Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), this resolution is a shame. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a champion in the fight against drug abuse in our country.

Ms. PELOSI. The Flat Earth Society lives.

Ms. PELOSI. Are we to ignore the list of scientists at the National Institutes of Health?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, is someone objecting to the chart, the list of scientists that are the head of the National Institutes of Health?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has plenty of time on that side, and I am pleased to answer any questions the gentleman has on his own time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), a leader in this fight to reduce substance abuse and stop the spread of HIV in this country.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman. I appreciate his offer of supporting mandated treatment programs, and I do believe that treatment on demand is the answer to reducing substance abuse in our country. But he spent a good deal of his time talking about the Montreal study, and Julie Bruneau and others who worked on that. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the op-ed by Julie Bruneau and Martin Schechter, her colleague in making the Montreal study. In this op-ed, in their own words, they say, As the author of the study, we must point out that these officials have misinterpreted our results. A study conducted last year and published in the Lancet, the British medical journal, found that 29 cities worldwide where programs were in place, HIV infection dropped by an average of 5.8 percent a year among drug users. In 51 cities that had no needle exchange plans, where they had no exchange programs, 5.9 percent a year was the increase in HIV spread. In Canada, as a result of these studies, the same study that our colleague is citing in opposition to our position, the authors of the study he cites, the Montreal study says, in Canada, local governments acted on our research by expanding needle exchanges and adding related services. So I say to my colleagues that this Montreal study, which the gentleman is correct, it did come since our vote last year, but it does not support the argument. The fact is, it supports the fact that needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) the distinguished ranking member on the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, who also is leaving the Congress after a very, very distinguished career.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) who is also a doctor.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too want to join my colleagues in commending the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for his fine service in this House of Representatives. I consider him a friend and I have fought with him on his side on many battles in this Congress. He will be sorely missed by all of us. I thank the gentleman from New York for his service. He has served his constituents well. I know they are very proud of him. So it is with great regret that I rise today to oppose the Solomon amendment. But I do so, Mr. Speaker, with the confidence that in standing here I stand with the great scientists of our country in stating that needle exchange programs help reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS and do not contribute to increasing substance abuse, indeed in many instances reduce substance abuse. There are many issues that will be raised during this debate on this bill, but there is one clear message that is irrefutable now and will be equally irrefutable at the close of business. That message is, the leading scientists in this country have examined the evidence and determined that needle exchange programs, again, help stop the spread of HIV infection and do not encourage drug use. We give the National Institutes of Health, we appropriate for FY 1998, the year we are in, $13.6 billion. What does this Congress want to do? Ignore the recommendations of the NIH. There are special orders and Dear Colleagues around here to double the funding in 5 years for the National Institutes of Health. But what does this body want to do today? Ignore the findings of the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Speaker, I want to not have my colleagues take my word for it but listen to the words of the scientists themselves: After reviewing all of the research, we have unanimously agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that needle exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces the transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs. Signed, Dr. Harold Varmus, Director, National Institutes of Health, and I might add, a winner of the Nobel prize himself; Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the institute that does the research on HIV and AIDS; Dr. Alan Leshner, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse; and Dr. David Satcher, the Surgeon General. This memorandum is dated April 1998. That is the determination of the Nation's leading scientists. In 2 hours we will see how this House of Representatives will side with the scientists or side with the politics. I would not think of asking my colleagues in this body to vote for an item that would increase drug abuse in this country. I have heard others on the other side of this issue question the motivation of those of us who support the needle exchange program. I do not question their motivation. I say that every single person in this body is fully committed to ridding our country of this terrible scourge of substance abuse, and also of the spread of HIV and AIDS. H.R. 3717 would impose a permanent ban on Federal funding for needle exchange programs, a position which contradicts the enormous body of scientific research. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill. It is cruelly ironic, as I said earlier, in a year when there seems to be consensus to increase the funding at NIH, that we are at this time considering throwing out the science and basing public policy on politics. I will speak to the science and the role of needle exchange in fighting the AIDS epidemic. I have said what the scientists have said, and I will say that this statement by Dr. Varmus and others clearly states what the facts are. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio who said a word about common sense, is it common sense to ignore the opinion of the leading scientists in the country? Is that common sense, when we ourselves fund their scientific research? Something is not right here. The NIH panel also concluded that individuals in areas with needle exchange programs have increased likelihood of entering drug treatment programs. In the fight to reduce drug abuse, we need to understand that needle exchange is a valuable opportunity to help drug abusers into treatment. Leading private organizations see the value of needle exchange as well. They include the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Academy of Sciences, American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the American Bar Association. Something is wrong with this picture. When I hear this debate in this body that the science is so conclusive, one would think we were having a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. How can we turn our back to the science? In making our decision on needle exchange, we need to ask, who is affected negatively if we use political expediency rather than science to fight a public health emergency? The answer to that question is also clear. Among women of childbearing age, more than 70 percent of HIV infections are related either directly or indirectly to injection drug use. Of babies diagnosed with HIV infection, more than 75 percent were infected as a direct or indirect result of injection drug use by a parent. When we fail to fund needle exchange, we are foregoing a proven intervention that can save the lives of women and children. We are giving up the opportunities to help the drug users get treatment. I have more to say on this subject, Mr. Speaker, but my colleagues are very eager to get into this debate. I will just close by saying by ignoring the science, that ignoring, that ignorance, is not bliss. That ignorance equals death. And I say without any fear of contradiction to my colleagues that a vote against the Solomon amendment, which I am requesting of them, is a vote to save lives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit

Ms. PELOSI. Yes, I am opposed to the bill.

Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman has plenty of time. I will answer any questions he wants on his time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) who knows firsthand of what she speaks on this subject.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my remarks, I was going to offer this motion to recommit because I think that it sincerely attempts to address the concerns that have been expressed in the course of the debate on this issue. Not only that, it is consistent with the language of the appropriations bill that brings us here today, actually. Frankly, I was quite disappointed in the actions taken by some of my Republican colleagues, because I thought we had come to a deal on the needle exchange program. When the appropriations bill was passed, it was agreed that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could not lift the ban on the needle exchange programs until March 31, 1998, unless the Congress acted beforehand to prevent her from lifting the ban. It established criteria for the Secretary to lift the ban, and that criteria was that the projects are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. I think that the scientific information and evidence that we have presented demonstrates conclusively that that is the case. In addition, the Secretary was expected to make a determination based on the review of the relevant science, and the additional science that has come forth in the last 6 months demonstrates even more clearly the strong scientific basis, without which we would never ask our colleagues to make this vote. And it also provides, the legislative language also provides the referrals for treatment of drug abuse and other appropriate health and social services. So with that, we went forward with the idea that if the science came forward, as it has, that the Secretary would be able to lift the ban. Now, the administration has not lifted the ban, but this body wants to act forevermore, flying in the face of the science, in defiance of the effectiveness of the needle exchange programs. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues some of the organizations that support the needle exchange programs. The American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Bar Association. Why would the U.S. Conference of Mayors support the needle exchange program if they thought it would increase crime, as our colleagues have contended? So I say to my colleagues, in addition to that, I want to call two other endorsements to the attention of my colleagues. Some of those on the other side of this issue have spoken on the epidemiology of substance abuse and HIV/AIDS. That means how it is spread in our population. The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists have written to Congress to reject H.R. 3717, the bill before us, and the county and city health officials, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, oppose it as well. So I say to my colleagues, listen to the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit sends this bill to the Committee on Commerce, which is the appropriate route for this bill to take, with the following amendment: That unless the Governor, State health officer, or local municipal health authority determines that the use of Federal funds for such a program would reduce the rate of transmission of HIV and would not discourage the use of illegal drugs, and is acceptable to the affected State, city or other unit of local government or community. No Federal funds unless it meets that test: Reduce the rate of transmission of HIV, would not encourage the use of illegal drugs, and is acceptable to the affected State, city or unit of local government or community. Mr. Speaker, we are having this education of our colleagues, this transfer of information between each other, among each other today because we have not really gone through the regular order, the hearing process. I heard my colleague say last week, how on earth could we vote on the IMF because we have not had hearings? Well, how on earth can we vote on this matter of life and death bypassing the committee structure where we could conclusively review the scientific evidence to remove all doubt in anyone's mind what is self-evident to the National Institutes of Health? I say once again that if we are funding NIH to the tune of $13.6 billion for this year, and many of us are calling for the doubling of the NIH budget over the next 5 years, why on earth would we ignore their scientific findings? Not only NIH, the Administrator himself, but the various institutes that work to this end. Mr. Speaker, I really do not like saying things about Congress that are not complimentary, but ignoring the science really is the Flat Earth Society mentality, and if we want to put our head in the sand, we do not get any more room to do it on a flat earth. I urge my colleagues to think seriously about the science, vote to save lives; support the motion to recommit.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but if my other speaker arrives, I will yield to the other speaker. But one thing I am glad about, about this resolution coming to the floor, it gives us another opportunity to say to our colleagues and to the American people just what the science is on this subject of needle exchange programs. My colleagues, as a mother of five and a grandmother of two, I join with everyone in this body, and I know I speak for every single person here saying one of our top priorities here is to eliminate drug abuse from our country and from this earth. Let us stipulate to that, that we all recognize the good intentions of everyone here to do that. Having said that, we must use new approaches to this as well, because I do not think anyone can say that the approach that has been taken to date has been a complete success. When we talk about the subject of needle exchange programs, I share the concern of some of my colleagues when I hear their remarks. They just do not understand it. Because, clearly, they do not know what a needle exchange program is. And for many people, when they hear about it, at first blush they say, why would I support that? What message does that send? How often we have heard that today. Well, one message it sends is that we will be courageous enough to take the steps that will save lives and will reduce substance abuse and drug abuse in our country. We have heard people try to blur the science on this, but the science is, we go hand in hand with the science as we ask our colleagues to vote down this resolution. This is a difficult decision because most of our constituents, many of them may not be aware of the benefits of a needle exchange program. But because it is a difficult decision does not mean we should take the easy way out. We must demonstrate that making difficult decisions is not above the pay grade of Members of Congress and that we are willing to lead and indeed to teach our constituents. They do not need to learn much though. Our constituents, the American people, say that the needle exchange program, 61 percent of the American people favor changing federal laws to allow State and local governments to decide for themselves whether to use their Federal funds for needle exchange programs. That is why I have in my motion to recommit, which will be discussed later, the provision that needle exchange programs could not use Federal funds unless the Governor, State health officer, local/ municipal health authority determines that the use of Federal funds for such a program would reduce the rate of transmission of HIV and would not encourage the use of illegal drugs and is acceptable to the affected State, city and other units of local governments or communities. I listened to my colleagues, and I hope to address their concerns in this motion to recommit, and I hope that whatever position people take on the Solomon resolution, that they will support the motion to recommit. My colleagues, as they make their decisions, as we are sent here to review the facts and to vote, the facts are these: This is the poster, by the way, that a Republican colleague did not want to have on display in the House, and it says, April 1998, needle exchange reduces the spread of HIV/AIDS. After reviewing all of the research, we have unanimously agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that needle exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that reduces the transmission of HIV and does not, and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs. Dr. Harold Varmus, winner of the Nobel Prize, Director of the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Dr. Alan Leshner, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse; and Dr. David Satcher, Surgeon General. Please make a vote to save lives. Have the courage to make that vote. Vote ``no'' on the Solomon resolution.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. This evening we had a special opportunity in this House of Representatives, and that is to accept a motion to instruct for a resolution that has strong bipartisan support in its committee of jurisdiction. Many others have said it passed 40 to 9 with the support of the Chair, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). It has a framework to address many of the concerns our colleagues have about the IMF, and frankly that I share, about the need for increased transparency, for conditionality that includes labor rights and environmental protections, and the moral hazard issue of do countries' financial institutions take risks unduly because they think there is an IMF bailout. This resolution, this provides the framework to increase that, and all of those concerns are trumped by the contagion clause. Contagion, that is the spread of what will happen to the currencies in these countries, will have a terrible impact on workers in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point very, very clearly. This is not a bailout, it is a loan. We get a credit, an asset for it. We are not bailing out, we are not giving money away. We are honoring our commitment. Even the staunchest critics of IMF say we need to do this replenishment now and then proceed with the reforms.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the tax limitation amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is not appropriately named. A more accurate title would be the ``Minority Rules Amendment,'' because it would require a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate to pass any bill increasing Federal revenues. What we are debating here today is not whether taxes should be raised or lowered, but whether the majority of the House of Representatives should be empowered to make the tough decisions on one of the most important areas of governmental operation. The effects of the legislation before us would go far beyond debates on personal tax rates--this legislation would impose dangerous limits on our ability to address the health and social welfare needs of millions of Americans. Some of the most critical areas of policy that this House will consider in the near future will involve debates about taxation, including tobacco control, Medicare, and Social Security. On the issue of tobacco, we have research showing that price increases can be effective at reducing teen smoking--the most important aspect of tobacco legislation being considered this year. Passage of the constitutional amendment before us would undermine our ability to enact legislation which puts this research to work, by making it more difficult to impose tax increases on tobacco products. It would mean that we cannot equally and fairly consider the range of options available to limit tobacco use among young people. Why should a minority of Members be empowered to proscribe our consideration of the options to reduce teen smoking? On Social Security, there are numerous proposals being offered to secure the financial health of the trust fund for decades to come. And there are few issues more important to our constituents than protecting the stability of the social Security system. If we pass the legislation before us today, one potential ingredient of a comprehensive plan to support Social Security will become far more difficult to enact. I ask again, why should a minority of Members be able to stop congressional action in this area? The point is not to make taxation easier. None of us want to do that. The point is maintain the principle of majority rule on essential matters before the Congress. It is to recognize that on the key issues before this House, we must take responsibility to act thoughtfully and wisely. The issue of taxation has implications for our ability to promote public health, lift seniors out of poverty, and address other national priorities. We must not abandon majority rule and limit our ability to fairly and honestly consider policy on these and other critical issues.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. Porter for their leadership in bringing us together to remember a time in world history when the Armenian people were singled out for a brutal attack on their very existence, an attack that would come to be known as the Armenian Genocide. On April 24, 1915, the rulers of the Ottoman Empire set out to annihilate the Armenian minority. Over the course of the next eight years, the Turkish government systematically murdered 1.5 million Armenians and deported 500,000. By the end of 1923, the entire Armenian population of Anatolia and Western Armenia was either murdered or deported. This anniversary serves to remind us of the importance of vigilance against oppression and acts of violence against the rights of ethnic minorities around the world. In my home state of California, the story of the Armenian Genocide is included in the social studies curriculum as mandated by the State Board of Education in 1987. Similar curricula on human rights and genocide exist in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. And while a growing number of Americans come to understand the horror of this episode in history, the perpetrators continue their denial. Just last year, Turkey attempted to endow a chair on Turkish and Ottoman history at UCLA. School officials were forced to temper their initial enthusiasm when concerns were raised that this effort was a stab at historical revisionism. Turkey continues to violate the human rights of the Kurdish minority, at times in ways that are reminiscent of its historical treatment of the Armenians and Greeks. The Turkish government has failed to ensure the safety of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the seat of the Orthodox Church in Istanbul. In Cyprus, the Turkish army enforces a partition of the island that has been universally denounced since it invaded in 1974. This consistent and constant disregard of international convention is a hallmark of a nation that ignores the obvious lessons from its own history. Despite the near obliteration of their ancient culture, the Armenian people have survived. Throughout the world they have made enormous cultural and economic contributions to the communities in their adopted homelands. Recently, Armenia held presidential elections, and while there were some problems, this fragile democracy continues to move forward. I congratulate the Armenian people for their resilience. Their triumph over adversity is a story from which we all draw strength.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his leadership on this very important issue. In fact, I do not think there is any issue more important than this one because it is about nothing less than our oath of office. Every single person who comes to this body to serve takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The greatest enemy to our democracy is foreign and domestic money poisoning our system. On top of it all, we have the cynical, cynical action on the part of the Speaker today which gags American workers. The deck is so stacked against the average American today, the way is greased for corporate America and wealthy Americans to have their voices heard; and today in this body the Republican majority wants to add an additional burden to average Americans having their voices heard here. Mr. Speaker, when Washington first became the capital of our country, it was built on a swamp. It is still a swamp, a swamp putrid from the huge amounts of money that pours in here, special interest money stacking, as I said, the deck against the average American. Let us rid ourselves of this poison. Let us rid our system of this poison. Let us honor our oath of office. Let us ask the Speaker to have freedom of speech on this floor, allowing us to support the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill and restore freedom in our country.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake--there's nothing healthy about this bill. It's ``managed care'' gone off the scale. HR 3530 would encourage further destruction of our national forests by encouraging logging, limiting public participation in the process and exploiting some of our most environmentally sensitive forest areas. We have been through this debate. The rationale in HR 3530 is the same rationale used in the ``Salvage Logging Rider'' which had devastating effects on forests in the name of ``forest health.'' It was a mistake then; it is a mistake now. The U.S. Forest Service has already confirmed that the ``forest ``health'' crisis this bill purports to address does not exist. It is simply another excuse for salvage logging that will permit logging of old growth forests and transfer money from road and trail maintenance to unnecessary logging activities. Currently, there is a $10 billion backlog in road maintenance throughout our national forests. It does not make sense to defer this spending and embark on a frivolous logging program. In addition to this, the bill actually creates an incentive for logging by setting up a special forest management fund that would be fed by the sale of commercial timber. The more trees you cut in the name of ``forest health''--the more revenues deposited in the account. We do not need another fund. In the bill, it is ``available without further appropriation''--a determination that should be made by the Appropriations Committee in its review of funding for the Forest Service. Over 100 scientists have registered their opposition to this bill. One of them is quoted: ``The Forest Recovery and Protection Act of 1998 is a stealth attack on natural resources in the guise of `forest health.''' Another states: ``The Forest Service already has the authority to undertake these appropriate activities * * * new legislation that provides a broad mandate to institute `recovery projects' on potentially very large national forest areas is not needed.'' The Administration opposes this bill. A letter from Agriculture Secretary Glickman states: ``* * * the Forest Service would be much better served by continuing its program for improving forest resources using its existing authorities rather than be encumbered by this bill's controversial provisions and lengthy and costly processes.'' Secretary Glickman's letter concludes with: ``I share your broad goal of improving our forest resources, but the Administration strongly opposes this bill; it would curtail important environmental and administrative laws, create a tremendous bureaucratic burden, and ignite another round of controversy over salvage and forest health operations.''

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which attempts to silence workers and diminish their ability to stand against discrimination in the workplace. This bill prevents employees the opportunity to bargain or to protect their rights in the workplace. The bill subjects workers to an unreasonable and unjust test of motivation in order to gain employment, and will intimidate employees into giving up their right to join a union. We currently have established laws to protect employers from workers performing illegal activities in the workplace. Union organizing is not an illegal activity. This bill would overturn a unanimous Supreme Court decision which provided that a union organizer should be treated as an employee as long as union organizing does not interfere with his or her service to the employer. This bill singles out the National Labor Relations Board for the unreasonable burden of paying all attorney's fees of all prevailing parties in judicial proceedings, regardless of whether the boards position was justified. Mr. Speaker, this is not fairness for employees. This is an unfair gag on working people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for yielding to me, and I rise in opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because this bill was put together without any involvement of the Democratic conferees. The Democrats did not see a copy of the 350-page conference report until after it was filed. Because all Democrats refused to sign the conference report, a member had to be replaced on the conference in order to obtain enough signatures to sign the report. The process had started in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, it ended in a cynically political way. Sad to say that the Republican majority did not want to bring this bill to the floor in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose this bill, and the many reasons why the Democrats refused to sign the bill will be spelled out by the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) when we take up the bill. But while we are on the rule, I oppose the process under which it was brought to the Committee on Rules, and therefore, oppose it on the floor. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons to object to this bill is that giving our negotiators at the U.N. the tools they need to achieve reform, to reduce our financial obligations, and to achieve consensus on issues such as Iraq is what we should do in this bill. What it does instead is to denigrate the U.S. in the eyes of the world because Congress has insisted on micromanaging the U.N. once again. Last fall, the Congress had the opportunity to get a good deal for the American taxpayer. With a reasonable amount of arrears in place and guaranteed by Congress, we had a good opportunity to achieve a lower assessment rate, concrete budget caps, and even negative growth in U.N. budgets. Congress made the mistake of not acting at that time, and now Congress is making another mistake with the provisions in this legislation. The real impact of the inaction last fall was to raise the amounts owed by the United States by at least $100 million. The bill is increasing every day. Our responsibility now is to give our negotiators at the U.N. the funds and flexibility they need to get the best deal they can for the U.S. taxpayer. What this bill does, unfortunately, is guarantee that any reduction in U.S. assessment rates will not occur. Mr. Speaker, this conference report also makes good on the Republican majority's threat to link two totally unrelated issues, the U.N. arrears and the funding for international family planning. This legislation includes an altered version of the Mexico City restrictions on international family planning. Supporters of this language offered today will call it a ``compromise.'' We who support family planning call it totally unacceptable. What we compromise with this language are the lives of poor women and families throughout the world. The impact of this language will be equally devastating as previous restrictive amendments on international family planning. It will impose a global gag rule on family planning organizations, dictating what materials they may distribute and prohibiting them from participating in public debates; and this is important, Mr. Speaker, with their own private funds. We would certainly find a gag rule like this in violation of the First Amendment were it implemented in our own country. The use of U.S. funds to perform abortion has been prohibited by law since 1993. No U.S. funds are used for the performance of abortion or abortion-related activities. No U.S. funds are used to promote abortion. That is the law. So there is no need to have this restrictive gag rule put in place under the guise of supporting the language that I just mentioned. It is already the law. The cuts in funding set in motion by this language will limit the ability of family planning and reproductive health services to poor women and families. It will reduce access and quality of services. Programs will be terminated which will cause the number of abortions to rise and the number of deaths from unsafe abortions to increase, exactly the reverse effect it would have if we put out the funds, unrestricted, for international family planning, which would reduce abortion; and I think that is the goal that we all share. We have debated this issue many, many times over, at least six times in the first session of the 105th Congress last year. Each time, we stand here and agree that we want to reduce the number of abortions. Voluntary family planning programs do just that. They prevent unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortion and infant deaths. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.