THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        4 of 5            Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents                        Bottom

[Page: H1597]  GPO's PDF

• Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year's attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the `grand deal' struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.

MEXICO CITY POLICY DETAILED

• The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, I consider it largely ineffective.

• I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international `family planning' purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.

• In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many abortions.

UNITED NATIONS

• The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this organization.

• Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony `back dues' which we supposedly `owe' this organization. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. Bartlett's legislation.

LINKING THESE TWO ISSUES

• We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all.

• This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two issues together an opportunity for a `deal' has become apparent, a deal which will compromise principles on several fronts.

THE SO-CALLED `BARGAIN'

• The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation's integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing `some' members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn't exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that `the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that's not worth compromising principle.

[Page: H1598]  GPO's PDF

`PEACEKEEPING'

• This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our `police the world' program carried out through various arms of the United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to international operation in the Sinai and Cypress.

ADDTIONALLY

• This `agreement' authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran.

• Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas of Iraq not under the control of Hussein.

• Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)

CONCLUSION

• Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called `compromise.' I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.

• Ms. DANNER. Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that H.R. 1757, The State Department Authorization Conference Report, was passed today on the floor of the House of Representatives by a voice vote, thereby authorizing payments to the United Nations by the United States of $819 million over fiscal years 1998 through 2000.

• This legislation also includes language that would forgive up to $107 million in U.N. payments to the United States for U.S. military contributions in peacekeeping efforts. I do not believe that this widely-disputed amount takes into account all of the costs and expense incurred by the taxpayers of the United States in various peacekeeping missions.

• I am very disappointed that I did not have an opportunity to cast a recorded vote on this measure. Had I been given the opportunity to cast a vote on this legislation in a rollcall vote, I would have voted against H.R. 1757.

• Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues I am not completely happy with the final version of this bill. However, I have been around here long enough to know that some times you have to take what you can get.

• While I am no fan of the United Nations, and I have serious reservations about paying any of the so-called debt to the U.N., we have an opportunity to make some very substantive changes to our nation's foreign policy regarding abortions. We need to seize this opportunity.

• By ensuring that the Mexico City Policy is written into law we will send an important message of how much we cared and understood the needs of the unborn. For far too long, we have allowed the President to provide foreign aid to organizations that promote the use of abortion, even in countries that have laws on the books prohibiting the procedure. This is wrong, and by passing H.R. 1757, we can hopefully put a stop to it.

• I understand that voting `Yes' on this bill is a tough pill to swallow. But, if we don't take action today, millions of abortions will occur around the world with the assistance of U.S. taxpayer dollars. This is unconscionable and it is time Congress stopped it. Vote `yes' on H.R. 1757.

• Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act. All I can think of as I stand before you this afternoon is `here we go again.' It is disheartening to see certain Members of this body once again hold funding to meet our nation's commitment and investment in foreign affairs hostage to provisions placing stringent and unacceptable restrictions on funding for international family planning. And once again, those Members are inaccurately attempting to characterize this as a vote about abortion.

• Proponents of the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act wrongly claim that release of family planning funds without restrictions will allow U.S. aid to support abortion services abroad. These funds, however, can not by law be used to provide or promote abortions. Proponents of this legislation argue that funding is fungible, but the Agency for International Development has a rigorous process to ensure that the current ban on the use of U.S. funds for abortions is adhered to and that no U.S. funds are spent on abortion services.

• Funds to support family planning are not funds for abortions. Family planning funds are used to provide contraceptives to persons who would otherwise not have access to them. Family planning funds support education and outreach on family planning options, family counseling, health care, and technical training for personnel. These funds help to improve the health and increase the survival rate of women and children during pregnancy, in childbirth, and in the years after. Family planning allows parents to control the number of children that they have and the timing of those births. And in so doing it allows women the opportunity to reach beyond the walls of their homes, to get an education and to work outside of the family.

• A recent report of the Rockefeller Foundation argued that devoting less time to bearing children, reducing family size, and improving the health and survival of women and children results in better economic prospects in developing countries. Withholding these funds will reduce access to contraception and in so doing increase unintended and unwanted pregnancies. Experience demonstrates that as unintended pregnancies increase, so does the abortion rate.

• In fact, U.S. funding to Hungary has coincided with a 60% reduction in abortions in that country. In Russia, increased use of contraceptives has led to a 30% reduction in abortions.

• My colleagues, this is not a vote on abortion. A vote against this Conference Report is a vote to provide more options and opportunities for the people of developing nations around the world. Once again we are here debating language that will codify a global gag rule--language that is clearly unacceptable to pro-family planning Members of this Congress and to the Administration and that the Administration has indicated that it will veto. For these reasons, I call upon each Member to signal their support for the health and welfare of women, children and families and vote against the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

• Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Foreign Affairs Reform Act. In this time of competitive interests and thoughts, the United States presence is more important to world peace and progress then ever before. As our world becomes more interdependent than ever before the United States must improve its relations. Most Americans know this. We must not ignore the benefits of cooperation nor must we ignore our own interdependence and responsibility as a leading nation to share the blessings of the entire world.

• Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly reject the dangerous Mexico City Policy. It is my determination that any delay will cause serious, irreversible and avoidable harm. We must remember that in the balance are the lives and well-being of many thousands of women and children and American credibility as the leader in family planning programs around the world.

• For half a decade anti-family planning lawmakers have attempted relentlessly to impose the Mexico City Policy on organizations that receive U.S. international family planning money, and make this debate a referendum on abortion. International family planning is not about abortion. No U.S. dollars are used to provide abortion services and in fact, access to international family planning services is one of the most effective means of reducing abortion.

• I oppose the provision which allows the U.S. to renounce its full debt to the United Nations. The United States is $321 million behind in its payment. There is a great international game is being played out here today. Why must we continue to barter for the health and well being of millions of people around the world? I think it is the wrong time to do this and we will reap disastrous results.

• We must remember and act as though this is an interdependent world. It cannot be overstated that building the Global Village and a better world for the 21st century requires a United Nations that is supported, fully funded, and respected. Achieving this momentous task must begin in the country where the U.N. was born.

• Lastly, I have grave concerns with the Haitian language of the bill. I believe this is a step to decrease U.S. presence in a country which so desperately needs intervention. The secretary of state already has the authority to deny entry to persons who are suspected of human rights violations. This language is inconsistent with the existing law, which is working well, and I am worried this new untested standard will be open to manipulation by anyone who makes an allegation.

• I urge members to vote against this bill and vote for preserving world peace, better conditions for the worlds families, caring for refugees and sharing the blessings of progress around the world.

[Page: H1599]  GPO's PDF

• Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to register my strong opposition to H.R. 3246, the misnamed `Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act.' This legislation is an outright attack on the rights of working men and women in this country and would erode many of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. I certainly hope that my colleagues will recognize this mean-spirited attempt to discriminate against organized labor and vote against the bill.

• The right of workers to organized is a precious freedom, which I have fought for many years to strengthen and protect. Employers currently have at their disposal an arsenal of weapons with which to fight unionization, and tens of thousands of American workers lose their jobs illegally each year simply as a result of their support for union organizing campaigns. I fail to understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can, with a straight face, claim that this bill is a necessary tool for employers. This bill is anything but necessary. Rather, it adds more injustice to an already uneven balance of power between workers and employers and effectively allows working men and women to be denied employment for exercising their federally-protected rights to organize to protect their interests.

• Mr. Speaker, I serve as a member of the Small Business Committee, and I am proud of my strong efforts on behalf of the small business owners of this country. I recognize their contributions and am committed to working on behalf of their interests. But H.R. 3246 is not about fairness for small businesses, and it most certainly is not about fairness for their employees. Instead, it is nothing more than another attack on the hard-fought and fundamental rights of America's working men and women and a vicious attempt to further erode the already precarious ability of workers to organize. I will oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

• Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of our foreign policy initiatives, including payment of our arrears to the United Nations but I cannot support passage of this bill. I have actively supported the creation of Radio Broadcasting for Iran and Iraq and strongly approve of the new money for Radio Free Asia. My concerns lie with the reforms proposed in this bill for the UN and the restrictions placed on the funds of international organizations that provide family planning assistance.

• The creation of the UN was prompted by United States leadership after World War II. The UN provides a multilateral forum for peace to be negotiated so that international tensions will never again escalate to another world war. H.R. 1757 does help to pay off the arrears that we have accumulated so that we can hopefully regain our leadership position in this organization. However, this bill also conditions this money on unilateral reforms that run in direct opposition to the spirit under which the UN was created. This lack of U.S. support for and leadership in the UN is an embarrassment which has also greatly encumbered the performance of our foreign policy.

• In addition to the conditions on funding for the UN, this legislation also attaches extremely controversial and damaging restrictions on private organizations that provide family planning assistance. There has always been a prohibition on these organizations using U.S. funds to perform abortions, However, many feel that this is not a great enough safeguard and have chosen to also place an effective gag rule on what these organizations can do with their own funds. This restriction is in violation of our own Constitution yet many approve of requiring it abroad. To me, this is the greatest form of hypocrisy to which I am strongly opposed.

• While I believe that nothing is more important to our foreign policy at this moment than paying our UN dues and regaining our credibility and leadership abroad, I cannot support this legislation because I believe it may do more harm than good for the long term. Placing unilateral conditions on UN funding and enacting unconstitutional requirements for family planning organizations into permanent law will only prolong the problems that have impeded our foreign policy. As we continue to experience international crises, whether they are military, economic or social, the UN and our foreign policy only become more important. We need to fully support the UN now and free our foreign assistance programs from restrictions that do nothing more than waste money and damage the effectiveness of our international development assistance programs.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        4 of 5            Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents                        Top