No. 1
February 20, 1997 H.J.Res. 1 - Joint Resolution approving the President's finding with regard to international family planning Approved by the House of Representatives on February 13, 1997, by a vote of 220 to 209, and
placed on the Senate Calendar. No report.
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the House of Representatives and Senate approve the Presidential finding, submitted to the Congress on January 31, 1997, that the limitation on obligations imposed by section 518A(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, is having a negative impact on the proper functioning of the population planning program."
The "Mexico City" Policy
Based upon a declaration by the August 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population, held in Mexico City, that abortion "in no case should be promoted as a method of family planning . . . ," President Reagan issued a directive that foreign private organizations, as a condition for eligibility to receive U.S. international family planning funds, must agree that they would not use their own funds to --
1. Lobby for repeal of laws restricting abortion in countries where such laws exist; or
2. Perform abortions in those countries.
These restrictions, known as the "Mexico City" policy, were accepted by hundreds of foreign organizations receiving U.S. population funds and resulted in no reduction in family planning spending; rather, the program grew substantially during the nine-year period the policy was in effect.
The Clinton Policy
The Mexico City policy (which had continued in effect during the Bush Administration) was revoked by President Clinton two days after he took office in 1993. Throughout 1993 and 1994, with President Clinton's party in control of both houses of Congress, U.S. international family planning spending continued to grow without restrictions on the abortion activities of recipient organizations. This shift in policy was consistent with the Clinton Administration's view that legal restrictions on abortion -- still the rule in Latin America, the Middle East, and in many Asian countries, with combined populations of some 2 billion people -- should be eased or repealed; a Department of State cable, dated March 16, 1994, states the Administration's view that legal abortion is "a fundamental right of all women" [Reuters, 4/13/94]. Elaborating on the Clinton Administration's position, Vice President Gore stated that there is no "international right to an abortion" but that the legality of abortion should be "dealt with within the context of national laws, by each and every country" [Washington Post, 8/26/94; Associated Press, 9/4/94]. In short, the Clinton Administration was giving a virtual green light for country-by-country lobbying for abortion legalization by organizations receiving AID funds.
The 104th Congress Attempts to Revive "Mexico City"
With the beginning of the 104th Congress, and the loss of the majority in both houses by the President's party, the Mexico City policy again became a live policy issue. The House of Representatives repeatedly approved spending bills with variations on the Mexico City language but, with strong opposition by the Administration, these were not able to gain Senate approval. Likewise, Senate-passed bills without abortion restrictions were unable to clear the House.
The eventual result was an arrangement in which AID was given funds at levels reduced from the historic funding peak of $582.7 million in FY 1995, subject to monthly pro-rata disbursements ("metering") but without any Mexico City-type language:
P.L. 104-107 (part of the Balanced Budget Down Payment Act, signed into law on February 12, 1996). This legislation provided for $378.75 million in FY 1996 funding for international family planning programs -- 65 percent of FY 1995 spending levels -- to be released at a rate of 6.67 percent (one-fifteenth) of the total funds appropriated per month beginning in July 1996 and continuing through September 1997. This works out to about $25.2 million in FY 1996 money currently available to AID each month. Three months of these disbursements (totalling $75.6 million) fell in FY 1996; the remaining 12 disbursements will total $303 million by the end of FY 1997.
P.L. 104-208 (part of the FY 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, signed into law on September 30, 1996). In addition to the funds appropriated in P.L. 104-107, this legislation appropriates $385 million for population activities beginning July 1, 1997, to be released at a rate of 8 percent of the total amount (i.e., $30.8 million) per month. Thus, under P.L. 104-208, AID would receive during the last three months of FY 1997 (July through September) some $92.4 million in family planning funds above the FY 1996 money already available. However, the same law also provides that if by February 1, 1997, the President finds that this limitation is having a negative impact on the population program, and if the Congress adopts a joint resolution approving his finding by February 28, 1997, then the FY 1997 money becomes available four months earlier, on March 1, 1997.
President Clinton submitted the specified finding on January 31, 1997. The finding was accompanied by an AID report ("The Impact of Delaying USAID Population Funding," January 1997) which concluded that consequence of a further delay in releasing funds "would be increased unintended pregnancies, more abortions, higher numbers of maternal and infant deaths, and, of course, more births" [page 3].
Proponents of the Mexico City policy contend that it is the Administration's refusal to accept abortion restrictions that has resulted in the delay in the release of funds, and that the abortion rate would rise more sharply if organizations promoting abortion were once again to be eligible for larger amounts of U.S. population funds. The Population Research Institute, a group supporting Mexico City restrictions, objected to the AID report, claiming it is based on "outdated population projections" and that reallocation of AID population control funds "to authentic economic development would save the lives of thousands of women and children" ["Innocents Betrayed: A Side of Family Planning the White House Does Not Discuss," February 1997, p. 6].
If the joint resolution provided for by P.L. 104-208 is enacted, the FY 1997 funds for the four additional months (March through June) would be $123.2 million - again, in addition to the $25.2 million per month in FY 1996 funds already available through September, plus the $30.8 million per month in FY 1997 funds available beginning July 1. The exact text of the joint resolution is specified in P.L. 104-208, and appears identically in the Senate (S.J.Res. 14) and House (H.J.Res. 36) resolutions. P.L. 104-208 further provides for expedited procedures for consideration of the joint resolution in both houses, both of which must vote on it by February 28 whether or not it has passed the other house; no amendments to the joint resolution are in order. The sole question at issue in the vote is whether the release date will be March 1 or July 1, 1997; whether or not the joint resolution is enacted, the money will still be subject to monthly metering, and will still be available after October 1, 1997, into FY 1998, until it is depleted.
Alternative House Bill
In addition to H.J.Res. 36, the House approved H.R. 581, the Smith/Oberstar/Hyde bill, which would immediately release the entire $385 million appropriated by P.L. 104-208, without monthly metering, by a vote of 231 to 194. H.R. 581 would release these funds pursuant to Mexico City restrictions on performance of abortions and lobbying activities identical to those that were in force under the Reagan and Bush Administrations. At press time, it was unclear when H.R. 581 would be taken up by the Senate relative to action on H.J.Res. 36.
A Statement of Administration Policy sent to the House on February 13 states that "the Administration strongly supports enactment of H.J.Res. 36." Attached was a statement from President Clinton released on January 31, 1997, which explained in part his reasons for supporting the earlier release date for the funds:
"If we delay support for family planning by even four months, denying safe and effective contraception to couples who depend on these programs, we will see a rise in unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths and a tragic recourse to unsafe and unsanitary methods to terminate those pregnancies. [ . . . ]
"I appeal to the Members of Congress to examine the consequences of a delay, to weigh those against the benefits of fulfilling an urgent and continuing American commitment, and to vote for the March 1, 1997, unconditional release of these voluntary international family planning funds."
________________________________