far back as 1984, the 
longstanding law stipulating that no U.S. funds can directly be used 
for abortion was found to be infirm and incomplete. Money is fungible. 
The millions of dollars we give to a group immeditely frees up other 
non-U.S. funds that can be used--and have been used--for performing and 
aggressively promoting abortion. It should matter greatly to each of us 
not just what an organization does with our specific subsidy, but the 
rest of its agenda as well. It is a package deal. Many groups use 
family planning as the Trojan horse to conceal their real agenda--
abortion on demand.
  I know Members of Congress have been getting blitzed by Planned 
Parenthood and other abortionists to oppose the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-
Oberstar Amendment.
  I appeal to you to resist.
  I ask you to stand with the victims--both mother and child--and 
against the victimizers.
  Whe we subsidize and lavish federal funds on abortion organizations, 
we empower the child abusers.
  And Planned Parenthood, make no mistake about, it, both here and 
overseas is Child Abuse Incorporated!
  Here in the United States for example, and of course it's not 
affected by this amendment, Planned Parenthood has been paid $1.997 
billion in taxpayer dollars and has performed 2,608,362 abortions since 
1977.
  That's 2.6 million girls and boys who will never know the joys and 
challenges of living, or the thrill of learning, or marrying, or 
playing soccer, or raising their own family someday.
  That's 2.6 million individual dreams, talents and creativity the 
world will never see.
  The loss of children's lives directly attributed to Planned 
Parenthood is staggering--2.6 million dead babies and counting.
  And if that wasn't enough, Planned Parenthood both lobbies and 
litigates against virtually every child protection initiative including 
parental notification, women's right to know laws, abortion funding 
bans, partial birth abortion bans and the Unborn Victim of Violence 
Act. Sadly--they do the same overseas, and those non governmental 
organizations would be affected by what we do today.
  Members should be aware that the International Planned Parenthood 
Federation is leaving no stone unturned in its misguided, obsessive 
campaign to legalize abortion on demand around the world. If they 
succeed, millions of babies will die from the violence of abortion on 
demand. Please, let's not add to the body count.
  Planned Parenthood's Vision 2000 strategic plan says that family 
planning organizations should ``bring pressure on governments and 
campaign for policy and legislative change to remove restrictions 
against abortion.'' Can anything be more clear? ``Pressure'' 
governments to nullify their pro-life policies. ``Campaign'' for 
abortion on demand. And Subtitle C of this bill would compel us to 
provide millions of dollars to these abortionists.

[[Page 8182]]

  A headline in the Philippine Daily Inquirer a few years ago 
succinctly underscores our concern, ``Flavier Hits U.S. Pressure on 
Abortion.'' The article quotes Senator Juan Flavier:

       We had just celebrated our 50th anniversary of independence 
     from America, but we can still see insidious methods of 
     imperialism trying to subvert our self-determination by using 
     [population control] funds as subtle leverage . . . I 
     strongly opposed abortion. It is prohibited by our laws and 
     the Philippine Constitution. Hence, we should be prepared to 
     lose foreign funding rather than be pressured into causing 
     the death of unborn children.

  The abortion promotion by Planned Parenthood is so extreme in the 
Philippines, for example, that the President of IPPF's affiliate--the 
Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP)--resigned over 
what he called International Planned Parenthood Federation's ``hidden 
agenda'' and misuse of his family planning affiliate to legalize 
abortion.
  The use of family planning to cloak its real agenda--the use of 
family planning as a cover for permissive abortion laws--is now 
commonplace, and must be stopped. The Bush executive order will help.
  Let me remind Members that the pro-life safeguards included in the 
Bush executive order are nothing new; they were in effect for almost a 
decade. And they worked!
  The pro-life safeguards--the Mexico City Policy--were in effect 
during the Reagan and Bush years as a principled way to fund family 
planning without promoting abortion.
  We should have no part in empowering the abortion industry to succeed 
in performing or promoting violence against children.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to my 
friend and neighbor, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and congratulate him and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for 
their leadership on the committee in putting forth this global 
democracy act. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) for writing those words in an independent bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address some of the concerns raised by our 
colleagues. This language that is in this bill is good because it goes 
a long way to address the concerns, in fact, the entire way to address 
the concerns Members have about international family planning.
  This is the first time Members will have to vote on this particular 
language. This is not tied to anything they have ever voted for before. 
It is simply saying we treat non-governmental organizations in other 
countries the way we treat our own people over there.
  The gentleman used the argument of fungibility. The President of the 
United States, when issuing this executive order, used the argument of 
fungibility. Yet no one says anything when the faith-based initiatives 
say that organizations can use their own money for religion, while 
using our money for social services.
  Let us be consistent. Let us let these organizations use their own 
money, just as we do in the U.S., for reproductive freedom, for 
pregnancy counseling, issues like that, using our money for 
international family planning.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there are more Members that 
want to speak on this, and, at the same time, I am reluctant to open 
the floodgates, so I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes 
on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I would like to ask my friend, would he be willing to agree 
to an additional 10 minutes on each side?
  Mr. HYDE. Yes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to an additional 10 minutes of 
debate on this amendment on each side?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hyde amendment. I would 
encourage all of my colleagues who support the right-to-life and who 
also are opposed to Federal funding for abortion to support the Hyde 
amendment, to support the Hyde language.
  As most people know, I practiced medicine for many years before I 
came to the U.S. Congress. Though I never performed abortions, I did 
have the opportunity to witness abortions being performed in my medical 
training. While I know some people who defend the right to abortion do 
so more or less seeing it as the better of two evils, protecting the 
right of the woman for reproductive autonomy versus the right to life, 
there is no question if you ever actually go into the operating suite 
and actually see an abortion being performed, really in any of the 
techniques that are used, that it is extreme violence against an unborn 
baby. It is brutal, it is most certainly very painful.
  The anatomical data, the embryology, what we know about the fetus in 
the womb based upon our understanding of what we see using ultrasound, 
ultrasonic techniques, I just spoke to a radiologist recently in my 
district who described to me how you can clearly see when you do 
amniocentesis and some of these other procedures in the womb, you can 
see these babies reacting.
  This is clearly, I think for me personally, a no-brainer. Keeping in 
mind that there are millions of Americans who are pro-life, should we 
be using taxpayer dollars to go to these international family planning 
organizations who perform abortions? Now, they will tell us, and we are 
going to hear it on the floor today, oh, they use the American money, 
the Federal money, for fax machines and IUDs and other contraceptive 
purposes, and use this other money. As we all know, money is fungible, 
you can move it around.
  I think this is a very, very good amendment. It is a very, very well 
thought out amendment; and I would highly encourage all of my 
colleagues, this is very, very consistent with our long-established 
policy in not funding abortions. We should not be funding abortions 
overseas.
  Furthermore, these organizations use their money to lobby foreign 
countries to repeal their pro-life laws. Should American taxpayer 
dollars be used for something like that? I say no.
  Support the Hyde language. Support the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, by lifting the global gag rule, this bill 
does not send U.S. funds overseas to pay for abortions. The 1973 Helms 
amendment prohibits Federal funding of abortions as a method of family 
planning.
  This amendment remedies a hypocritical double standard imposed by the 
global gag rule which would be unconstitutional if it were applied to 
family planning organizations in the United States.
  Although it is constitutionally permissible for the U.S. government 
to restrict how a U.S.-based organization spends Federal funds, the 
Constitution does not permit the government to impinge upon an 
organization's rights to free speech and association by restricting how 
it spends funds received from other non-Federal sources.
  Under the global gag rule, foreign organizations that receive U.S. 
family planning funds cannot use their own non-U.S. funds to provide 
medical counseling, which includes information about abortion or 
abortions or to lobby their own governments on the subject. These 
restrictions, if applied to U.S. organizations, would quickly be struck 
down as violating the right to free speech and association.
  The United States should respect the rights of citizens of other 
countries to freedom of speech. It is arrogance for us to attempt to 
limit the rights of free speech abroad in a way we would never do at 
home. I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde-
Smith amendment. As a member of the

[[Page 8183]]

Russia Duma Study Group, I have seen firsthand how important these 
funds are to women around the world. I have met with family planning 
providers from around the world; and they consider this aid to be the 
most important assistance that they receive from the United States, 
especially the providers in the former Soviet Union and African 
nations.
  This is not about promoting abortion. It is about helping women and 
their families. When I was coming up in the 1960s, there used to be a 
program with Sergeant Joe Friday, and he would say, ``Just the facts.'' 
The facts are we do not spend a dime of U.S. taxpayer money for 
abortions and have not since 1973.
  This is not about protecting the taxpayers' dollars. This is about 
the fact that each year more than 600,000 women die of pregnancy-
related deaths that are preventible. This is about the fact that more 
than 150 million married women in developing countries want assistance.
  Vote against this ill-fated amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, for more than 30 years, the United States 
has led an international effort to reduce the toll of maternal deaths, 
unwanted pregnancies, and abortion in developing countries by providing 
money and technical assistance for family planning programs. The Hyde-
Smith amendment would severely limit our efforts to reduce abortions 
worldwide because it would reinstate the global gag rule, a policy that 
prohibits foreign, non-governmental organizations that receive U.S. 
Federal funds from promoting and providing comprehensive family 
planning services.
  By reducing funding to reproductive health care providers in 
underserved areas, this amendment will decrease women's ability to 
access pregnancy-related care, family planning and services for HIV/
AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Our efforts to reduce the 
number of abortions worldwide through greater access to family planning 
services will be hindered.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hyde-Smith 
amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the findings of the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
California read as following: ``It is the fundamental principle of 
American medical ethics and practice that health care providers should 
at all times deal honestly and openly with patients. Any attempt to 
subvert the private and sensitive physician-patient relationship should 
be intolerable in the United States and is an unjustified intrusion 
into the practices of health care providers when attempted in other 
countries.''
  No one will argue with that, and yet the Hyde amendment strikes this 
from this bill.
  What happens here then is that women in poor countries die. Six 
hundred thousand women a year die. Abortion is not stopped. Women are 
simply not able to plan their families, and women die.
  Do we want the people to understand that the United States only cares 
about the doctor-patient relationship and about giving decent health 
care only in our own borders?
  Stop letting women in other countries die because we refuse to give 
them the information that they need. It is not about abortion.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the former distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished 
chairman of our Committee on International Relations, my dear friend.
  The Mexico City global gag rule is unnecessary and it is 
unproductive. We should not impose any conditions on funding for family 
planning programs that restrict credible organizations from helping us 
achieve our family planning goals, because those organizations, with 
their own funds, engage in activities that we may disagree with, such 
as lobbying for the lifting of restrictions on abortions overseas. 
Please bear in mind, I say to my colleagues, that under the current 
U.S. law, no U.S. funds are allowed to support abortion or abortion-
related activities abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congress, not the President, should be deciding 
issues of this nature. It is inappropriate for the President, for whom 
I have the highest regard, to be issuing executive orders to provide 
for policies such as the so-called global gag rule, the Mexico City 
policy. And any Member, or any administration, wishing to provide for 
that policy should bear the burden of moving that legislation through 
the Congress.
  If our colleagues support the bill as reported from our committee, we 
will be promoting a sound policy and will be defending the prerogatives 
of the legislative branch.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde 
amendment. I do not think it is the strongest amendment that we could 
have, because ultimately, this debate will not end until we stop the 
Federal funding or taxpayer funding of population control overseas. But 
nevertheless, a vote for this amendment is a strong statement in 
opposition to tax-supported abortion.
  I would like to address the subject of the gag rule. As many of my 
colleagues know, if there is any violation whatsoever of any civil 
liberties or the Constitution, no matter how well intended a piece of 
legislation is, I will vote against it. On occasion even though I'm 
strong pro-life, I have occassionally voted against pro-life 
legislation for that reason.
  But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red 
herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first 
amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in 
this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, 
we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the 
second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be 
nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it 
does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. 
Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who 
believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated.
  Someone mentioned earlier that this was a violation of the religious 
beliefs of people overseas. What about the religious beliefs of the 
people in this country who are at the point of a gun forced to pay for 
these abortions? That is where the real violation is. It is not an 
infraction on the first amendment.
  As a matter of fact, I think this is a bad choice and bad tactics for 
those who support abortion, because this is like rubbing our nose into 
it when the people who feel so strongly against abortion are forced to 
pay for abortion, to pay for the propaganda and to pay for the lobbying 
to promote abortion. Ultimately, the solution will only come when we 
defund overseas population control.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the family planning programs our country 
supports provide critical reproductive health care for millions of 
women

[[Page 8184]]

around the globe. Family planning assistance prevents unwanted 
pregnancies and yes, helps to prevent abortions. These family planning 
programs are the only health care these women and their families have.
  The President's executive order dictates to these groups that they 
must forfeit their right to determine what they do with their own 
private funds: you must not talk about certain things, you must not 
perform certain health care services, you must report to us what you do 
with your own money.
  If we were to impose these mandates on domestic groups, they would be 
struck down as unconstitutional. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), my colleague, acknowledged that in 1997 on this floor. He also 
said at that time that he would like to impose this gag rule on these 
domestic organizations.
  The United States Government does not fund abortions here or abroad. 
We have not done that for decades. We have now begun to restrict what 
groups can do with their own money. Who suffers when we penalize the 
funding for these groups? Women and children, some of the most 
impoverished women and children in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Hyde amendment, save 
women's lives, and promote democratic values.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  It has been said, but I will say it again: the issue we are debating 
today is not abortion, it is family planning. Equally important, 
everyone who will be voting on this amendment today needs to know that 
the ban on international family planning assistance is more restrictive 
than any this House has voted on before. If this amendment passes, the 
global gag rule will go back into effect. This policy disqualifies 
overseas groups from U.S. planning assistance if they use their own 
funds simply to counsel pregnant women on all their pregnancy options, 
including birth control.
  The distinguished gentleman from Illinois said, well, birth control 
will still be there. These workers just will not be able to tell the 
women about it. Well, that is really helpful, if the birth control is 
sitting there in the drawer and no one can tell them about it.
  The truth is, we all do share one goal today. The goal we share is 
reducing abortion overseas. There is one way to reduce abortion 
overseas, and that is family planning. Vote ``no'' on the Hyde 
amendment, and let us keep family planning available to women around 
the globe.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), my dear Republican friend.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I join so many of my colleagues in 
opposing this Hyde amendment, which would impose a gag rule on critical 
international family planning funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know what we are hearing, because the 
taxpayers' dollars have never been used or have not been used for 
paying for abortions, and people are talking about abortions. This is 
not about promoting abortions at all. The taxpayer money has never been 
used to perform or promote it. It has been mentioned that the law that 
explicitly forbids such activities began as an amendment by Senator 
Helms to the Foreign Operations bill in 1973, which is renewed 
annually. Therefore, there should be no anti-abortion concerns within 
international family planning.
  International family planning helps women, it helps families, it 
helps our national security. Access to international family planning 
services is one of the most effective means of reducing abortions, 
because it provides safe and effective contraceptive options allowing 
women to plan and space their children; and it promotes the health of 
both mother and child.
  Mr. Chairman, we need this access, so I hope people will vote against 
this Hyde amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just to respond very briefly. 
First of all, this is all about foreign aid grant money and whether or 
not we will have modest conditions that protect children.
  Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned a moment ago that we have never voted 
on this issue before. That is patently untrue. I offered the amendment 
supporting the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy year in and year out 
going back to 1985. This body has voted repeatedly, close to 15 years 
of voting on this very policy, identical to what we have under 
consideration today. So hopefully, that argument, that false statement 
will not be made again.
  Let me remind my colleagues, the Hyde, Barcia, Smith, Obestar 
Amendment does not reduce family planning by one penny; we condition 
it; we put in safeguards. Who we give our tax dollars to does matter. 
Pro-abortion organizations perform and promote abortions. Let us give 
our tax dollars to those that will divest themselves of abortion, and 
simply stick to family planning.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde-Smith 
amendment. The distinguished chairman started this debate by saying 
there is a difference between the issues of abortion and family 
planning, and he is correct. The underlying issue in the Hyde-Smith 
amendment is not the question of stopping abortion, although they would 
like us to believe that. The underlying issue is how do we best deliver 
family planning services to women around the world. We do that by 
abolishing the gag rule, by voting against this amendment.
  This amendment would prevent women around the world from getting 
fundamental family planning information, the most basic information 
that would go directly to the issue of them controlling their 
reproductive freedom and not needing to turn to abortions. It is 
contrary to what my Republican colleagues say they stand for to cut off 
funding for international family planning, and we would cut it off to 
the poorest women in the world, not women in our districts, but women 
around the world that need this information.
  Vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), my good Republican friend.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  In 1960 there were 3 billion people that lived on this Earth. Today, 
there are 6 billion people who live on this Earth; and in 40 years, 
without worldwide family planning services, it will rise to nearly 9 
billion. Without worldwide family planning, abortions will be more 
prevalent.
  We need to defeat the Hyde-Smith amendment. There is no funding in 
this bill for abortions. U.S. law already prohibits family planning 
funds from being used for abortions, and nothing in this bill permits 
organizations to break the laws of their host countries or those of the 
United States.
  We need to defeat the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis). Although she has been with us only a few 
months, she has already made a significant contribution to the work of 
this House.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the 
global gag rule. It has been stated before, but it bears repeating: the 
global gag rule imposes restrictions on foreign organizations that 
would be illegal and unacceptable in our own country.
  In this country, we value our freedom of speech, and we value the 
sanctity of our doctor-patient relationships. The global gag rule 
prevents foreign, nongovernmental organizations from participating in 
public policy debates regarding the right to choose. Can any of us 
imagine if Congress passed a law

[[Page 8185]]

that silenced the Christian Coalition or Planned Parenthood? The 
American public would not stand for such a blatant violation of the 
freedom of speech. Like American groups, foreign organizations should 
have the right to advocate for their cause.
  Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, however, the most egregious impact of the 
global gag rule is that it violates the sanctity of the doctor-patient 
relationship. We should not be making decisions about personal, private 
health care decisions. It is absolutely critical that women are able to 
discuss their health care concerns with their doctors. So in turn, 
doctors need to be able to answer all of their questions and discuss 
every available health care option. If Congress votes to limit what 
doctors can say to their patients, we will jeopardize the health of 
women around the world.
  The time has come to stand up for democracy and patients' rights. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote to repeal the global gag rule today.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, this debate is a matter of subsidy versus 
choice. The amendment makes our foreign policy consistent with our 
domestic practices. While many Americans regard themselves as advocates 
of abortion choice, they clearly oppose subsidies for abortions, 
whether directly or indirectly, through a fungible subsidy, which is 
the focus of this amendment.
  Our proposal funds family planning, but distinguishes family planning 
from lethal abortion. America's standard is clearly stated in our 
Declaration and in our Constitution, a standard which promotes life and 
regards the right to it as unalienable.
  The most pernicious aspect of the efforts by our opponents to promote 
overseas abortions is that these promotions are targeted to the world's 
poor, those whose children are already the most vulnerable on the 
planet. The amendment promotes free will, while avoiding ill will. It 
draws a clear line at human life and places our country on the side of 
sanity, decency, and human dignity.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend 
and colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, the global gag rule is anti-family and 
it is pro-abortion.
  President Bush said the policy was necessary ``to make abortion more 
rare.'' There is absolutely no evidence that it did that the last time 
it was in effect. Rather, there is statistical evidence that family 
planning reduces the number of abortions all over the world.
  This gag rule would deny money to places like Turkey, where the 
Ministry of Health initiated a pilot program linking family planning 
services and abortion. The results have been dramatic. After a program 
to promote the use of birth control, the number of abortions performed 
at that hospital dropped 42 percent from 1992 to 1998.
  This policy would be unconstitutional if applied in our own country. 
How could we even imagine voting in favor of a policy that hinders and 
gags democracy around the globe?
  The global gag rule undermines women's health by denying aid money to 
organizations that provide crucial family planning services. I urge a 
no vote.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, I plead with my 
colleagues, to oppose this amendment that would put the Mexico City 
policy back into this bill, that would put the language that gags 
foreign private organizations from using their own funds, and I want to 
repeat this, using their own funds to educate women and families about 
reproductive choices and options, including birth control options.
  International family planning operations provide women in foreign 
countries with access to maternal care, clinic health services, 
education and counseling, programs that reduce the need for abortion in 
the first place. At the very least, we should allow organizations that 
participate in family planning programs to use their own private funds 
to provide information and services for women and their families.
  Mr. Chairman, if we truly care about women and children, we will 
support international family planning. Without it, women in developing 
nations will be forced to make unconscionable choices.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, quickly, let me observe that the President 
and his faith-based organizations' proposal said that funds can be 
segregated. Yes, they may be fungible, but they can make a difference. 
That is what this issue is about.
  Family planning programs supported by the United States save lives 
around the world. The World Health Organization estimates that close to 
600,000 women die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often 
preventable. Nearly one in four of these deaths could be prevented if 
high-quality family planning services were available.
  Proponents of the global gag rule would lead us to believe that 
taxpayer dollars are being spent to actively promote or fund abortions. 
This is false and has been prohibited by United States law since 1973. 
Imposing restrictions on the freedom of speech of foreign NGOs not only 
undermines the key goal of our foreign policy, promoting democracy 
worldwide, but it would be unconstitutional in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve the existing language in the bill 
and vote against the global gag rule.
  Mr. Chairman, family planning programs supported by the United States 
save lives around the world.
  The World Health Organization estimates that close to 600,000 women 
die each year of pregnancy-related causes that are often preventable--
99 percent of which are women that live in developing countries.
  Nearly one in four of these deaths could be prevented if high-quality 
family planning services were available.
  Proponents of the global ``GAG'' rule would lead you to believe that 
taxpayer dollars are being spent to actively promote or fund abortions. 
This is false. The truth is that not one penny of U.S. assistance pays 
for abortion services. Federal law has explicitly prohibited funding 
for abortion services since 1973. Furthermore, the global ``GAG'' rule 
would be unconstitutional in the United States.
  Impossing restrictions on the freedom of speech of foreign NGOs not 
only undermines the key goal of our foreign policy--promoting democracy 
worldwide--but it would be unconstitutional in the U.S.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve the existing language in the bill 
and vote against the global ``GAG'' rule.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde-
Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment, which preserves President Bush's legal 
authority to implement the pro-life Mexico City policy which prohibits 
U.S. population assistance funds from being made available to foreign 
organizations that perform or actively promote abortions in foreign 
countries.
  I would have thought that I would not have needed to remind anyone in 
this body today about the revelation last year that the International 
Planned Parenthood Federation quietly repaid $700,000 in U.S. grants 
just days before a congressional audit to determine if the funds were 
used for abortions or the promotion of abortion in India and Uganda.
  If International Planned Parenthood Federation believes they were 
used illegally according to Federal law, my colleagues should probably 
contact them to find out the truth. While International Planned 
Parenthood might have repaid the U.S. Treasury, they could not pay us 
back in the human lives they stole.
  Today, let us reaffirm our fundamental belief that all of the world's 
unborn have precious lives that should be protected. Our own 
Declaration of Independence recognizes that governments are instituted 
to protect the inalienable right to life. Why should we want to export 
a contrary doctrine?

[[Page 8186]]


  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to my 
friend and neighbor, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Just 2 days after the Bush administration came into office, he issued 
an executive memorandum reinstating the notorious global gag rule on 
international family planning programs, so we knew that this was going 
to come to the floor, but we must know the facts on this.
  The fact is, access to family planning services is one of the most 
effective ways of reducing abortion. Limiting access to family planning 
results in higher rates of high-risk pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and 
maternal deaths. Let us know the facts: 600,000 women die each year of 
causes related to pregnancies or childbirth. Ninety-nine percent of 
those women live in developing countries.
  We must vote no on this Hyde-Smith-Oberstar amendment so we can 
strengthen HIV-AIDS prevention, so we can encourage the Golden Rule, 
respect medical ethics, and respect and reinforce current U.S. laws. I 
urge Members to vote against this thinly-veiled legislation that is 
anti-family planning. Vote no.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, in the late seventies when I was assistant 
administrator of AID in charge of population programs, I was in charge 
of the effort to enforce the Helms amendment, whether the agency liked 
it or not. We did that. We set up a rigorous procedure to make sure 
that no U.S. monies were used for abortion-related activities.
  Now, the argument is that money is fungible, and even if an 
organization uses a small amount of its own monies, or an affiliate 
uses its monies, we should make sure that that organization receives no 
American funding. That carries the fungibility argument to an extreme, 
period. It is not a rule of reason.
  I just suggest to those who are carrying this fungibility argument to 
an extreme, they should not be surprised if it is used against them or 
others when they try to apply a different principle in terms of 
domestic programs.
  This is a bad amendment. It is an extreme amendment. I urge its 
rejection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to my 
friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for giving me the time for a very important discussion.
  I respectfully rise to oppose the Hyde-Smith amendment. I guess it is 
because I have spent a lot of time in developing nations visiting with 
women across the world. Many of them want peace, and they fight for 
human rights. They want dignity for their families, their children. 
They want to be able to raise their children. They want to be able to 
give them a good quality of life. They want to live, I say to the 
gentleman from California. The reason they want to live is because they 
want to be able to foster the opportunities for their children.
  But if this amendment passed, 600,000 of those women can die because 
of pregnancy-related problems, because there has been no family 
planning. I think it is very important to realize that this Bush Mexico 
City global gag rule policy that was implemented is more extreme than 
any other policy we have ever had, because the policy disqualifies 
overseas groups from U.S. family planning assistance if they use their 
own funds simply to counsel women on their pregnancy options.
  Family planning is vital. We should vote this amendment down so women 
and children around the world might live.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to address their comments to the 
Chair, and not to other parties.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I hope this body can come together on this 
very sensible plan that we have discussed today to protect birth 
control, yes, birth control, in the international aid program.
  We know that the Republican party is opposed to choice, but what is 
at stake here is not the fight about abortion, it is whether poor women 
in the Third World are going to be able to have access to birth control 
so that they can plan their families.
  Surely this House is not so radical that it will oppose birth control 
and the family planning program.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple 
of points in rebuttal to those comments made by my friends on the other 
side of this issue.
  A couple of their speakers have said that somehow the fungibility 
argument is analogous, to what we were doing with the faith-based 
initiative proposed by President Bush.
  I would suggest that in the faith-based initiative, there is a benign 
outcome, a benign consequence. If, as a matter of fact, because we give 
money to a religious organization, which in-turn frees up money, for 
example, for them to proselytize their religion, I think most of us 
would agree that is not a bad thing. That is why we give tax breaks to 
religious organizations, regardless of denomination or belief, because 
we do believe that religious beliefs are a positive good for society.
  That is not the case when we are talking about money and fungibility 
with regard to family planning and abortion. If the organization, a 
pro-abortion organization, is performing and killing and decimating, 
destroying, chemically poisoning and dismembering unborn children, 
because U.S. funding allows them to use their own money for abortion, 
that is not a benign consequence, that is a horrific consequence.
  If our U.S. funding for family planning is used to free up other 
money for abortion, we have a responsibility to step in and protect the 
child and only fund those groups that just do family planning.
  I believe as reasonable men and women we can make choices and say, we 
do not want that consequence. So here in the Mexico City policy, the 
fungibility argument has real teeth, it has real grip. It ensures that 
we do not subsidize groups that engage in abortion, the killing of 
unborn children.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues again that when the Mexico 
City policy was in effect, 350 nongovernmental organizations accepted 
the pro-life Mexico City provisions, including 57 affiliates of the 
International Planned Parenthood Federation based in London. That is 57 
mostly in-country affiliates who said, we will divest ourselves of 
killing. Abortion is killing. Family planning is not.
  I would hope and I would respectfully submit, this is a modest 
policy. We do not reduce family planning by a dime. Last year we 
appropriated $425 million for family planning, and $425 million will go 
forward for family planning, with the pro-life safeguards.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a vote no on this amendment. Let me 
share with Members that my religious values I hold dear. I am not in 
church right now, but I respect the right of every woman to choose 
medical procedures that she and her doctor have decided.
  But that is not what this is about. This is about family planning. 
Family planning will eliminate the need for abortions. As a 
professional nurse, abortions are not done lightly. It is a tough 
decision and a medical one, for the most part. I can assure the Members 
that not a single dollar in this bill is going to fund an abortion.

                              {time}  1200

  But, Mr. Chairman, we recognize the need for family planning, not 
only will

[[Page 8187]]

it save lives, it will also prevent a lot of disease. When people have 
access to information on how to control their emotions and their lives, 
we will see a better result.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar 
amendment to preserve the President's legal authority to implement the 
pro-life Mexico City policy.
  Mr. Chairman, the pro-abortion lobby likes to call the Mexico City 
policy a gag rule. This is a cunning and deceptive argument and could 
not be further from the truth. Abortion, even when it is cloaked in the 
terms of those who favor it as choice or reproductive freedom, is still 
giving one human being the power to terminate the life of another.
  Fortunately, many of the countries that are considered the Second and 
Third World still respect and cherish life. These countries though 
vulnerable and in need of aid should not be forced, coerced, or unduly 
influenced to accept a practice that is abhorrent to them and a 
complete contradiction of their most basic beliefs.
  That is exactly what the Mexico City policy is all about, Mr. 
Chairman. It is a reasonable attempt to ensure that the pro-abortion 
lobby in the West does not undermine the traditions and the laws of 
other countries.
  The Mexico City policy prohibits organizations that perform abortions 
or lobby foreign governments to legalize abortions from receiving U.S. 
tax dollars. It is a just but modest measure for those Americans and, 
Mr. Chairman, there are a clear majority of Americans who do not want 
their foreign aid dollars used to fund abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to 
implement the Mexico City policy, a policy which protects and values 
and respects life not only in this country but around the world.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), my Republican friend.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an 
American. I am proud to be a citizen in the freest Nation in the world. 
We have the confidence in America that if everyone is allowed to speak 
up, to share their experience, to share their knowledge, we as a Nation 
will find the best and truest path into the future.
  I am proud that I am part of a country that trusts what is an 
extraordinarily difficult process, because it is difficult sometimes to 
trust the chaos that comes with public debate about difficult issues. 
And so I am humiliated as I stand here as an American to watch Members 
of this House impose on other countries a limit on their citizens' 
rights to speak up, to advocate what they think their government ought 
to do in governing themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill denies the use of American dollars 
for abortion; that is that. The underlying bill denies the right to 
counsel women to go get an abortion; that is that. I do not agree with 
it; but that is that.
  That is not the issue that so profoundly concerns me about the 
amendment, which I strongly oppose. If America's policy is to be no 
American funds for abortion, no American funds to counsel for abortion, 
so be it. But we do know that empowering women with the knowledge to 
space their children, to have healthy pregnancies, not only saves lives 
but produces healthy mothers and healthy babies. I am glad that there 
is money in the bill for family planning.
  This amendment is about whether we take the next step and we say to 
that country that the people who have experience in providing 
information and education to women may not raise their voice as 
citizens of their own country, to inform the debate in their own 
country about what public policy and public law ought to be. And worse 
than that, this bill says if you have an opinion that we approve of, 
you may speak publicly. If you have an opinion we disapprove of, you 
may not speak publicly.
  Are we going to send in the FBI? American troops? Are we going to be 
the censors of speech of people in other countries? It is one thing for 
America to say you cannot use our money for abortions; it is another 
thing to say and for us to export as a matter of American policy, we 
deny you the right to speak your opinion in your own country. We should 
be ashamed.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleagues, if we subsidized an 
organization that used their money and our money for hunger relief, but 
hunger relief was only part of their mix of programs a mix that also 
include the promotion of racial prejudice, we would withhold U.S. 
funds. Take for instance, apartheid, just go back 15, 20 years in South 
Africa. We would fund only NGOs who did not agree with Apartheid 
because we found it egregious and something we could not agree with. So 
we would suggest to those NGO's that had Apartheid as part of their 
package, just part of their program, that we will find another NGO to 
fund. One that divested itself from Apartheid.
  Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what has happened with the Mexico City 
policy. We have said we will provide enormous amounts of money for 
family planning, but we want some pro-life safeguards to ensure that we 
are not promoting abortion. Many of us and many in America and many in 
the world believe abortion to be the taking of human life and 
exploitation of women as well, we don't want to fund that. Instead, we 
want to make sure that that money goes for family planning, their own 
money as well as our own.
  Again, if we apply this policy to other issues where we have grave 
disagreements, like racial prejudice, we would pick and choose among 
NGOs, and only fund those who divested themselves, completely, from the 
egregious activity.
  Finally, this policy has been found to be constitutional. It has 
already been litigated, and has been reaffirmed through the scrutiny of 
the U.S. courts. The Mexico City policy is fully constitutional.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I say I have great respect for my 
colleagues who feel so strongly about the Hyde amendment, but I would 
like to repeat once again exactly why I am asking my colleagues to vote 
no on the Hyde amendment. Number one, the Hyde amendment reduces 
abortion funding from zero to zero. There is no abortion funding in any 
family planning legislation which we are proposing.
  The Hyde amendment will not reduce the number of abortions, it can 
only make them less safe. The Hyde amendment, in fact, may well 
increase the number of abortions, because we are denying poor women 
around the world the opportunity to get counseling and spacing their 
children to get family planning.
  The Hyde amendment violates medical ethics. It interferes in the 
doctor-patient relationship. The Hyde amendment punishes free speech 
and democracy. The Hyde amendment will strip language that respects 
United States law and laws in foreign countries.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, please read this carefully. 
Vote no on the Hyde amendment. Vote for free speech and democracy and 
the rights of the United States citizen. Let us not, let us not impose 
on others what we would not impose on our own.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is recognized 
for 6 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I speak in defense of millions of people who 
are offended by having their tax dollars coercively spent to facilitate 
abortions, and that is the state of the bill now with the Lee 
amendment.

[[Page 8188]]

  My amendment strikes the Lee amendment and makes this bill abortion 
neutral. I have heard people argue, debate abortion, and say that 
government ought to keep its hands out of this decision. They ought not 
to be involved in abortion. That is what we are trying to do.
  The Lee amendment provides that money, millions of dollars can go to 
organizations that facilitate abortions, that propagandize for 
abortions, that lobby to change the laws of countries that are 
antiabortion and that perform abortions. And it is wrong.
  Our country, this Congress, the President, are all entitled to 
specify the terms and conditions under which our tax dollars are being 
granted to nongovernment organizations to spend. We can tell them what 
to spend it for because it is our money, and that has been held 
constitutional by the courts. If my colleagues want the citations, I 
have them here.
  Now, abortion is not family planning. Family planning is helping you 
get pregnant or keeping you from getting pregnant. It is not killing an 
unborn child after you become pregnant. That is abortion. You can call 
it reproductive rights if you want, but it is abortion. It is killing a 
life once it has begun.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of people do not want their money facilitating 
that practice overseas. No family planning dollars are going to be 
lost. Four hundred and twenty-five million dollars of your tax money 
and mine will go for family planning, and every penny of it will be 
spent. It will be spent providing family planning, not abortion. And 
that is as it should be.
  We invite a veto from the President. The President has reestablished 
the Mexico City policy, which is we do not subsidize organizations that 
propagandize, that lobby, that perform abortions.
  If this Lee amendment stays in the bill and if the Hyde amendment is 
defeated, we are inviting a veto of a very good bill. That is a shame.
  Secondly, this amendment, the Lee amendment, does not belong in this 
bill. This bill is an authorization for the State Department, not a 
foreign aid bill. It properly belongs as an amendment on a foreign aid 
appropriation, not in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, money is fungible. If we provide millions of dollars to 
international planned parenthood, sure, they are spending their own 
money on abortions, but we free up their money. We make it available to 
them by providing our money for other purposes. So the notion that we 
are telling an organization how to spend its own money is nonsense.
  The gag rule, nobody is being gagged. If you want to talk about 
abortions, talk away, but not on our dime, not on tax dollars provided 
by this Congress. That is the difference.
  I heard my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), talk 
about how important family planning is. I do not doubt that. He talked 
about all kinds of millions of people who cannot sustain a decent 
standard of living, that is fine.
  We provide family planning, and whether Planned Parenthood spends the 
money or other organizations, the money will be spent for family 
planning. Whatever good can come of that will come of that whether the 
Hyde amendment is there or not.
  Mr. Chairman, I plead with my colleagues, support the Hyde amendment. 
Help this bill get passed to where the President will sign it and do 
not, do not saddle people's consciences and souls with the fact that my 
colleagues are coercing tax dollars to facilitate organizations that 
preach and promote abortion. It is just wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first thank all of my colleagues on both sides 
of this issue for conducting an enlightening and civilized debate. Let 
me also specifically commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) 
who led our side in the debate in the committee where we won the issue 
26 to 22. It was a significant bipartisan vote.
  I would also like to pay tribute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for raising 
the awareness on this so-called Mexico City policy.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan issue. This is not a pro-choice 
versus pro-life issue. This is about advocating globally what we so 
cherish for our own citizens here at home, the right to speak freely 
and the right to choose wisely.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that reasonable people can and do have 
different views on the matter of a woman's right to choose; and I 
respect the views of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on 
both sides of this issue.
  But our debate today is not about abortion. Not one dime of U.S. 
Government tax dollars are used for abortions overseas. Since 1973, it 
has been illegal to use U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions. This debate 
is not about funding abortions. It is about the right to free speech 
and the principle of an open and privileged doctor-patient 
relationship.
  We have heard from the other side repeatedly the notion of 
fungibility. Fungibility is a real concept. It means that, if funds are 
made available to purpose A, then funds become freed for purpose B. 
This is as true of President Bush's faith-based initiative as it is 
true of this issue.
  I think it is important that we not be hypocrites in dealing with 
this legislation. It is not enough to talk about human rights and 
democracy and free speech, it is important that we practice what we 
preach.
  I urge my colleagues strongly to vote against this amendment to save 
the lives of countless poor women across the globe in the most 
destitute countries on the face of this globe. I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have dedicated my efforts in Congress 
to the promotion of more livable communities, communities that are 
safe, healthy and economically secure, here and abroad. Our 
contribution to international family planning efforts is an example of 
our partnership on an international level to promote more livable 
communities.
  Poverty-stricken nations face significant obstacles to providing for 
the health, safety, and economic security of their families. The 
``Global Gage rule'' put into effect by the Bush Administration earlier 
this year placed an additional burden on these struggling countries. I 
commend Congresswoman Lee for her successful effort in Committee to 
overturn the Mexico City restrictions and restore funding to family 
planning clinics across the world.
  U.S. aid for international family planning is used to provide health 
education, family planning, contraception, and women's health services 
to women across the globe. Since 1983, by law these funds cannot be 
used to perform abortions; instead they provide resources critical to 
combating mother and infant mortality and diseases like HIV/AIDS which 
cripple development efforts in third world nations. Without these 
funds, non-governmental agencies in 52 developing nations will be 
forced to lose or severely reduce their efforts to reduce unwanted 
pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
  The people who don't believe women should control their own 
reproduction have successfully placed many restrictions on American 
women in the last 25 years. We should not further this agenda overseas 
with additional restrictions that would be illegal if enacted here. The 
height of hypocrisy is that the President proposes providing federal 
dollars for his Faith Based Initiative, allowing churches to 
compartmentalize their federally funded activities, but refuses to 
extend the same latitude to hard pressed organizations in desperately 
poor countries.
  I urge my colleagues to support the action of the committee to 
restore U.S. international family planning dollars by opposing the 
Hyde/Barcia/Smith/Oberstar Amendment.
  Mr. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  This amendment flies in the face of the very principles upon which 
our Nation was founded. Free speech is a right that we all hold dear. 
Yet by imposing the Global Gag Rule, we are refusing that right to 
healthcare providers throughout the world.
  We all came to Congress because we believe in full and open 
Democratic participation.

[[Page 8189]]

But this Amendment uses U.S. AID funding as blackmail to silence 
millions--simply because their ideas differ from those of our current 
administration.
  If this policy were imposed on us, we would be outraged. If it was 
proposed for community groups in our districts, we would not stand for 
it. But because it is being inflicted upon poor, third world countries, 
it's OK. What gives this body the right to dictate to people how they 
should think and what they should be allowed to say?
  This policy is hypocritical, it's discriminatory, and it has no place 
in a free and open society. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the Democratic Chair of the 
Pro-Life Caucus and as one of the original sponsors of the Hyde/Barcia/
Smith/Oberstar amendment to urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this important pro-family planning, pro-life, and pro-
woman legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, four months ago, President Bush re-instituted a long-
standing policy of the United States: that no American tax-payer 
dollars should go to support those international organizations which 
promote or provide abortions for women in foreign countries. This is 
the cornerstone of the so-called Mexico City family planning policy.
  But, Mr. Chairman, even as we celebrate our return to an 
international family planning policy that promotes the sanctity of 
life, we are called to the floor of this House to defend this important 
idea. We are currently debating a bill which funds much of our foreign 
policy. Unfortunately, buried amongst countless worthy American efforts 
to make the world a better place, there is a provision in this bill 
which repeals the Mexico City policy. Our amendment is intended to 
delete this pro-abortion provision.
  I urge my colleagues who oppose this amendment, and who oppose 
eliminating the American subsidy of abortions overseas, to consider 
that this amendment in no way damages the American commitment to vital 
international family planning efforts throughout the world.
  But don't just take my word for it, Mr. Chairman, we've done this 
before--in 1984--and the record of history speaks more loudly and more 
eloquently than I. Despite predictions by the supporters of the 
international abortion industry that no international family planning 
organization would accept American funds under the terms of the Mexico 
City policy, more than 350 foreign family planning agencies agreed to 
use American funds with these restrictions. Also during this period, we 
funded family planning efforts throughout the world at higher levels 
than ever before.
  Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my time, I stated that this 
amendment is pro-family planning, pro-life, and pro-woman. It is pro-
family planning because it will strengthen genuine family planning 
programs by enacting a wall of separation between real family planning 
and the performance and promotion of abortion--all while maintaining 
the high level of economic assistance the United States contributes to 
international family planning efforts.
  It is pro-life because it prohibits the funding of abortions overseas 
and therefore protects the sanctity of life throughout the world. And 
it is pro-woman because it offers pregnant mothers in the poorest 
places on earth more options for her family than a paid-for trip to an 
abortion clinic, subsidized by the American taxpayer.
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is a critical issue with which this body 
must grapple: with all of the problems in the Third World--the grinding 
poverty, the enduring famines, the absence of life-saving medicine or 
adequate health care--is access to subsidized abortion all we have to 
offer the suffering, and poverty-ridden women of the developing world? 
Is abortion the only type of family planning assistance worthy of 
American support and promotion?
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I simply do not believe this is true. We 
can support family planning without promoting abortion, and still give 
the vital family planning assistance many countries need to sustain 
their populations.
  Support this amendment and tell the world that after almost ten years 
of encouraging abortion overseas, the United States is back in the 
business of defending the rights of the unborn and promoting the 
sanctity of life throughout the world.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the provision 
added to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 1646) that would 
reverse the Bush administration's policy known as the global gag rule, 
and in opposition to the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment that 
would enforce the global gag rule. The rule prohibits international 
family planning organizations that receive U.S. funds from counseling 
on or conducting abortions with their own funds--not U.S. government 
dollars.
  Many international family planning organizations in developing 
nations offer comprehensive reproductive health services including 
contraceptive counseling, sexually transmitted disease prevention, rape 
counseling, and abortions. Women often enter the patchwork healthcare 
systems of developing nations through such international family 
planning organizations. By qualifying the use of U.S. funds according 
to the gag rule, we are rendering these comprehensive programs 
ineligible for valuable resources and limiting their effectiveness in 
providing health services overall. Furthermore, the gag rule could have 
the perverse effect of increasing the number of abortions, because 
those organizations that are ineligible for funds may no longer be able 
to provide a broad range of family services such as contraceptive 
counseling.
  In African countries where HIV/AIDS has reached epidemic proportions, 
every chance to counsel on disease prevention must be taken. Life 
expectancies are plummeting and drug prices are soaring, leaving a grim 
picture for the future of African children. Thus far, 17 million 
Africans, including 3.7 million children, have died of AIDS and over 12 
million African children have been orphaned. Once a person is at a 
clinic, the door is open to provide information such as STD prevention. 
Integrating reproductive health services maximizes the effectiveness of 
these programs. We cannot stand by and watch this tragedy unfold 
without exploring every avenue possible to slow the growth of this 
disease that is devastating the spirits and economies of the developing 
world.
  On another note, how can we justify imposing restrictions on the 
rights of people in other countries that are constitutionally protected 
in the United States? In this country, the Constitution does not permit 
the government to restrict how organizations spend their own, non-
federal funds. In this country, our right to free speech allows us to 
assemble peacefully and petition our government. In this country, we 
expect full disclosure of all our medical options when we week 
treatment from a physician. Yet, the global gag rule prohibits all of 
these legal activities in other countries in exchange for U.S. funds. 
We would not stand for such restrictions in the United States, and we 
cannot allow international family planning organizations to be 
prevented from discussing and performing services that are legal in 
their countries.
  Let's be clear, even if the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment 
fails here today, the United States Agency for International 
Development (U.S.A.I.D.) cannot promote abortion, nor can it fund 
abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or if the life of a 
woman is in danger.
  I urge my fellow colleagues to oppose the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar 
amendment. Reproductive health services are not solely the 
responsibility of developing nations. We are all affected by the 
growing population and the spread of HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, we should 
not impose restrictions on the citizens of other countries that 
citizens in the United States would not tolerate.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde/
Barcia/Smith/Oberstar Amendment which would effectively reinstate 
president Bush's order implementing the Mexico City Policy. The Mexico 
City Policy reflects the views of million of U.S. citizens and is a 
common sense approach for a civilized nation to take to ensure support 
for genuine family planning programs, not the promotion of abortion.
  Passage of the Hyde/Barcia/Smith/Oberstar Amendment would result in a 
return to a policy that prohibits U.S. population assistance funding--
which comes straight from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers--from going to 
foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a 
method of family planning.
  As a world leader, we have an obligation to protect the sanctity of 
life and liberty, especially for those who are helpless to protect 
themselves. I, like many in our great country, cannot condone abortion 
as a means of birth control, population control, material comfort or 
mere convenience; and I certainly cannot understand the U.S. taking the 
lead on encouraging this practice or funding lobbying efforts to 
influence other countries to change their anti-abortion laws.
  Accordingly, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this 
important amendment. We must return to a policy that respects the 
ethical and moral views of our citizens and provides support for groups 
who are wiling and able to reflect these values in their family 
planning programs.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Hyde-Smith Amendment would 
reinstate the Mexico City anti-international family planning policy 
known as the global ``gag'' rule.
  This policy requires that foreign non-government organizations (NGOs)

[[Page 8190]]

  1. Withhold information from pregnant women about the option of legal 
abortion and where to obtain safe abortion services.
  2. Refuse to provide legal abortion services,
  3. Sacrifice the right to engage in any public debate or public 
information effort on the availability of legal abortions.
  4. And, most importantly, it prevents the NGOs from educating women 
and families on family planning options that would help prevent 
abortions in the first place.
  The subject of abortion has always been controversial.
  Very often highly charged emotions and special interest organizations 
enter the debate and muddle the true issue at hand.
  The key issue of debate today should be on whether educating women 
and families about family planning services will reduce the number of 
abortions each year.
  The passage of the Hyde-Smith amendment would prevent educating women 
and families on the issue of abortion.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against Hyde-Smith amendment 
so that we can educate women and families about family planning 
services and ways to reduce the number of abortions each year in 
foreign countries.
  I would also like to clarify that U.S. taxpayer funds are not being 
used for foreign (NGO's) abortions or for the advocacy of abortion.
  The Hyde-Smith amendment confuses people by stating that no federal 
U.S. funds will be used to fund abortions or family planning services.
  These activities have already been prohibited by longstanding U.S. 
statues, and recipients of U.S. international family planning 
assistance are in compliance with those laws.
  NGO's use their own funds to provide family planning and legal 
abortion services.
  Finally, I would like to address their HIV/AIDS epidemic in South 
Africa.
  The Hyde-Smith amendment interferes with the effectiveness of HIV/
AIDS prevention efforts.
  36 million people worldwide are living with and dying from AIDS. A 
majority of these people are in developing countries.
  This is especially true in South Africa, where 55% of new infections 
occur among women and where the disease is spreading most rapidly among 
the young.
  Family planning providers are a key effort in preventing the 
transmission of HIV/AIDS, other sexually-transmitted diseases, and 
unintended pregnancy.
  However, it is these same programs that are being targeted by the gag 
rule in the Hyde-Smith amendment since abortion is legal in South 
Africa and clinics there do provide women with information about 
abortion in the context of pregnancy options counseling.
  To reduce the number of abortions and to prevent the transmission of 
HIV/AIDS we must educate women and families on family planning.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hyde-Smith amendment that 
would strike Rep. Lee's language containing the text of H.R. 755, the 
Global Democracy Protection Act.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
Hyde amendment, and in support of the important family planning 
language in the bill.
  I want to commend my colleague from California, Barbara Lee, for her 
courageous work in the Committee that overturned the ``global gag 
rule.''
  The gag rule is a medical and moral disaster.
  It simply defines common sense to prevent women in the developing 
world from having access to full and accurate information about their 
health care options.
  It is inexcusable for the United States to force community-based 
organizations to choose between desperately needed aid and their basic 
democratic rights.
  It is outrageous to reinstate a policy that will reverse global 
progress in the fights against unwanted pregnancies and the spread of 
AIDS.
  Let's stand up for women, children and families around the world. 
Let's stand up for fundamental democratic freedoms.
  Defeat the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Chairman Hyde and Representatives Barcia, Smith of New 
Jersey and Oberstar. This amendment would reimpose the Mexico City 
Policy, also known as the global gag rule, which prohibits U.S. 
population funds from being made available to foreign non-profit 
organizations engaged in family planning programs abroad that perform 
or actively promote abortions.
  I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.
  Since 1973, no U.S. funds can be used for abortions. Period. End of 
discussion.
  This amendment imposes restrictions on non-governmental organizations 
(NGOs) abroad that would be unconstitutional here in the United States. 
It stifles freedom of speech and the rights of individuals to present 
their views to their own government. It prohibits locally raised funds 
from being used for locally-defined purposes. In a word, it is anti-
democratic.
  Finally, this amendment is counter-productive, even in achieving its 
own stated goals. Cutting off funding for family planning programs 
results in more abortions taking place around the world, not fewer. 
Cutting off family planning funds results in greater poverty, not less. 
Cutting off family planning funds results in increased rates of 
disease, not decreased rates.
  This amendment is very bad policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 210, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley

[[Page 8191]]


     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Ehrlich
     Hooley
     Moakley
     Ros-Lehtinen

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. HILLIARD, and Mr. ACKERMAN 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 115, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, Earlier today I did not register 
my vote for roll No. 115, Mr. Hyde's amendment to H.R. 1646. If 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. 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. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman 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. 1646) to 
authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 
2002 and 2003, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________