After two days of debate, the House on July 13 passed, 239-185, the FY2001 foreign operations appropriations bill (H.R. 4811). Members debated a range of foreign policy issues prior to approving the measure. While voting to increase funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, Members rejected an effort to strike a restriction on international family planning programs.
As approved by the House Appropriations Committee, the bill would level-fund international family planning programs at $385 million. It also would maintain current law, which denies U.S. aid to organizations that use their own money to perform abortions abroad or to lobby foreign governments on abortion policy. The President is allowed to waive the restriction, but if he exercises the waiver, the total funds available for international family planning programs are reduced by $12.5 million. Additionally, the total funding available to groups using their own funds to perform abortions or to lobby on abortion policy is capped at $15 million.
Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA) and Nita Lowey (D-NY) offered an amendment to strike the restrictive language. After rancorous debate on the issue, the amendment was defeated, 206-221.
In an effort to gain Republican votes, Rep. Tom Campbell (R-CA) made an appeal based on the uncertainty of the upcoming Presidential elections. “We have no guarantee that this waiver, which we were willing to accept last year as a compromise, will in fact be exercised should it be the Republican candidate for President elected. Accordingly, the law would stand, and the law is no money for family planning, because the groups in question cannot make the certification.”
Rep. Lowey called the restriction “anti-democratic,” saying, “While restricting foreign NGOs in this way may only offend our democratic sensibilities, if we tried to do this at home, it would be absolutely unconstitutional.”
However, supporters of the restriction countered that the amendment was about the fungibility of funding. “The Mexico City policy also recognizes that money is fungible: in one pocket, out the other,” stated Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA).
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the chief proponent of the restriction, added: “I think we should make no mistake about it, this debate is about fat subsidies to the abortion industry. This debate is about how Congress dispenses grant money….American taxpayers do not want their money going to groups that advertise themselves as family planners but in fact are performers and promoters of abortion around the world.”
Members agreed to several amendments that would increase funding for global HIV/AIDS prevention efforts. One such amendment by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) would increase funding for HIV/AIDS activities by $10 million to $212 million in FY2001. The amendment was offset by cutting funding for the World Bank International Development Association. The amendment was approved by voice vote.
The other amendment, offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), would provide an additional $42 million for global HIV/AIDS prevention efforts. The amendment was offset by cutting funding for the foreign military financing program. “All this amendment does is add $42 million to bring to the level of the administration’s request the AIDS funding to address this pandemic. This is not nearly enough. The United Nations has estimated that we need approximately $3 billion a year just to begin with the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa,” argued Rep. Lee. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 267-156.
Adoption of both amendments brought funding for HIV/AIDS efforts to $10 million above the President’s request.
Other Amendments
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) offered an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds for international family programs. The amendment was struck on a point of order because it would have changed existing law. Claiming that international family planning was not an “authorized constitutional expenditure,” Rep. Paul argued that the amendment “addresses the problem of fungibility,” adding: “Because so often we appropriate funds, whether it is funding for family planning with restrictions against abortion or whether we give economic aid or whether we give military aid. All funds are fungible.”
Arguing in opposition to the amendment, Rep. Lowey stated, “Our family planning and population programs work hand in hand towards one very worthy goal, advancing the health and well-being of children and families. Simply put, if you seek healthy children, you must have healthy mothers…. This amendment would absolutely destroy our efforts to help both mother and child.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) offered an amendment that would have condemned honor killings in which women are killed or maimed because of an alleged moral indiscretion. Under the amendment, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) would have been directed to work with foreign governments to establish legal systems reforms to address honor killings. The President would have been directed to work with other world leaders to address honor killings. Additionally, the amendment would have required the State Department to include honor killings in its annual report on human rights. The amendment was struck on a point of order because it would have changed existing law.
In his floor statement, Rep. Nadler stated, “Shining a flashlight on this practice, putting the full moral weight of the United States behind a campaign to end it, is critical if we are going to ensure the fundamental human rights of women.”
Reps. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Heather Wilson (R-NM), Connie Morella (R-MD), and Gene Green (D-TX) offered and withdrew an amendment that would have provided a $40 million increase for tuberculosis prevention and treatment activities. The amendment was offset by cutting $40 million from the Asian Development Fund. Rep. Brown agreed to withdraw the amendment when Subcommittee Chair Sonny Callahan (R-AL) agreed to work toward an increase during conference.
Reps. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Smith also offered and withdrew an amendment to provide $2.5 million for nongovernmental organizations to work with survivors of sex trafficking. Rep. Callahan opposed the amendment saying that the bill already adequately addressed the issue of trafficking. He agreed to work in conference to strengthen the bill’s language on the issue.
During floor debate, Reps. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) and Lowey entered into a colloquy regarding AID’s work on integrating gender issues into U.S. foreign assistance programs. “I would also like to note several innovative steps that the Europe and Eurasia Bureau of AID has taken to ensure that gender issues are considered in our programming,” stated Rep. Delahunt, adding: “At a program level, preliminary work on this new approach of considering the problems of both men and women has already produced promising results. In central Asia, a recent AID study examined health costs by gender and found that men and women used health facilities differently for general care and that the costs are significantly different. Men go to hospitals and women go to local clinics, since hospitals are much more expensive than clinics.”
For further bill details see The Source, 6/30/00).
