Jim Greenwood

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]. (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass]. (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen]. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell]. (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen]. (Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], a new Member, our physician. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], with the comment that 85 percent of these funds never go to Planned Parenthood.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago legislation sponsored by then-Congressman George Bush, signed into law by then-President Richard Nixon, established an American family planning program. It has been one of the most successful programs in the history of our Nation, and its success is for simple reasons. Family planning prevents unplanned pregnancies. And when you prevent unplanned pregnancies, you prevent abortions, and we all support that, and every American supports that goal. Preventing unplanned pregnancies prevents welfare dependency. It allows poor working women who have no health insurance to have access to contraception, to birth control, to the kind of counseling and health services they need, so that they can plan their families and stay off of the welfare rolls. Mr. Chairman, this program has not been controversial. It is supported by 70 percent of Americans for good reason. But lately it has become controversial. The Committee on House Appropriations chose to zero out, after 25 years, to eliminate entirely the title X family planning bill. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. My amendment restores the title X family planning program. It is also very simple in these regards. It makes it clear, in black and white, that not a penny of these funds can be used to provide abortion services. That would be controversial. These funds are not for that purpose. It makes it clear that all counseling must be nondirective. Counselors in these programs may not suggest that a client choose abortion, but would simply lay out the legal options under the State laws that are applied. My amendment makes clear that not a penny of these funds can be used to advocate either in favor or against pending legislation at any level, nor for or against any candidate for public office. This is strictly a birth control, family planning debate. Now we have an agreement that we have reached that makes the Livingston-Smith amendment to my amendment in order as a substitute. We have agreed to do that for the purposes of a fair debate. But let me tell my colleagues what the Livingston-Smith amendment does. The Livingston-Smith amendment kills title X family planning. It is just that simple. The program is gone, and at least in 781 counties across the United States there would be no family planning services at all, at all. What we have to do is we have to defeat the Livingston-Smith amendment and then vote in favor of the Greenwood amendment. The opponents will say all they choose to do is block-grant these funds into existing programs. They are wrong; that is not what their amendment does because those programs are already written into law in ways that prohibit these funds from being available for family planning. For the most part perhaps 30 percent of the funds might be available, and in many States not a dime will be available to help women with their family planning needs. The opponents will say that this is about abortion. It is not about abortion. This debate is not about abortion. This debate is about family planning. Ninety-eight percent of the recipients of these funds perform zero abortions, zero abortions, and of the small 2 percent that do provide abortions, half of those happen to be hospitals where abortions are performed. I say to my colleagues if they support family planning, a 25-year- old, successful, noncontroversial, mainstream program, then I ask them tonight to stand up, vote against the Smith amendment, the Livingston- Smith amendment, and vote for the Greenwood amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentlewoman from New York for offering this fiscally conservative and well considered amendment. The Lowey amendment simply ensures that those who need subsidy payments receive them. This not only benefits the American taxpayers but it greatly benefits those small-independent farmers who need subsidies to survive. Too often, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government gives subsidies to those who simply do not need them. We have seen this in too many of our Federal programs, however, this has been particularly true with agriculture subsidies. Independently wealthy, non-resident farm owners have been collecting taxpayers dollars for farm subsidies, and in turn, taking resources away from those farmers who depend on these subsidies for their very existence. This assistance was never meant to support someone's hobby, which happens to be farming. To the contrary: It was developed to help those farmers who truly depend on the land; those farmers who every year have the threat of the bank foreclosing on their only means of income; and, those farmers who live day-by-day with the threat of losing their land and their crop because of inclement weather. Mr. Chairman, I need not remind any of my colleagues what the message was last November. The American Public wants real reform, no more giveaways, or out of control programs. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment. We can no longer mortgage our children's future to subsidize those who do not need it.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in making a decision today on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag, I was confronted with the fundamental question of our democracy. That question is: What is it that makes us free? The flag is a symbol, perhaps the sacred symbol, of our freedom, but the Constitution is the guarantee of our freedom. The flag reminds people throughout the world of everything we stand for, but the Constitution is the bedrock upon which we stand. The flag touches our mystic chords of memory, but the Constitution is not about the past only, but our future as well. The founders made it possible for the Congress of the United States to change the flag tomorrow, its color, its shape, its size. But the Constitution can only be changed when the great weight of the Nation comes to believe that human liberty is at stake. Like each of my neighbors, I pledge allegiance to the flag. Yet each of us who have the honor to serve our Nation has taken a higher oath before God and man to uphold the Constitution. At the heart of that great document is the Bill of Rights, and at the center are 10 words that settle forever the issue of whether the State or the individual is our Nation's sovereign. ``Congress,'' the majestic first amendment begins, ``shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Speech we admire and speech we despise, protest we support and protest we condemn, beliefs we embrace and beliefs we reject, nonviolent actions we applaud and nonviolent actions we deplore, all are protected here. I honor the flag. I revere everything it represents. But in the end, I cannot vote for this amendment. Those who fought for the flag, those of us who defend its honor today do not fight for a piece of cloth, no matter how treasured it is, but for an idea now more than 200 years old that human liberty, even the liberty to disagree, is the greatest treasure of mankind. Mr. Speaker, we stand in the most sacred shrine of freedom in the history of the Earth, and if we abandon the Bill of Rights here, where will it then find a home? I urge a ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker.