Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Smith-Barcia amendment to the American Embassy Security Act. The Smith-Barcia amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions to the UNFPA until UNFPA terminates its involvement with the Chinese coercive population control program or until China ends its brutal and abusive one-child-per-family policy. For 20 years, the UNFPA has been a supporter and defender of China's population control program, giving the Chinese Government over $150 million. It is a tragedy that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would even suggest that we should vote to send taxpayer money to support this brutal Chinese program. This is a tragic and wasteful expenditure of U.S. taxpayer money. Why would we contribute taxpayer money to a program that has been a partner to some of the most heinous population control programs in the world, including incarcerating pregnant women in barracks until they consent to abortions or sterilizations, forcing pregnant women to attend ``study sessions'' away from their families until they agree to have abortions, and carrying about sterilizations without the consent or knowledge of the women while rendering other medical services? The worst part of this is that UNFPA is turning a blind eye to these atrocities against the women of China. In fact, UNFPA has publicly praised their forced abortion program in China. UNFPA even provides cover for China's program by calling it voluntary. This program is anything but voluntary. Here are some horrifying examples. It is reported that Australia has deported at least three pregnant women to China, and one of them was very close to her delivery date. So what happened? Just days before this woman was to give birth, she was forced to have an abortion. This abuse is beyond tragic. I do not understand how anyone, in good conscience, could support UNFPA while they are funding and actively promoting China's oppressive population control program. Now, my colleagues will hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle push for a compromise with the Gilman-Campbell amendment. Do not be fooled. The Gilman-Campbell amendment is merely an attempt to block an up-or- down vote on this issue, an attempt to block an up-or-down vote on Smith-Barcia. It is window dressing for those who are afraid to admit they are supporting China's policy. In fact, this amendment proposal was defeated by the House when it was last offered in 1997 and it should be rejected again today. Why do we need to keep going over this again and again? This is plain and simple. The U.S. already contributes to activities to promote women's health and well-being by contributing to other international organizations and NGOs that work in this field. It is not necessary to finance organizations such as UNFPA which collaborate with programs that violate the fundamental human rights of women and children.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats, the liberal editorial pages, the President, they are all singing off the same sheet of music with remarkable harmony these last few days. They have called the Republican tax cut proposal ``risky.'' I am not surprised. But for Republicans, what is far riskier is keeping the Federal budget surplus in Washington, D.C. ``Trust us,'' these liberal politicians will say. ``We won't spend it.'' ``Really,'' they say, ``we will use it for debt reduction. Trust us, we won't spend it. Trust us, we won't spend it.'' Now, I really do not know what to say to people who think that politicians in Washington can be trusted not to spend this pot of money. If the choice is between giving the money back to the people who earned it or spending it, the Democrats will spend it. Republicans will not spend it. They want to give it back to the people who earned it. It is their money in the first place.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his input. I would be very happy to work with him on this issue in the future. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, last year, Congress adopted the Lowey mandate that all FEHBP plans include coverage of contraceptive care. This year, that language was considered in the base text of the bill. There are millions of Americans who object to being forced to subsidize, through higher premiums, contraceptive benefits for other plan enrollees, for one reason or another, including many Federal employees. They have many reasons to object to being forced to subsidize these benefits. They may have moral and religious objections. They may be a single person, and they feel that they should not be forced to subsidize this benefit. They may be an infertile couple facing the tragedy of having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills for infertility work-ups while they are simultaneously paying a higher premium for this benefit for others. Why should those older Federal employees who may be beyond the childbearing years pay the higher premium when they might prefer better dental care coverage or preventive care? My amendment ensures that Federal employees are given the choice of opting out of this mandate of contraceptive benefits. My amendment would give enrollees the choice to select the contraceptive benefit currently required in the bill, or they could, if they preferred, exercise and choose enhanced dental, optometry, prenatal, infertility, or prescription drug benefits. My amendment will not result in additional costs to plans, because the language in my amendment calls for these benefits to be of equivalent value of what the plan spends for the average beneficiary choosing the contraceptive benefit. My amendment does not require a plan to offer any new benefits that they do not already offer. Plans could opt to provide these enhanced benefits through lower copays for doctors visits or lower copays for prescription drugs. They could enhance preventive care benefits like providing free dental checkups. I believe that my amendment is a significant improvement over the base text language. I understand the decision of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) to raise a point of order against my amendment. I will, therefore, withdraw my amendment from consideration. But I would encourage members of this subcommittee to consider language such as this when they go to conference or when they take this bill up next year.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have to apologize to the gentleman. I was preparing my remarks, and I did not listen to his argument.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say that the gentleman's amendment, I believe, is a relatively modest amendment. By adding this moral clause I believe it will allow people to exercise their moral convictions and in many ways improve the underlying provisions in the language of the bill. In 1998, Congress included an amendment in the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill requiring almost all health plans that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program to provide ``contraceptive coverage,'' including early abortifacient methods, to the same extent that they provide prescription drug coverage generally. (The Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill became law as part of the FY 1999 Omnibus Supplemental Appropriations Act, H.R. 4328, PL 105-277.) The FY 2000 Treasury-Postal contains the same language. The effect of this policy is to force health plans participating in FEHB to cover controversial abortifacients such as the new so-called ``morning after'' product, Preven, approved by the FDA for use as ``postcoital emergency contraception.'' Preven and similar drugs work up to three days after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure to destroy a developing embryo. Clearly, this is not contraception but it is called contraception by the FDA. The latest edition of the nation's leading embryology textbook explains the mode of action of such drugs: ``The administration of relatively large doses of estrogens (``morning after'' pills) for several days, beginning shortly after unprotected sexual intercourse, usually does not prevent fertilization, but often prevents implantation of the blastocyst.'' K. Moore and T. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.: 1998), p. 58. The FEHB mandate lacks adequate conscience protection for some sponsors of health plans and individual providers who are opposed to providing such drugs and devices. Five religious plans are exempt by name, as well as any ``existing or future plan, if the plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious beliefs.'' Plans and individuals objecting to such coverage based on moral convictions should be protected as well, as they are under many state and federal laws. The conscience protection for individual providers also needs to be clarified to protect any health care provider--including but not limited to physicians, nurses and physician assistants--who objects to providing these drugs or devices on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions. The current law only protects individuals who decline to ``prescribe'' such drugs and devices and may be interpreted too narrowly. The conscience protection language enacted in 1998 and currently in this year's bill marks a departure from other federal conscience laws. The lack of an exemption for those whose moral convictions are offended by abortion sends the message that religious beliefs are the only foundation for respecting human life before birth. In fact, objections to the destruction of living human embryos--and, in particular, forcing taxpayers and others to support this killing--is widely opposed by many people. We saw this in 1996 when 256 Members of House Representatives voted against funding research in which human embryos are destroyed, discarded or even put at risk. Prior to last year's enactment of the contraceptive mandate, most health plans participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program paid for prescription drugs approved by the FDA as ``contraceptives''--including abortifacients. In 1998, each woman who participated in FEHB and who used contraception already had the choice of at least three (3) plans which provided coverage for whatever prescription method she used. Last year pro-life Members did not try to end this coverage, but to preserve the right of federal employees--including many women--to choose a health plan which did not cover abortion-inducing drugs characterized by the FDA as ``contraceptives.'' That choice was taken away from Federal employees when the mandate was enacted. One significant effect of the new coercive mandate was to force plans to cover--and force federal employees and taxpayers to pay for--the new ``morning after'' drug regimens such as Preven, which is to be taken after intercourse, or in the case of ``contraceptive failure,'' to ensure that a developing embryo will be expelled and not implant in the mother's womb. The controversy surrounding this drug is widespread. Many pharmacists, who have no objection to dispensing contraceptives, are strongly opposed to dispensing a drug which is primarily intended to kill a developing human embryo. Outside the federal context, individual pharmacists have had their jobs threatened because of their refusal to provide so-called ``emergency contraception.'' Just this year, five nurses in Riverside, CA, quit their jobs at a county health department because of the department's insistence that they violate their religious beliefs and provide ``emergency contraception.'' (These nurses had spent years working in family planning, telling women about contraception.) Walmart, the nation's fifth largest distributor of pharmaceuticals, including contraceptives, recently announced that it would not dispense Preven in its stores because of concerns with objections from its customers. Conscience clauses are common both in federal and state law and are based on respect for individual freedom and individual beliefs. Forcing someone to engage in activity that violates his or her deeply and conscientiously held beliefs is a violation of human rights and a gross abuse of the power of government. Among the more recent conscience clauses enacted into law is legislation passed by Congress in 1996 to protect medical education programs from being required to provide abortion training. The exemption was provided regardless of whether their opposition is religiously or morally based. We recognized that abortion--the killing of an innocent human being--is simply not the kind of practice in which anyone should be forced to participate for any reason. As Senator Olympia Snowe--who is also a supporter of the contraceptive mandate--said during the debate on the amendment to protect doctors and training programs from having to perform abortions: This amendment accomplishes two things. One, it does protect those institutions and those individuals who do not want to get involved in the performance or training of abortion when it is contrary to their beliefs. I do not think anybody would disagree with the fact--and I am pro-choice on this matter, but I do not think anybody would disagree with the fact that an institution or an individual who does not want to perform an abortion should do so contrary to their beliefs. By mandating coverage of contraception and abortifacients by health plans, Congress has increased the pressure on individual physicians, nurses and pharmacists providing services under these plans to violate their own consciences. In fact, currently only those who may be asked to ``prescribe'' the drug have any conscience protection under the law, and unless they are familiar with it, they may not even know of their right to refuse. In addition to the abortion training conscience protection described above, Congress provided conscience clauses for plans offered under Medicare+Choice if the sponsoring organization offering the plan objects on ``moral or religious grounds.'' (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395w- 22(j)(3)(B)) Another section protects Medicaid managed care organizations from being required to ``provide, reimburse for, or provide coverage of, a counseling and referral service if the organization objects to the provision of such service on moral or religious grounds.'' (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396u-2(b)(3) Also, in yet another section, Congress provided that Legal Services Corporation funds could not be used to attempt to ``compel any individual or institution to perform an abortion, or assist in the performance of an abortion, or provide facilities for the performance of an abortion, contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such individual or institution. . . . (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2996f(b) Clearly federal law has established that conscience protection should not be limited to individuals, nor should it be limited to objections based on religious beliefs. Ironically, some who support the mandate have been critical of attempts to clarify the conscience provisions in the mandate, claiming that it already exempts health plans with ``moral or religious'' objections (The Boston Globe, October 1, 1998) and that, under the mandate, ``individual doctors and nurses can refuse to provide contraceptives on moral grounds.'' (The New York Times, October 16, 1998). Neither of these protections is actually in the contraceptive mandate's conscience exemption. Presumably they would not object to their addition now. While some pro-abortion Members may in fact believe that a drug which does not prevent fertilization but prevents implantation of an embryo is not an abortion-inducing drug, what these Members think is not important. What is important are the beliefs and convictions of those who will be required to carry out the mandate. No one should be forced to do what he or she believes would cause the death of an innocent human being, particularly in the name of health care. This is not, however, the view of those at the front of the fight for abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. At a March 5, 1999, briefing sponsored by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (CRLP)--which has challenged state Partial-Birth Abortion Ban laws around the country--and the People for the American Way, Janet Benshoof, President of CRLP said, ``I don't think there should be conscience clauses.'' Do you?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment. I believe the Smith amendment is a significant enhancement to the current conscience clause language in the bill. The current conscience clause language does not sufficiently cover all those individuals who would like to take a moral as well as a religious exemption. It is well known that some of these products that are being referred to as contraceptives are not in reality contraceptives but are abortifacients, and this indeed causes many people who are of strong personal moral conviction, pro-life, or people who take a very strong religious perspective on this issue to have a problem, and I believe the gentleman's amending language is a significant improvement over the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the argument of the gentleman; and it is a legitimate part to bring forward in the debate. We in the Congress established the compensation package, and I think there is clearly a difference between the two. While I do not think American taxpayers could in any way object to how they use the money that is in their pocket, many American taxpayers I believe would object very, very strongly to this benefit being included. And that is the essence of my argument. This is a very, very controversial issue. It divides the Nation, as we all know. I feel that it is best for this particular piece of legislation that we reject the amendment and we stay with the language that exists, though I appreciate the argument of the gentleman and though I respectfully disagree.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this radical amendment. As all of my colleagues know, the provision that the gentlewoman seeks to strike has been included in this legislation for years and, as we all know, this is a highly controversial issue. The debate we are engaging in is not one involving the legality of abortion. It is about using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. While the availability of abortion on demand is a very controversial issue in the United States, with many Americans feeling very strongly that it should not be allowed and some feeling very strongly that it should be allowed, the issue that the gentlewoman brings up this afternoon is indeed not very controversial, with the vast majority of Americans feeling very strongly that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions in the United States of America. Now, some people may try to claim that this is just another medical procedure. And we all know seriously, Mr. Chairman, that this is not just another simple medical procedure. It is a very unique medical procedure where one of the participants in the procedure ends up dead. The Supreme Court itself, the Supreme Court that created legalized abortion in the United States, has actually ruled on this issue. In upholding the Hyde amendment, which prohibits abortion funding in programs funded by the Labor HHS bill, the Court said: ``Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.'' Now, I, as a medical doctor, would argue that the unborn baby in the womb is not a potential life. It meets all of the medical criteria of a life, the criteria that I used to use as a practicing physician to determine whether somebody is alive or dead: a beating heart, active brain waves. Indeed, with modern ultrasound technology today, as early as 8, 9, 10 weeks we can see them moving around their arms. Clearly a very controversial issue, and the gentlewoman brings this up now. I believe very strongly that our colleagues should reject this amendment. We should not allow taxpayer dollars to be used for this purpose.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the point I wanted to make is you have a successful compact. Your governor has that authority under the compact. That is under the provisions of IGRA. What the Secretary is trying to do is to do an end run around the language in IGRA, to claim the authority to decide these decisions rests with him and away from the States and the governors. Now, I think your example in Michigan is a good one, but I think we should stick to the intent of IGRA. My amendment will not affect anything that is going on in Michigan.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a very quick point. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey yielding to me. Several Members have gotten up and spoken about the beneficial effects of Indian gaming in some of these tribes. The gentleman from Arizona talked about Tucson. I just want to point out that that tribe has a compact with the State of Arizona. And all my amendment says is stick to that system; it works really well.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for yielding to me, and I want to make a couple of points. Regarding the issue of the courts, the courts have ruled that the Congress has the authority to cede this responsibility to the States to make the decisions. And what has spurred my interest in this issue is a tribe is trying to buy a piece of property outside of Disneyworld in my congressional district and when we asked them if their attempt was to build a Class III gaming facility, their response was that they would not rule that out. The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) said, why do the States not outlaw this? We had a ballot referendum on this in Florida, and 79 percent of the people in the State of Florida voted in opposition to establishing Class III gaming in the State of Florida. Now, my amendment does not address any of those issues. All my amendment says is stick to the law in IGRA and do not violate the principles that this Congress passed 11 years ago and was signed by the President of the United States.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I am very supportive of the work the gentleman does in the committee, but I believe we have the right to decide on a very, very important issue. If I might also add, one of the parties to this suit is the Attorney General from Florida, who encouraged me to go ahead and offer this amendment. So clearly he has decided that he would rather see this settled legislatively, rather than wait to see how the court decides the issue.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) did in crafting this bill. The gentleman and I and his staff did talk at length before offering this amendment on this issue. I just want the chairman and my colleagues to understand that I believe we should decide this issue and not defer to the courts to decide. I consider the courts a place where the laws are interpreted, but I believe that we write the laws and the statutes, and in this particular case I believe the administration, via the office of the Secretary, are trying to go around the intent of the law. My amendment simply, I believe, reinvigorates IGRA to its original intent. I understand the chairman's position.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It ensures that the integrity of a law that the U.S. Congress passed, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, is preserved. I have here in my hand letters of endorsement of my amendment by both the National Governors' Association and the National Association of Attorney Generals, two bipartisan groups. Why have they endorsed this amendment? Because it protects the rights of States that this Congress granted them under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or the IGRA. Under IGRA, in order for Indian tribes to engage in Class III gambling, otherwise known as casino gambling, tribes must have an approved tribal-State compact. However, recent actions by the Department of Interior would enable Indian tribes to circumvent State governments when negotiating these compacts. Regulations issued by the Secretary of Interior on April 12, 1999, established a process by which a tribe can essentially bypass the State and open a casino in the absence of a tribal-State compact. This severely weakens the rights of States to determine gambling activities in their own communities. These regulations are inconsistent with IGRA. The Department of Interior has exceeded the authority granted under IGRA by issuing a regulatory remedy on a matter that both Congress and the Supreme Court have stated should be determined by the States. My amendment prohibits the Secretary from allowing a tribe to open a casino in a State where the tribe has not negotiated a compact with the State. Allow me to review for the Members what my amendment does and does not do. What the Weldon-Barr amendment does: My amendment maintains the status quo of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It ensures that tribes can still use the current IGRA process to engage in Class III casino- style gaming. It preserves the right of Congress to pass laws and make majority policy changes. It continues incentives for tribes and States to pursue legislative changes to IGRA. It prevents the Secretary of Interior from bypassing Congress and allowing tribes to establish Class III gaming in the absence of a tribal-State compact. It protects State rights without harming Indian tribes. What my amendment does not do: This amendment does not amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Weldon amendment does not affect existing tribal-State compacts. The amendment does not limit the ability of tribes to attain Class III gaming as long as valid compacts are entered into by the tribes and the States pursuant to existing law. I encourage my colleagues to vote to protect the rights granted by this Congress to the States. Vote to protect the rights of our local communities to have a voice in whether or not casinos will be opened in their communities. Vote to support our Governors and State attorneys general. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I again point out that this amendment has been endorsed by the National Governors' Association and the National Association of States Attorneys General.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) I think has really gotten to the point. Under my amendment, they stick to the language of IGRA.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, under my amendment, they stick to the language of IGRA. And under IGRA, the tribe can go to court. But what the Secretary is trying to do is try to take the authority to resolve this into his hands, and that was not the original intent of the Congress of the United States under IGRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.