[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15154-15155]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on June 25, a little over a month ago, I 
spoke on the Senate floor about the issue of the United Nations 
Population Fund. At that time, I called on the President to release the 
funding for this organization. This is funding we had appropriated in 
the Congress last December.
  I was extremely disappointed to learn that the Bush administration 
has now decided to eliminate the funding for the U.N. Population Fund. 
Once again, the administration has chosen to approach an issue 
unilaterally instead of to cooperate internationally with our allies. 
Once again, the administration has chosen domestic politics over the 
health and safety of women around the world.
  The administration's decision is contrary to the finding of the 
administration's own expert panel. The administration did set up a 
panel and asked them to look into the issue to determine whether or not 
there was a problem that should prevent them from making this funding 
available.
  That panel determined not only that the UNFPA, the United Nations 
Population Fund, does not condone or support in any way the violations 
of human rights or internationally agreed upon standards for family 
planning, it further found that the Fund is a force for progress, and 
that is a sentiment with which Secretary Powell himself publicly and 
wholeheartedly agreed when the panel came out with their announcement.
  The United Nations Population Fund works in over 150 countries. They 
help to give women around the world access to reproductive health care 
and family planning services, as well as services to ensure safe 
pregnancy and delivery.
  The U.N. Population Fund has been working in China and around the 
world to encourage nations to expand the availability of voluntary 
family planning information and services so that people everywhere have 
the right to decide freely and responsibly the number and the spacing 
of their children. The Fund is also a leader in the global effort to 
prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.
  From everything I have been able to read, it is clear that the U.N. 
Population Fund does not perform or support performing abortions in any 
way. Anyone who says that Fund does support that activity just has not 
looked into the issue as this expert panel has.
  The U.N. Population Fund is a United Nations organization governed by 
the governments that make up the United Nations. Many of these 
governments fundamentally oppose abortion, and they would never let the 
United Nations Population Fund be involved in supplying abortions. The 
UNFPA is simply a tool of the member nations that is designed to 
implement their will, and that will is to help the most desperate women 
and their families in some of the poorest countries in the world who 
are suffering every day in very terrible ways.
  The $34 million we are discussing that has been denied by the 
administration to be used as the Congress intended would directly 
contribute to effective modern contraception for over 1 million 
couples. This $34 million would prevent over 100,000 unwanted 
pregnancies. It would prevent a quarter of a million unwanted births. 
It would help women avoid over 200,000 abortions and prevent thousands 
of maternal and child deaths in the same effort.
  Further, the Fund's policies of constructive engagement in China have 
been shown to result in much-needed progress and a reduction in some of 
the worst violations of human rights in that country.
  The administration's decision is another affront to the world's 
women. It follows on the administration's decision to impose the global 
gag rule on family planning providers, and also it follows upon the 
administration's unwillingness to champion the international treaty on 
the rights of women.
  I hope that the Senate, when we consider the foreign operations 
appropriations bill--and I assume we will either this week or shortly, 
when we return in September--will have broad support for the $50 
million that hopefully will be included for the United Nations 
Population Fund in this upcoming fiscal year.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. REID. Senator Byrd has given a number of speeches in recent days 
on and off the floor about separation of powers; that we, the 
legislative branch, do something and the power is taken away by the 
executive branch of the Government. This is a perfect example; would 
the Senator agree?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do agree this is a perfect example. 
This is a case where the Congress made a very clear decision to provide 
assistance to this United Nations Population Fund. It did give the 
administration discretion to look into the question of

[[Page 15155]]

whether there were human rights problems, and the administration looked 
into it, and its own panel determined there were not. Yet in spite of 
that, the administration made a decision to withhold the funds. So I 
agree entirely with the statement of the Senator from Nevada that this 
is a case where the administration is acting contrary to the clear 
intent of the Congress.
  Mr. REID. I so appreciate the statement of the Senator from New 
Mexico for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it seems 
those who oppose abortion the most are those who fight against us for 
these moneys; is that not a fair statement?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again, let me respond by saying that is 
my clear impression as well. The estimates which I have given in my 
floor statement are that there will be in the range of 200,000 
abortions performed as a result of our Government, our administration, 
withholding this money.
  I think those who are opposed to abortion are finding an odd way to 
pursue that goal by trying to keep these funds from being expended.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend, it is also true, is it not, 
that the 200,000 abortions are for a year's period of time? Over the 
years when we have been prevented, as we have on other occasions by 
Republican administrations, from letting this money go forward, 
hundreds of thousands of abortions each year are performed that would 
not have to be performed but for our not having this money; is that 
right?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response, I say that is right. 
Obviously, the work of an organization such as this United Nations 
Population Fund can only be effective if they can put in place programs 
they can then sustain over a period of years and actually do some 
educational efforts in these underdeveloped countries. That is what is 
so unfortunate about the decision of the administration to withhold 
funds this year. We will have a chance, once again, to appropriate 
additional funds for the new fiscal year, but this year has been lost, 
and unfortunately there are other years, previous years, where our 
opportunity to help solve these problems has been squandered.
  Mr. REID. I also ask my friend: It is true, is it not, that these 
programs are voluntary in nature, educational in nature, people are 
learning how to prevent pregnancies? Is that one of the programs that 
is involved?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to my friend's question, that is clearly 
the main thrust of this funding. It is to provide much-needed 
information to desperately poor women in these countries so they can 
make voluntary decisions about what they want to do, how many children 
they want to have, and what their options are as they move ahead. These 
are all voluntary programs by definition.
  Mr. REID. Would my friend also acknowledge that these programs 
involve in various places well-baby programs to teach women how to take 
care of babies, and also prenatal care, which is such an important 
part, to countries outside the United States where these monies could 
go? Is that true?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Again, let me respond by saying that is very true. The 
thrust of these efforts is to reduce the incidents of mothers dying 
while giving birth, reduce the incidents of child deaths, infant 
deaths. Clearly, that is the main thrust of what we are trying to 
accomplish with these funds.
  Mr. REID. Finally, I ask my friend, so I understand the numbers, as a 
result of this political ideology, just for this year alone, there are 
going to be 500,000 unwanted pregnancies; there will be 250,000 
unwanted births, for lack of a better way to describe it, and some 
200,000 abortions; is that a fair summary of the numbers?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In response, those are the right numbers. I will go 
through them once more. The estimate we have is that this $34 million 
the Congress appropriated last December, it was intended to provide 
effective, modern contraception for over a million couples to prevent 
over 500,000 unwanted pregnancies, to prevent a quarter of a million 
unwanted births and to help women avoid over 200,000 abortions. So that 
is what we estimate that funding would be able to accomplish. Now, 
obviously, none of that will be accomplished during this fiscal year.
  Mr. REID. I said I had one last question, and this will be the last 
question: One of the programs involved, by virtue of what they are 
doing, would also prevent the spread of HIV; is that true?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to my friend from Nevada, that is the major 
thrust of this effort. As good information is given to parents, to 
mothers, about these issues, good education and information can also be 
provided about how to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, which is an 
enormous problem, a terrible tragedy afflicting many of the undeveloped 
countries in the world.
  Mr. REID. Which is costing American taxpayers money; is that also 
true?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. That is exactly right. We are spending a very 
substantial amount in trying to deal with the problem of HIV/AIDS in 
the world. We are being called upon by many of the world's leaders to 
spend substantially more, and, frankly, I think the drumbeat for us to 
spend more and more to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS will continue to 
grow.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the statement of the Senator from 
New Mexico. He is right on point with the critical issue facing the 
world, and it is a relatively small amount of money we are talking 
about with all the other monies being spent. This is one that will 
bring back dividends to our country. And even if it did not--which it 
will--it is the right thing to do.
  As I have said, for political ideology, for the people who cry out 
against abortion, they are the ones who are opposing what we are trying 
to do to prevent abortions. This is hard for me to comprehend. It is 
wrong, and I hope people in the administration will weigh in.
  I was very disappointed in Secretary of State Powell for making this 
announcement when in the past he had said what a great program this was 
we had going, and then, because of others, I guess, who have more power 
than he, he came out and gave this wishy-washy statement about this 
program money being cut. I do not think his heart was in it, and I am 
certain his head was not, but I guess there are certain things one has 
to do. I hope he will not be doing other things like this that appear 
on the surface so wrong and something he apparently disagrees with so 
vehemently.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the call of the 
quorum, which I would suggest, the time be charged equally against both 
sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________