Kirk June 22, 2007 Statement

H6884

NGOs and that no funds, no funds in this bill, will be used to provide or advocate for abortions overseas. I also would like to be clear that I support your decision to retain the long-standing provisions in the bill to prohibit U.S. funds from being used to provide or advocate for abortions overseas and place reasonable restrictions on the use of family planning funds. Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman. I would like to thank the chairwoman for her comments and her willingness to offer this clarifying amendment and to make it absolutely clear that the bill would only allow for the provision of contraceptives and not for direct funding. Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the question here is who really gets the money. That’s the question. I think that it hasn’t been addressed adequately. I want to say at the outset, I support, I, FRANK WOLF, support family planning, period. A May 22 Washington Post article described a recent crackdown on Chinese families that have violated China’s one-child policy. The article stated that Chinese birth control bureaucrats showed up in a half-dozen towns in Guangxi Province carrying sledgehammers and electric cattle prods to destroy the homes and businesses of those who had failed to pay their fines under China’s coercive one-child policy. The article described family-planning officials as ransacking businesses owned by parents of more than one child. Those who protested were bloodied in the struggle, and villages reported people being killed in the violence. Now, I heard that on NPR too. It was brutal. So that’s really what we are talking about, because the United States-Mexico City policy prevents funding from going to international organizations that promote abortion as a means of family planning, including in China. Two prime examples of these organizations are the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International, both of which are closely tied to the Chinese one-child policy. They are, in essence, the ones that will get this. They never, ever speak out. In fact, China was the second country to become ‘‘officially recognized as a qualified member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.’’ On its Web site, International Planned Parenthood Foundation recently touted, saluted, just said it was a great thing, China’s effort to exploit, its exploitation policy, family-planning policy regime worldwide. I don’t want to get off too far on this, but this is a country getting aid for these groups that are poisoning your toothpaste, poisoning your pets, and, if you read the article the other day,

VerDate Aug 31 2005

June 21, 2007

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

23:35 Jun 26, 2007

Jkt 000000

painting Thomas the Tank Engine trains with lead paint that most people here, their children and grandchildren have. This country is the country. We restrict UNFPA funds to China expressly because China is coercive and this is a coercive government. This is a government that single-handedly could be stopping the genocide in Darfur today. b 1615 Organizations that will receive funds under the new family planning language in this bill will be able to help China continue these unconscionable, and, I would say, immoral activities. I support family planning, but I can’t support, will not support giving family planning taxpayer funds to these kind of organizations that not only never speak out, but actually participate. Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WOLF. I’d be glad to yield. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer a unanimous consent request to give the gentleman an additional minute. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman still controls time. Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I’d like to offer a unanimous consent request to yield the gentleman an additional minute on both sides, and if the gentleman will accept my UC, to yield a minute. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 14 minutes remaining on his time. He yielded himself 3 minutes. That has expired. Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I asked a unanimous consent request to yield both sides an additional minute in the debate. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman would be so kind as to yield. Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Would the gentleman please share with the committee the specific provision in Ms. LOWEY’s amendment that says funds are being used for this purpose, the specific provision. Mr. WOLF. These groups that I just referenced, and Mr. JACKSON, if you could have heard the NPR, I will get you the text of the NPR story. In fact, I will get it and I will insert it in the RECORD. Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. If the gentleman would continue to yield. I’m asking specifically about the language in the statute that the gentlelady is advancing in her amendment. Could you show us the specific language in the statute, the recommended statute? Mr. WOLF. Yes. These groups, under this provision would be allowed to get the support that are now active doing this in China.

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 7634

Sfmt 0634

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. LOWEY. I just would like to respond quickly, before I recognize Mr. KIRK, to my good friend, Mr. WOLF. As Mr. WOLF knows, no money is going to China. China has no participation in this debate at all. It’s very clear. In fact, not only did we not address UNFPA in this bill, we strengthened the prohibition so that not a dime would be spent in China. So I just wanted to clarify that China has nothing to do with this debate on contraceptives. I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. KIRK). Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise and maybe remove some of the partisan tension as a Republican Member in support of this amendment that otherwise, without action, the global gag rule would cut off critical providers of family planning assistance. In this Congress the issue of illegal immigration is at the top of our agenda. And women in developing countries consistently report that they would like to have two to three children rather than five to seven. As population pressures rise, so does the move to enter the United States, legally or illegally. To reduce the illegal immigration pressure on our borders, we need short-term solutions like border enforcement, and long-term solutions like backing voluntary family planning to help women in developing counties have the smaller family that they want. The global gag rule has been used to cut off the International Planned Parenthood Federation because it used less than 1 percent of its own privately raised funds for abortion-related services. And when we cut off IPPF, we might have another provider of family planning assistance to the women of Mexico for example, like the UNFPA, but we cut them off too. Mr. Chairman, I would argue that the American people would strongly agree with the principle that if Mexican women wanted to have fewer children, then we should help them. Voluntary family planning would boost child survival rates. It would also lower the rate of growth of Mexico’s population. A slower rate of growth of Mexico’s population would improve the economy of Mexico. It would also reduce the environmental pressure on Mexico’s ecosystem. But a slower rate of growth would also reduce the longterm illegal immigration pressure on America’s borders. We should adopt this bipartisan amendment. We should help women in developing countries have the smaller families that they want. We should also adopt policies which reduce the population pressure on our own borders with a policy that supports the rights of women and lowers the pressure on our environment. I commend the Chair for offering this amendment.

E:\MIKE\H21JN7.REC

H21JN7