Push in Congress to complete foreign aid bill

Senate and House versions of bill at odds over population policy, funding.

As Congress adjourned for its month-long August recess, efforts to negotiate and pass a foreign aid bill conference report prior to leaving town were derailed at the last-minute by the inability of Congress and the White House to resolve their disagreements over total funding levels, debt relief provisions, and international family planning policy.

Supporters of the U.S. population assistance program back, at a minimum, the Senate's provisions on these issues in the final conference report and are urging a veto if the final bill presented to the President does not measure up to that standard. While not as generous as the President's budget request, the Senate bill calls for significantly more funding for family planning assistance than its House counterpart and contains language intended to counter the pernicious "gag rule" restrictions in the House bill.

House votes to retain Gag Rule, President threatens to veto

In our June 30 memo, we detailed the battle over the Gag Rule in the House Appropriations Committee. On July 13, family planning supporters made another attempt to rid the bill of the provision, this time on the House floor. In a close vote, the House rejected (221-206) a "motion to strike" the Gag Rule from the bill offered by Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA).

To recap, the Gag Rule provision in the House bill would deny U.S. family planning assistance funds to foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) if-with their own funds-they provide legal abortion services or "engage in...effort[s] to alter the laws or government policies of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated or prohibited." In previous years, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the leading proponent of the restrictions, has made clear his intent to stifle any public education activities that would in any way draw attention to the impact of restrictive abortion laws.

The Gag Rule language became part of foreign aid legislation for the first time last year-part of the deal between Congress and the White House over payment of U.S. arrears to the United Nations. U.S. funding for international family planning, which reached an all-time high of $542 million in fiscal 1995, was cut by more than 30 percent the following year and has remained stagnant-at under $400 million-ever since.

While the Gag Rule, as currently formulated, allows the President to waive the ban on providing assistance to foreign NGOs that perform abortion or advocate around abortion laws, it does so at a price: a further cut of $12.5 million to the U.S. international family planning program, thereby bringing total program funding down to just $372.5 million.

Following the House vote to retain the Gag Rule, PAI President Amy Coen stated that the President "should veto this bill." Indeed, President Clinton has indicated that he will not sign the House bill as it currently stands, citing the gag rule restrictions on international family planning programs as among the reasons for a veto threat. And both The New York Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution have urged a presidential veto of the foreign aid bill as currently formulated.

More funding, better policy in Senate bill

In contrast, the Senate bill contains language championed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that requires that foreign organizations not be subjected to restrictions on the use of their private, non-U.S. funds for advocacy and lobbying not applied to U.S. organizations receiving foreign aid funds. The language further directs that foreign organizations cannot be rendered ineligible for U.S. foreign aid solely on the basis of the health and medical services they provide with non-U.S. funds so long as the services are legal in the host country and the United States. (Again, it is worth noting that U.S. law has long barred the use of U.S. money for abortion services overseas or for lobbying on abortion.)

In terms of funding, the Senate bill would restore $40 million to the U.S. international family planning program, for a total of $425 million in fiscal 2001. (Both the House and Senate bills include $25 million for the United Nations Population Fund, money that comes from a separate "account" within the U.S. foreign assistance budget.)

What's at stake?

A recent analysis by five leading organizations in the population and family planning fields illustrated the potential benefits of the $169 million increase in international family planning funds called for by the President in his original FY 2001 budget request. Among the positive impacts detailed in that joint study were that an additional 11.7 million couples would be able to use modern contraception, resulting in 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies which, in turn, would mean 2.2 million fewer abortions and half a million fewer miscarriages. As a result, 15,000 fewer women would die from complications of pregnancy or childbirth, complications that currently kill nearly 600,000 women each year-almost all of them in developing countries.

Perhaps one of the few bright spots in this year's foreign aid debate is the increased attention and funds being devoted to combating the spread of AIDS. Indeed, the House voted for $244 million for this purpose as part of the foreign aid bill. What too many House members fail to recognize, however, is the way that family planning and AIDS prevention programs can and do work together, to both prevent unwanted pregnancy and protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

Population Action International (PAI) works to improve individual well-being and preserve global resources by mobilizing political and financial support for population, family planning and reproductive health policies and programs.