Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman-Pelosi- Campbell-Lowey-DeLauro-Slaughter-Greenwood amendment, and associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations in acknowledging the bipartisan nature of this amendment, and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] for his leadership on it and in strong opposition to the Smith amendment. Our effort, and we worked hard and long on this, was the result of listening, listening, listening to our colleagues' concern about this issue over the years. As a result, our amendment has two parts to it. The first part says that if the U.N. family planning is involved in China, they will receive no funding. We yield that point to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. He has fought that fight. Members on both sides of the aisle expressed their concern about the forced abortion policies in China. We concede that point because that was a time when that point was being reconsidered. Second, Members have said they want a separation between family planning and abortion. We do, too. We reject abortion as a form of family planning. We say that family planning is the best way to reduce the number of abortions, and this amendment would disqualify any organization from any assistance here for any foreign and ungovernmental and multilateral organization that, with U.S. funds or with their own funds, promote abortion as a method of family planning. It would also prohibit U.S. family planning assistance to organizations unless they use those funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning. We have built this firewall. We have separated abortion and family planning as is appropriate. We have cut off funding unless it can be certified that the UNFPA is not involved in the program in China. I urge my colleagues to accept this, I believe, smart alternative to the gentleman from New Jersey's [Mr. Smith], which accomplishes all that we want to do to reduce the number of abortions while promoting international family planning which in turn will reduce the abortions. Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as an appropriator, I want to protect our prerogatives. And as appropriations chairman, I would hope that the gentleman's statement in favor of the position of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] would not therefore apply to all other amendments or provisions passed through the authorization process to, therefore, be foisted onto the appropriations process as law, just protecting the prerogative of the Appropriations Committee for those amendments that are not the law.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding to me and appreciate his elucidation of his previous remarks. However, the authorization bill, as the gentleman knows, is not the appropriations bill. While it is interesting for us to speculate as to what the will of the body is, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] regretfully did not have the opportunity to present his amendment and have a vote on it to legitimize the point of view and to have support one way or another registered. I was only pointing out that there was no action taken by this House and by the Congress, that the law does not prohibit the funding of the Man and the Biosphere Program. I was making a more general statement that no such prohibition exists at this time despite the vote in the authorization.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my position with regard to this program and to respectfully disagree with my distinguished chairman and the maker of this, the initiator of this colloquy. I do not agree that the statements accurately reflect the status of the Man and the Biosphere Program. Funding for the Man and the Biosphere Program was requested and has not been prohibited in this bill. I therefore want to clarify that, despite the statements made here this afternoon, and I rarely disagree with my distinguished chairman, funding for this project can move forward if Congress takes no further action, no further definitive action on it. The citation to the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act does not apply, because that is not even the law. So at this time, this afternoon, at the time of this colloquy, there is no prohibition on Congress' spending funds for the Man and the Biosphere Program.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. In doing so, I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for shining the bright light of our country on the human rights abuses that take place in India and indeed other places in the world. He has a strong human rights record, and I am not here today to defend any of the alleged actions of the Indian Government or their security forces outlined by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] in his amendment. I am, however, going to vigorously defend the humanitarian aid programs that are funded through AID and, among other initiatives, help one of the most populous countries in the world deal with family planning issues, among other issues which I will address. The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], is the foremost champion in the world on the issue of child survival. It is the keystone of his foreign operations bill. The United States is now engaged with India in providing much needed assistance for child survival, as well as other issues, population planning, the environment, economic reform. This amendment would cut 25 percent of this modest program, the vast majority of which benefits the poorest and most vulnerable portions of Indian society. I have been and am extremely concerned about the reports of serious human rights abuses in India, particularly in Kashmir and Punjab. The United States has been and remains seriously engaged with the Indian Government on these issues. Limited progress has been made on the human rights front with recent elections in Kashmir and Punjab, as my colleagues have cited, the successful prosecution of the security force personnel and police and military officials and the establishment of a local human rights groups that are now able to monitor events there. These developments are positive but not definitive. However, the essential point remains: We should not be cutting off aid to help millions of poor in India with some fundamental aid programs that enable them to survive. We should be working with the Indian Government to promote human rights, as we are, and we should know that at risk, if this amendment should pass, is assistance to the women's initiative. Women are a key human resource for economic development and their full participation in a democratic society is an absolute necessity. The HIV/AIDS activity could be cut back. This would be particularly harmful to the international and global fight against AIDS in view of fact that India is particularly vulnerable to a dramatic increase in AIDS. And the environment and energy portfolio would be cut back. There are obvious global pollution implications of a cutback, in addition to the loss of opportunities for U.S. technology providers. It is in our national interest to provide humanitarian assistance to India. I believe it is important to shine the light of democracy on human rights violations there but I do not think that the Burton amendment is appropriate, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, and I will give him additional time, the point is that it is always available for a Member to seek time and yield to our colleagues, as we have done repeatedly in this debate, and I would be pleased to take more time later and yield to the gentleman.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, because this debate has been conducted in, I think, a very civil manner and I just wanted the gentleman to be aware that Mr. Burton was afforded unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes yesterday to speak longer on his time, and we all graciously granted that without any objection, and there always was the option available to the gentleman for him to speak as he did with additional time.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman further yield so I can answer his question?

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased to follow the lead of our chairman on this issue. He has been a champion for American business investment abroad and has called to the attention of foreign leaders problems that our businesses have had in newly emerging democracies and countries where we are encouraging investment. I know he has established his expertise and his standing on this issue, and I am pleased to follow his lead as he stated in the colloquy.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. On the gentleman's time, I am pleased to answer the question that he just posed, what are we talking about? The gentleman asked what do we mean by abortion as a form of family planning. Abortion as a method of family planning in the Gilman-Pelosi amendment means abortion that is used as a substitute for contraception.

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

Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman knows full well because he has been such a leader in this field that U.S. law prohibits any funds from going to any organizations for the performance of an abortion. The law prevents that. We are just going beyond that.

Ms. PELOSI. It is already prohibited. It is already prohibited.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman making that statement and for the work that the gentleman did to get that language in the bill. But I repeat again that that language in the bill recognizes that there is a problem. To those who say, ``What is the problem?'' There is a problem. Because of the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama, the bill says that, None of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made available to support grant-financed military education and training at the School of the Americas unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that the instruction and training provided by the School of the Americas is fully consistent with training and doctrine, particularly with respect to the observance of human rights. Further, that the Secretary of Defense certifies that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, has developed and issued specific guidelines governing the selection and screening of candidates for the instruction at the School of the Americas; and, further, that the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committee on Appropriations a report detailing the training activities of the School of the Americas and the general assessment regarding the performance of its graduates during 1996. The reason I part company with my chairman at this point is because we had the request for this study in last year's bill and, unfortunately, it took a great deal of time for us to get the report back to our committee. Indeed, it did not even show up until the day our subcommittee was meeting, and I think that that was long overdue. We asked for a report on ethics to correct the problems. The report sat in DOD for months and was delivered the day of our subcommittee markup. The report itself failed miserably to address our concerns about the school. Mr. Chairman, this leaves me no choice but to support this amendment. I say that with a great deal of respect for our colleagues on both sides of this issue. I do want to call to the attention of our colleagues that a problem exists and that this solution that the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] is advancing is a reasonable one. It takes the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] one step further. Mr. Chairman, I call this to my colleagues's attention. It is a letter from the Jesuit Conference. The Jesuit Conference calls for the closing of the School of the Americas. It does so because it says: Jesuits know all too personally the violence perpetrated by graduates of the School of the Americas. In 1989 six Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter were murdered on the campus of the Jesuit University in El Salvador. Nineteen of the Salvadoran officers whom the United Nations cited for these murders were graduates of the School of the Americas. This is a celebrated case. However, the death and disappearance of hundreds of ordinary civilians, such as those of the village of El Mozote in Salvador-- And I visited that location myself. Overwhelm our consciences and elicit outrage at the impunity of the School of the Americas graduates. Their families silently know, better than we, the effects of State sanctioned terror. Mr. Chairman, that is why I agree with the statement in the Jesuits' letter that it is time to send a strong message that the United States will no longer sanction or tolerate militaries which declare war upon their own civilian populations.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment, as proposed, by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. If enacted, the Paul amendment would cause death and suffering for millions of women and children whose lives and well-being depend on the availability of family planning and health service supported under USAID's population assistance program. Over 580,000 women die annually, 1 woman every minute, of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. Family planning can prevent 25 percent of all maternal and infant deaths by avoiding unintended pregnancies and spacing births. The Paul amendment would close the most effective avenue to prevent abortions. Certainly we all consider abortion a failure, and if we want to reduce the number of abortions, we should support family planning. The World Health Organization estimates that 40 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. That is a tragedy. Family planning enables couples to prevent unintended pregnancies. Large declines in numbers of abortions have occurred due to the expansion of family planning services in many countries across the globe, including South Korea, Chile, Hungary, Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Colombia, and Mexico. This amendment would end a 30-year program that is recognized as one of the most successful components of U.S. foreign assistance. And this is not about the United States going to another country and forcing anything on anyone. This is a voluntary program that the countries asked for. And again, to reference the remarks of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], we are not later going to be voting on any amendment that will curtail funds for abortion. The discussion in this bill is about curtailing funding for family planning. More than 50 million couples in the developing world use family planning as a direct result of this program, and the average number of children per family has declined more than one-third since the 1960's. Three out of four Americans surveyed in 1995 wanted to increase or maintain spending on family planning for poor countries. I urge our colleagues to reject overwhelmingly the ill-advised Paul amendment and to support international family planning.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in light of that and in light of the congressional schedule with the House going in at 5 p.m., I think that it is only appropriate that we take up one of the Burton amendments today if we are going to have a time constraint at 15 minutes, half an hour or 15 minutes; or why do we not just go under the 5-minute rule until 5 p.m. and end at a time certain?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's goal and I think that is a good try, but clearly there is more interest in the Burton amendments, and it appears that with the interest we are only going to be able to get through one amendment if we are going to abide by the House schedule of going back in at 5 p.m., so we will have one more amendment tomorrow if Mr. Burton decides to offer it.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I once again reiterate my opposition to the Paul amendment and support the statement of our chairman, Mr. Callahan. As this Congress should know by now, because it has been reiterated on this floor, no money in this bill can be used for abortion. That is the Helms language. That is the law of the land. Let us be clear. So we want to take it to a fungibility place. I hope that Mr. Paul will support the Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell Lowey-DeLauro-Slaughter- Greenwood proposal on the floor tomorrow, which addresses the fungibility issue very directly. First of all, I do not think it needs to be addressed. But for those who need that comfort and clarification, I am pleased to be a supporter of that amendment. In that amendment it says that none of the funds would go to organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning. It puts these conditions on receiving the funds; also, it says, except in the case of organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning. So there is nothing about fungibility here. This is about organizations that promote family planning and discourage the use of abortion for family planning. So fungibility is not a principle that applies here. But if we are going to use the principles of fungibility, we are opening a door for many issues across the board in this bill and every other bill that comes along. I do not know that this Congress wants to go down that path. But I am pleased to say that the amendment that will be offered tomorrow as an amendment to the Smith amendment will clarify, once and for all, this is not about fungibility. It is about family planning, and none of the money goes to any organization, unless they are promoting family planning and discouraging abortion as a tool for that.

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