Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. The communication will go all the way down. I do not understand what the Senator said.

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, if I inferred or if I implied that I want to set aside the committee amendment, I do not want to do that.

Mr. HELMS. All pending amendments.

Mr. HELMS. Now, we checked on that very point, with everybody associated with me, on the issue of numbers. House versus Senate, it was an issue raised by the Senator from Massachusetts very late in the day after I had acceded to your first suggestion. Yes, but very late in the conversation and day. The Senator kept stipulating additional things, but the Senator did not discuss the issue of numbers with the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HELMS. I need only 30 seconds.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, perhaps the Senator will yield some time for me to discuss the very point he is making?

Mr. HELMS. Well, I understand that you said that to my able assistant here. You did not say it to me.

Mr. HELMS. With all due respect, Senator, you have been all over the map with what you have been saying.

Mr. HELMS. I wish to inquire of the managers or acting manager, as the case may be, is there now any objection to my setting aside temporarily the pending amendment so that I can have stated the amendment that I have already discussed?

Mr. HELMS. In that case, I will discuss the amendment. I can certainly do that.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the purpose of my offering an amendment--I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be laid aside temporarily.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS. Yes, sir. I thank the chair.

Mr. HELMS. That is the pending business. There are three other amendments in line, are there not?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Chair inform me as to what the lineup of amendments is as they now stand?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have an unprinted amendment--it is a printed amendment--at the desk. I ask it be stated.

Mr. HELMS. That is not what the Senator has been saying.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment. The amendment (No. 2707) was withdrawn. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the amendment?

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I thank the managers.

Mr. HELMS. Yes.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment is directed toward the U.N. Population Program familiarly known as UNFPA. It is directed at the U.N. Population Program and the People's Republic of China. The arrest earlier this year of my friend, Harry Wu--and he is a friend of a lot of Senators here--again highlights, I think, China's dismal human [[Page S 14037]] rights record. And of course all Senators have heard the horror stories associated with the brutal population control program of the People's Republic of China. The pending bill proposes to hand over another $35 million to UNFPA-- $20 million less than the Clinton administration proposed in my judgment, and I think the judgment of many other Senators, it is still $35 million too much. I, therefore, expect a few UNFPA defenders to come down to the Senate floor and say that U.N. Population Program activities in China really don't matter because UNFPA does some good things elsewhere. Others will claim that language specifically restricting the United States contribution from being used in China is all that is needed. But, I do not buy that, and neither do the American people, if I am any judge of the attitude of the people. Either UNFPA is mixed up in China's grotesque and cruel population control program, or it is not. And the fact is, UNFPA helped design China's one-child-per-family population control program 20 years ago, and it has actively supported the program ever since. Indeed, UNFPA holds up China's program as a model for the developing world. The pending amendment insists that the U.N. Population Program terminate its activities in China or the United States Government will terminate its association with UNFPA. It is as simple as that. The amendment is identical to language in the House version of this bill, and should be included in this bill. Let me say, parenthetically, that a foreign aid conference report may experience some trouble in the House unless this and other pro-life, pro-child provisions remain. Foreign aid is as unpopular in the House as it has ever been, and I do not think that pro-life Congressmen will be inclined to vote for this bill without language protecting unborn children. Mr. President, let us be clear about the kind of abuses that occur in China under the nose of UNFPA. Women are dragged into government clinics and forced to have an abortion if they already have one child. Women and men are forced, like animals, to undergo sterilization procedures if they violate the one-child policy. This inhumane program--of which UNFPA is so proud--has caused an alarming increase in abortions of baby girls because many Chinese value boys more. In light of this cruelty against the most innocent and helpless members of the human race, the Christian Coalition's Contract with the American Family specifically targets eliminating funding for UNFPA. A cogent explanation of why UNFPA is targeted is on pages 72-74 of the contract. I shall do everything I can to require that UNFPA pull out of China, or face termination of United States taxpayers' funding. Mr. President, this bill carries another provision--as have previous foreign aid appropriations bills since 1985--designed to prohibit funding UNFPA, but without identifying UNFPA by name. The provision, known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment, prohibits funding of any ``organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.'' Senator Kasten and Congressman Kemp had Communist China in mind, where UNFPA operates one of its cornerstone programs. From 1986-92, the Reagan and Bush administrations determined that UNFPA was in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment. Indeed, President Bush vetoed the fiscal year 1990 foreign operations appropriations bill because it gutted the Kemp-Kasten amendment. President Bush opposed funding UNFPA because it was the only organization that violated the Kemp-Kasten amendment and because, as Mr. Bush put it: The [U.N. Population Program] participates in and strongly defends the program of a particular foreign government [China] which relies heavily upon compulsory abortion. This fund received no United States assistance since 1985, precisely because of its involvement in the coercive abortion policy. It is well known that one of the first actions taken by President Clinton, when he assumed office, was to reverse this longstanding policy--despite the administration's full knowledge of China's cruel program and UNFPA's close relationship with it. That is why the pending amendment is the pending business in the Senate right now. AID Administrator Brian Atwood told the chairman of the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, in an August 6, 1993, letter, that ``* * * if there are not significant improvements in China's population program, the United States will not support continued UNFPA assistance to China beyond 1995 when the current program ends.'' The fact is, Mr. President, the situation in China has worsened, but UNFPA does not intend to pull out of China, and the Clinton administration has every intention of contributing money to UNFPA. The administration apparently gives UNFPA a wink and a nod in New York, and then glibly tells Congress, ``trust us, the United States doesn't support UNFPA assistance to China.'' Let me say this in conclusion. Mr. President, Americans already believe that too much of their tax money goes to the United Nations. Poll after poll after poll shows that. And they certainly do not want any administration to give money to the U.N. Population Program, thereby condoning that organization, including its involvement with China's grotesque population control program. Since China clearly has made no improvement on human rights, and since UNFPA's relationship with China remains unchanged, I strongly urge Senators to support the amendment to force UNFPA out of China.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.