[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2012 AND 2013 FOR THE TRAFFICKING
VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; AND TO PROHIBIT FUNDING
TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 2830 and H.R. 2059
__________
OCTOBER 5, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-118
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-662 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
ROBERT TURNER, New YorkAs
of October 5, 2011 deg.
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARKUP OF
H.R. 2830, To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2012 and
2013 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and
for other purposes............................................. 3
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2830 offered by
the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey........................ 66
Amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 2830 offered by:........................................
The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................. 106
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California............................. 109
The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Connecticut................... 112
The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Nebraska...................... 119
H.R. 2059, To prohibit funding to the United Nations Population
Fund........................................................... 125
Amendments to H.R. 2059 offered by:............................
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia............... 142
The Honorable Karen Bass................................... 147
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, and the Honorable William
Keating, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts............................ 154
The Honorable Donald M. Payne.............................. 157
The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Rhode Island, and the Honorable Allyson
Schwartz, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania............................. 164
The Honorable David Cicilline.............................. 173
The Honorable William Keating.............................. 177
The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy........................ 181
The Honorable William Keating and the Honorable David
Cicilline................................................ 186
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York, and the Honorable
Frederica Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida......................................... 193
APPENDIX
Markup notice.................................................... 202
Markup minutes................................................... 203
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 AND 2013 FOR THE
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND
TO PROHIBIT FUNDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
Before we move to today's business, I would like to take a
minute to welcome our newest member, Representative Bob Turner,
who was appointed to the committee just this week. He is a
lifelong resident of the neighborhoods of New York's Ninth
District that he now represents.
Congressman Turner won the special election in that
district just over 3 weeks ago. He is known to many for his
successful career as an executive and an entrepreneur in media
and television industries.
But I suspect that what he is most known for is his role as
husband to Peggy for 46 years now. And she is a dedicated
foster care nurse. He is a father to their five children and a
grandfather to their 13 grandchildren.
And we are glad that he has joined us. He is known for his
charity work on behalf of adoption services in his area.
We look forward to his valuable contributions to the
important foreign policy work of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs in the weeks and the months ahead.
So please join me in welcoming Congressman Turner with a
brief round of applause.
[Applause.]
Mr. Turner. Thank you and thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
Next time you speak when I yield you the time. [Laughter.]
Or this thing gets flung over there.
Mr. Berman, I do not know if you want to make any opening
remarks.
Mr. Berman. Just join the chairman in welcoming you. And
look forward to working with you in what I sometime refer to
as--it is like going to graduate school where you do not have
to take any tests or get any grades.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Well, thank you.
Well, today we will have a pop quiz because we are going to
proceed on to today's business. At the outset, without
objection, let me note that all members may have 5 legislative
days to submit remarks on either of today's bills for the
record.
Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill H.R. 2830, the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011.
Ms. Carroll. H.R. 2830, to authorize appropriations for
Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 for the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, the bill is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[H.R. 2830 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In addition, without objection, the
bipartisan amendment in nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Smith, which was previously provided to your offices and which
all members have before them, is made the pending business of
the committee, is considered as read, and is open for amendment
at any point.
[The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2830
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I will now recognize myself for
remarks on this measure, followed by my friend, the ranking
member, the bill's author, Mr. Smith, and then any other
members who seek recognition.
As many here know, every year hundreds of thousands of
people are trafficked around the world, most of them women and
girls. Millions more are trapped within their own countries,
forced to work in dangerous labor and sexual servitude.
This form of modern-day slavery is an affront to human
dignity as well as a major source of revenue for international
criminal syndicates. This scourge is not limited to a
particular geographic region or only to developing countries.
Ultimately the tragedy of human trafficking lies not in
statistics but in the individual lives, hopes, and dreams that
are being crushed for a particular person, in a particular
place, today.
I am proud of the bipartisan, leading role that the House
and this committee have played in moving the fight against
human trafficking from a non-issue to a priority of our United
States Government.
I especially want to commend the leadership of my good
friend from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, the author of the original
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which became law 11 years
ago this month, who is the author of the bill before us today.
I also want to recognize the long-standing efforts of the
ranking member, Mr. Berman, with whom we worked on the last
enacted reauthorization bill, the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which he
introduced in 2008.
We can take some solace in the fact that these efforts have
dramatically raised the international profile of this slavery
and have prompted a number of countries to pass their own anti-
trafficking statutes. There has also been a rise in the number
of international prosecutions for trafficking, over 6,000 last
year, leading to over 3,600 convictions.
But so much more remains to be done. Trafficking arrests
vastly outnumber prosecutions and convictions. And 22 countries
have earned the dubious distinction of the worst Tier III
status in the State Department's annual rankings, an increase
of ten countries since the last report. This means that those
countries, which include the perennial rogues such as Iran,
Cuba, and North Korea are not trying to meet even the most
basic anti-trafficking standards.
For all of these reasons, this bill, which conditions and
strengthens our anti-trafficking activities in a fiscally-
responsible manner, is vitally important.
I want to thank Mr. Smith, Mr. Berman, and all of those
involved with this bipartisan effort. I support Mr. Smith's
amendment in the nature of a substitute and remain committed to
moving his bill, H.R. 2830, forward.
I now am pleased to yield to my friend, the ranking member,
for his remarks on this measure.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And
thank you for scheduling the markup so promptly.
For the last 11 years, the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act, authored by our colleague, Chris Smith, has provided
protection and assistance for victims of trafficking,
authorized public awareness prevention campaigns, and
strengthened the prosecution and punishment of traffickers.
The bill before us today builds on the successes and
lessons learned over the last decade. Many of us, including the
author, supported a more comprehensive version of this
reauthorization bill that was introduced a few months ago.
Regrettably, that bill had to be scaled back due to cost and
jurisdictional issues.
Let me take just a moment to highlight a couple of
important provisions from the comprehensive bill that will not
be included in this version, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
One is establishment of a Department of Defense director of
anti-trafficking policies. And the second relates to foreign
labor contracting. Both of these would have addressed the
urgent problem of fraudulent and deceptive labor recruitment in
the United States and among DoD contractors, particularly in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of the contractors charge exorbitant fees for their
services, forcing workers into debt bondage. Many of the
workers are underpaid, ill treated, and deceived about their
conditions of employment. They are housed in atrocious living
conditions, starved and unable to leave the camp or return home
as they have no travel papers.
These kinds of problems are stark reminders that we need
stricter regulation and monitoring of labor recruiters. So if
we are truly serious about combating modern-day slavery in all
its forms, we have to fund a way to fund these programs.
Having said that, this bill does include a number of
important provisions that will help prevent, deter, and monitor
trafficking in the U.S. and abroad.
The bill calls on the President to support public/private
partnerships to generate youth employment opportunities to
prevent trafficking. It asks the President to prioritize the
initiatives for potential trafficking victims who are also
refugees, internally displaced, stateless, victims of natural
disasters, and other marginalized communities.
It also requires the Department of Labor to report on the
list of goods from countries believed to be produced by forced
or child labor in foreign countries as well as the United
States. And it encourages the Department of Justice and Health
and Human Services to make reasonable efforts to raise public
awareness for the national trafficking hotline.
These are just a few of the ways in which this bill will
strengthen our efforts to fight the trafficking of persons
worldwide. I commend the author for introducing it, the
chairman for sending it for markup, and urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
At this point, I would like to recognize the author of this
measure, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global
Health, and Human Rights, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I want to
thank you for scheduling this markup, for your strong support
for this anti-trafficking legislation, and for your many inputs
as we went and drafted it.
And I want to thank Mr. Berman for being the prime
cosponsor, for his authorship of the Wilberforce Act just a
couple of years ago.
This is one of those examples I think where we can have
very strong bipartisan cooperation to combat modern-day slavery
in all of its forms, whether it be sex trafficking or labor
trafficking.
This is the fourth reauthorization of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act. And we have learned many lessons over
the past decade. And we have made great strides in combating
this fundamental human rights abuse. Women, children, and men
around the world continue to be victimized and this effort is a
very real remedy to that situation.
It is critical we continue the United States leadership and
efforts to end human trafficking, both domestically and abroad.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute takes into the
account the extreme fiscal constraints that we face in our
country and the need to reduce our Federal deficit. Much to my
regret, the cost of several provisions in H.R. 3830 and now the
amendment in the nature of a substitute necessitated their
removal for consideration at this time.
However, it is my sincere hope and expectation that
important initiatives such as the creation of a special anti-
trafficking office within the Department of Defense, something
I pushed for 8 years, failed every time, but we will stay at it
until we get that, and a comprehensive mechanism to regulate
foreign labor contracting will be back on the table when
resources are available. And especially with the latter, when
the Senate shows some interest in backing it.
We know that there is very strong opposition to that. There
is a GAO report in the Senate version. Hopefully that will
cause a change of heart over there.
A number of important provisions for preventing and
prosecuting trafficking and protecting trafficking survivors do
remain in this amendment. One would give the Secretary of State
the authority to limit the validity of the passports of
registered sex offenders to 1 year or such period as the
Secretary would deem appropriate.
The need for this authority became apparent when the
Government Accountability Office, the GAO, reported last year
that over 4,500 registered sex offenders were issued passports
in Fiscal Year 2008. And, of course, they are good for 10
years. Who knows where they are going? What they are doing? We
can only suspect. This includes an offender who was convicted
of attempted rape of a child with special needs. And another
who attempted sex with a 2-year-old girl.
The State Department clearly needs this authority to limit
the travel of such individuals who are likely to engage in
severe forms of human trafficking in other countries.
Furthermore, the amendment would authorize assistance to be
used to protect vulnerable populations at risk of severe forms
of human trafficking in post-conflict situations and
humanitarian emergencies, provide additional tools to prosecute
sex trafficking abroad, and increase monitoring of forced child
or sex labor here in the United States.
It also expands the information to be included in the
Attorney General's annual report to include any contracts
terminated by a Federal agency as the result of human
trafficking by a contractor and whether any employees have been
disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for violating the zero
tolerance policy.
I would also point out, and this came right out of your
hearing, Madam Chair, when we looked at the Peace Corps and
sexual violence that was being committed against women who were
Peace Corps volunteers. It became apparent at that hearing, and
I did ask some questions of the Peace Corps director, whether
or not the Peace Corps was involved with the interagency
trafficking task force. He said no. That legislation or that
language is now included so the director of the Peace Corps
will become part of the task force.
So thank you to all of my colleagues for their support. And
again, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Ranking Member
Berman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
Before we move to consider other amendments, do any other
members seek recognition to speak on the underlying Smith
amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Ms. Bass is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking
Member Berman for prioritizing the reauthorization of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
Human trafficking continues to be a reality for as many as
27 million people throughout the globe. Fortunately, advocates,
survivors, and dedicated Members of Congress, like many in this
room today, have shed light on this complex challenge and
created laws to help stop this exploitation.
I am proud to join in their efforts to strengthen policies
that prevent human trafficking, prosecute perpetrators, protect
victims, and build effective partnerships.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to Representative
Chris Smith for his tireless leadership in combating human
trafficking. Even before the first incarnation of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, he has pushed to
improve the ways in which the United States responds to human
trafficking and has continually worked to implement creative
solutions to prevent this exploitation.
Representative Smith, I commend your diligence and
dedication. And I look forward to continuing to work with you
on this issue.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Bass.
I will now recognize Mr. Gallegly for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I believe we must do our part to provide the tools to
combat trafficking of persons both worldwide and domestically.
However, while I am very supportive of the improvements made in
this amendment and have great respect for my good friend
Chairman Chris Smith--or the author of the bill, Chris Smith,
and all of the work that he has done over the years on
trafficking, and I agree with his objectives 100 percent.
Having said that, I still think that there are some issues
that I have concern with regarding the legislation. As the
chairman of the Immigration Policy and Enforcement
Subcommittee, I must state that I have some objectives--
objections to several provisions of the bill under the
Immigration Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
While I know that we are not here to mark up these parts of
the bill today, I must make it clear that the legislation does
have what I consider some problems that need to be addressed
before we move to the floor.
I do not believe we can require law enforcement to grant
continued presence within 15 to 30 days to an alien who may be
a victim of trafficking. Law enforcement needs more time to
verify an individual's identity, veracity of information, and
so forth.
We cannot afford to shift the standard so that all a victim
applicant has to do is claim they are trafficking victims to
obtain continued presence. Because law enforcement cannot do
the job under many of the provisions under the bill, I think we
need to really be careful as we move this bill forward so that
we do not compromise the objectives that I think more of us, if
not all of us, share in Chris Smith's focus on doing everything
humanly possible to eliminate or mitigate to the limits of our
ability the issue of human trafficking. But we also have to be
careful that we are not allowing individuals to use trafficking
as a conduit to--as a claim and not just for real purposes.
So I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes herself to say that she agrees with
the gentleman from California, that he is right in stating that
this committee's jurisdiction does not extend to the areas that
he has alluded to. The bill has been further referred to the
Judiciary Committee. We will be marking up the sections of the
bill that are under our jurisdiction.
And with that, Mr. Connolly is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And I commend my
colleagues, Mr. Smith of New Jersey and the ranking member, Mr.
Berman of California, for introducing H.R. 2830.
This bill authorizes appropriations for the next two fiscal
years for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. TVPA
created the State Department's Office to monitor and combat
Trafficking in Persons (TIP), an office which has supported
more than 450 projects to combat modern human slavery in 109
countries.
The office publishes the annual report, which ranks
countries according to their compliance in combating human
trafficking. No country is spared from being named and shamed
in the TIP report.
According to the 2011 report, the United States is a
source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and
children subjected to forced labor, debt bondage, document
servitude, and sex trafficking. As recently as June of last
year, an article in a Richmond-based magazine described the
prevalence of such activity in the Richmond area.
The article detailed a 2006 FBI case that involved Korean
women being used in brothels from Rhode Island to Virginia.
Similarly, there were reports in the Washington Post that year
about massage parlors as fronts for prostitution rings. Such
examples show how human trafficking takes place within our very
own borders.
The United States has not been passive with regard to the
issue. Over the last decade, the TIP office has actively fought
human trafficking through provisions laid out in the Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2010.
The annual TIP report is a credible, detailed survey of
violations in various countries, the office to monitor and
combat trafficking of persons in the State Department under the
leadership of Ambassador CdeBaca fulfils much needed duties in
the United States foreign policy apparatus. The TIP office
works to combat the issue of human trafficking and is a great
example of a government-funded investment that pays dividends.
I look forward to supporting the underlying legislation and
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Poe is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act has brought great
changes throughout the world. I strongly support this
reauthorization and glad to be a cosponsor. I commend Mr. Smith
from New Jersey, the chairman, and the ranking member for
bringing this to this committee.
It is critical we continue program to prosecute traffickers
and protect the victims. Because of the TVPA, we can no longer
be blissfully ignorant of the dastardly crime happening
throughout the world and even in the United States. Countries
all over the globe have been forced to take a hard look at
trafficking within their own borders and create policies to
address this crime.
In my travels to Eastern Europe as a part of this
committee, I have discussed with people there the issue of
human trafficking or slavery as it should be called. The way it
works is this. Young women who cannot find work or jobs learn
through the Internet or some ad in the local newspaper about
employment somewhere else in the world, either in another
country or even sometimes in their own cities.
So they leave home, maybe from the nation of Ukraine or
Romania. And they meet up with another person. It is usually a
male. And he promises that he will take care of them. He will
find them a job. And they will be happy.
And, of course, what they end up doing is becoming a piece
of property, a forced individual into prostitution, a slave of
this individual. The male does what he can to sell that young
female into slavery and even slave labor.
Back home where the young female comes from, their families
many times never even know what happened to their daughter or
to their sisters. Sometimes then eventually when the slave is
of no use in the prostitution racket, she just disappears and
without knowledge of her parents.
This takes place in countries throughout eastern Europe and
other nations as well. But we cannot overlook the fact that
human trafficking happens here in the United States of America.
Here is the way it works here and it happens in my hometown
of Houston, Texas. Young women--either adults but many times
minors from a foreign country are smuggled into the United
States illegally by someone who promises that when he gets them
to the U.S., he will have a job waiting for them where they can
work and send money back home to their families.
In some cases, these young women have actually paid the
trafficker to smuggle them to the United States, expecting that
job that they were promised. Once they are in the United
States, they become the property of the sex trafficker. And he
forces them into prostitution.
And he uses threats against them. It is as simple as if
they do not cooperate, the slave master will have the family
killed back in their home country. So what decision does a 14-
year-old girl make when she is threatened that her family will
be killed if she does not cooperate? Tough decision and many
times they make the decision to continue in prostitution with
the hope that their parents, their brothers and sisters, will
not be murdered.
The victim does not speak the language. She is in the
United States and the person says cooperate and work for me or
you will be punished and your family will be killed. So they
chose the alternative they think they have to choose and become
a slave and traffic it into the United States and allow the
person to use them as property in the trafficking business.
What a dastardly deed that is occurring in this country and
other countries. But thanks to the TVPA, these international
victims now have access to services so they can help recover
from their exploitation.
And we cannot forget about domestic victims as well. Young
girls from our own neighborhoods are being forced into slavery,
many times sex slavery. Their childhood, their innocence is
stolen in the name of greed by some slave master.
We must ensure that these victims have access to services.
And we must make sure that they are treated as victims of crime
and not criminals and not treated like prostitutes. Human
trafficking is slavery. And as we fight for human rights
throughout the world, we must fight to stop this slavery in all
forms. Treat the young women as victims, not criminals. And
then we need to take care of the customers and, of course, the
traffickers and make sure they get their day in court.
So I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the
same. And that is just the way it is.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Poe.
Mr. Chabot is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to take a moment to commend the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for his work on not only this
legislation but for all the work he has done over the years in
the area of human trafficking.
I was traveling in South Asia last week and on Friday had
the opportunity to visit an orphanage in Kathmandu called Mytai
Nepal. The program benefits sexually abused girls, abandoned
children, victims of trafficking, girls and children infected
with HIV and hepatitis B, and returnees from Indian brothels,
among others. It is a truly amazing operation that gives hope
to women and girls who once had no hope whatsoever.
And I have to say that visiting there was one of the more
moving experiences that I have ever had. When I told folks
there that I would discuss this when I got back here at the
visit with Congressman Smith, who has worked on these
humanitarian issues for many years, they all told me that they
were actually well aware of Mr. Smith's efforts around the
world. They were grateful for what he has done on behalf of
exploited women and children, you know, around the world,
particularly in Nepal.
So I just wanted to bring the gentleman best wishes from
those as far away as Nepal who he has aided. And I commend him
for offering this legislation today.
And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Seeing no further requests for time,
we will now move to consider amendments to the underlying Smith
amendment.
Mr. Keating. Madam Chair, if I could?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Sorry.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be very brief.
I just wanted to underscore one aspect of this legislation.
For the last 12 years before being elected, I was a district
attorney. We worked exceedingly hard with local law
enforcement, with state law enforcement, with regional
officials, particularly in the area of Boston with special task
forces that were there.
And our frustration during that whole time was we were at
the last stage, the receiving end of trying to deal with this
and the frustration of saying more has to be done, not just at
the national level but also in the international level.
So as we go forward with this legislation, I just want to
commend the author. And I want to say that this is very
important legislation. So often we deal with international
issues here in the committee. This is one that will have an
effect right back home as well.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Do any other members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Seeing no requests for recognition,
we will now move to consider amendments to the underlying Smith
amendment. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments, which the ranking member and I anticipate
will be noncontroversial, be considered en bloc. And the
amendments are in your packets.
Amendment 30, offered by Ms. Bass, requiring a one-time
report on Internet-facilitated trafficking; Amendment 59,
offered by Mr. Royce, expressing the sense of Congress on
trafficking in Cambodia; Amendment 49, offered by Mr. Murphy,
directing the State Department Trafficking Office to encourage
large business entities to publicly disclose their anti-
trafficking efforts and policies; and Amendment 82, offered by
Mr. Fortenberry, making amendments to Title IV of the 2008
Trafficking Reauthorization Act concerning child soldiers.
[The amendments referred to follow:]Bass 030 deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Royce 059 deg.[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Murphy 049 deg.[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Fortenberry 082 deg.[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any of the amendment authors wish
to be recognized to explain their portion of the en bloc
amendments?
Mr. Fortenberry is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fortenberry. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, for
calling this hearing and your leadership in this regard.
In 2008, at a markup for the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Act, this committee did something very
courageous. We stated that the policy of our nation will be
that children, no matter where they are, belong on playgrounds
and not battlegrounds. Children should not be forced to become
soldiers.
And we would not sit idly by and passively underwrite this
pernicious form of human trafficking known as child
conscription.
The problem now is this. National security waivers continue
to be given to countries found guilty of this human rights
abuse. We know that these waivers must be rare and temporary
and meaningfully intended to help stop this pernicious
practice.
So this body unanimously passed an amendment to the State
Department authorization bill to require the President to
report to Congress 15 days before issuing another waiver as to
what credible and verifiable steps are being undertaken in
those countries to implement a plan of action to end the
recruitment of and demobilize child soldiers.
The State Department authorization bill also included
language prohibiting the use of peacekeeping operation funds
for countries cited for child soldiers violations.
So, Madam Chair, my amendment today is simple. It simply
amends section 404 of the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection
Act to retain both of these provisions because strengthening
our child soldiers policy is essential to our anti-human
trafficking efforts.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. I yield.
Mr. Berman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This is--
all four of these amendments that are part of the en bloc
amendment are very good amendments. I particularly want to
mention that I think we should not be casually waiving the
restrictions on child soldiers in providing military
assistance.
And I think both the notification provision and the
requirement for some action by that government to start the
corrective action of that situation is a pretty reasonable
requirement for this. And I urge adoption of this and the other
amendments in the en bloc.
Mr. Fortenberry. I thank the ranking member for his
support. I yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
Ms. Bass is recognized to explain her amendment.
Ms. Bass. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
I am offering a bipartisan amendment that will investigate
and prevent human trafficking online. With the widespread use
of the Internet, the sale and trafficking of individuals has
gotten easier and increasingly anonymous.
While the Internet has helped to connect the world, it has
also created a haven for the exploitation of men, women, and
children. Cloaked by computers, online traffickers and
perpetrators can gain 24-hour access to vulnerable children and
individuals.
So the amendment calls for the State Department to
spearhead an interdepartmental study on Internet-facilitated
trafficking and proposed methods to prevent these crimes. You
know often when we are talking about trafficking, we are
talking about children and young people, women around the
world. But this also relates to people inside the United States
and in particular children.
I also wanted to thank Representative Chabot and
Representative Wolf for serving as the original cosponsors of
the bill, which is now, you know, included as an amendment for
this. But I also want to mention that another part, the
language in the bill references children in the United States.
And we did just launch a foster care caucus this morning with
my colleague, Mr. Marino.
We just came from the first meeting of that caucus. And I
am excited that there is a part of this bill that has language
in it that addresses who we essentially train the child welfare
system, people in the system, so that they can recognize
trafficking since we know that a lot of young people in our own
country are involved in trafficking, especially with the
Internet and the expansion of Web sites such as Backpage.
So thank you very much. That is my amendment. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass.
Mr. Royce is recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to also
congratulate Mr. Smith for his dedication in trying to call
attention to this.
But to also note that a number of NGOs and Dateline
continue to focus on Cambodia. And the fact that it is a magnet
for those preying on the youngest.
Predators travel halfway around the world in order to link
up in remote Cambodian villages with children, some as young as
three. There are 30,000 children in that country that have been
sold into this type of servitude.
And my chief of staff, Amy Porter, traveled to Cambodia to
work with these children rescued from the brothels there. And
we have had a number of hearings in this committee and in the
Lantos Human Rights Commission that have spotlighted these
abuses.
We have got the NGO groups that work in the country and the
eyewitnesses reporting that the Cambodian Government continues
to actually hamper and get in front of these investigations and
block these investigations. The local police and government
officials are often pocketing very lucrative profits out of
this.
So it is time to go on record against these really horrific
abuses that have become endemic there. And the State Department
needs to hold Cambodia accountable. That is the sense of this
amendment.
It finds that Cambodia should be designated as a Tier III
country. When I brought this up with Ambassador Luis CdeBaca to
reconsider when they were downgrading Cambodia, at a time when
the situation was getting worse in-country, they sadly
indicated well, this was the step they were going to take.
They are taking the pressure off of Cambodia. We have to do
exactly the opposite. We have to put them back up as a
designated Tier III country. And that is what this amendment
would do.
And I thank you, Madam Chairman, for putting it in the en
bloc amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
Mr. Murphy is recognized to explain his amendment.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you very much to Congressman Smith for his
leadership on this bill.
This bill, at its foundation, has the idea that our
Government and our State Department can do so much more to try
to prevent the child trafficking and forced labor that is still
endemic to so many places around the globe.
The amendment that is included in this en bloc that I am
offering would recognize that we have another partner in this
effort to combat human trafficking and child trafficking. And
that is our corporate community.
Already some of the world's biggest and most expansive
corporations have joined together in an organization called the
Business Coalition against Human Traffic. It is Coca Cola, JP
Morgan, Delta, The Body Shop, to name a few.
And this amendment, which has as its genesis, the
legislation offered by Carolyn Maloney, would encourage
companies, through the State Department, to post on their Web
site their policies for preventing forced labor, slavery, and
human trafficking.
And the amendment outlines a number of suggested steps that
companies can take as part of that policy, whether it is
requiring audits of their suppliers to makes sure that their
supply chain does not have any of these elements to force labor
or human traveling, whether it be training for people in the
supply chain to again make sure that they are dealing only with
responsible and humane contractors and suppliers
internationally.
This amendment would simply try to encourage these big
companies with over $100 million in global receipts to post on
their Web sites the steps that they are taking. And we hope
that this amendment would encourage major international
companies with long supply chains that are not already doing
these types of audits throughout their international business
platforms, to do so and then make those audits and make that
information available.
This really has to be a comprehensive effort at stopping
human trafficking that starts with the government, that starts
with the very good underlying bill, but it can also include a
private consensus that is already developing around this
business coalition that this amendment can facilitate.
And I thank the chair and I thank the sponsor of the bill
for allowing this amendment to move forward.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Smith. Just very briefly.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Bass, Mr. Murphy, Mr.
Royce for their amendments. I think they all are very, very
important additions to the legislation.
I would point out to Mr. Murphy that the language he is
offering is an encouragement. And I think that is very
important.
Carolyn Maloney and I do have a bill in that parallels the
California bill, which would be much stronger but it would use
the SEC rather than the trafficking office. And I have checked
with Luis CdeBaca, our Ambassador-at-Large for human
trafficking. He is very supportive of this effort, feels that
they can accommodate it, and do it. And, again, it is an
encouragement rather than something that is mandatory. So I
think it is a good strengthening amendment.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Do any other members seek recognition on the en bloc
amendments?
[No response.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hearing no further requests for
recognition, the question occurs on the en bloc amendment. All
those in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the en
bloc amendment is agreed to.
Are there any other amendments to the trafficking measure?
[No response.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Hearing no further amendments, the
question is on agreeing to the bipartisan Smith amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the
amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
Without objection, the underlying bill, H.R. 2830, as
amended, is agreed to. And I now move that the Bill H.R. 2830
be reported favorably to the House as amended.
All those in favor say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
The ayes have it. And the motion to report favorably is
agreed to.
Without objection, the bill, as amended, will be reported
as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute,
incorporating the amendments adopted by the committee. And the
staff is directed to make technical and conforming changes.
This ends the trafficking bill consideration.
And pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2059, to
prohibit funding to the United Nations Population Fund.
The clerk will read the bill.
Ms. Carroll. H.R. 2059, to prohibit funding to the United
Nations Population Fund, be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress
assembled, section 1, prohibition on funding to the United
Nations Population Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
[H.R. 2059 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The bill is read and open
for amendment.
As your offices were previously notified, before moving to
amendments, I will recognize myself and the ranking member for
general remarks on the bill followed by the author of the bill,
Ms. Ellmers. And then any other members who seek recognition.
This morning the committee will mark up H.R. 2059, which
prohibits funding to the United Nations Populations Fund, or
UNFPA. The purpose of this legislation is simple. To prevent
U.S. taxpayer dollars from benefitting coercive abortion and
sterilization programs.
China's policy of coerced abortions is one of the most
visible and deplorable human rights abuses. It has contributed
directly to the elimination of millions of young girls, which
has increased the demand for trafficked women and girls in the
region.
But instead of condemning China's behavior, UNFPA not only
supports China's coercive one-child policy, but commends it as
a ``model'' for population programs across the globe.
In 1999, a UNFPA represented stated, ``China has had the
most successful family planning policy in the history of
mankind in terms of quantity. And with that, China has done
mankind a favor.''
Now U.S. law is clear. The Kemp-Kasten Amendment, first
enacted in 1984, states that U.S. assistance cannot be provided
to any organization that ``supports or participates in the
management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary
sterilization.''
The late Congressman Jack Kemp had stated that UNFPA
funding would likely be effected by his amendment, ``because of
UNFPA's involvement with a program of coercive abortions in the
Peoples Republic of China.'' Pursuant to this amendment, three
previous administrations have stopped assistance to UNFPA.
Justifying this cut off of assistance, then Secretary of State
Colin Powell stated in 2002, ``UNFPA's support of and
involvement in China's population planning activities allows
the Chinese Government to more effectively its program of
coercive abortions. Therefore, it is not permissible to
continue funding UNFPA at this time.''
The State Department has repeatedly found that UNFPA
refuses to provide detailed information on its activities in
China. In December 2010, the Vice Minister of China's National
Population and Family Planning commission thanked UNFPA for,
``its constant support to China's population and family
planning undertakings during the past 30 years or more.''
UNFPA continues business as usual, and last year it
approved another 5-year operations plan for China.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has failed to enforce
U.S. law, claiming that the Kemp-Kasten amendment does not
apply to UNFPA.
Accordingly, congressional action is necessary to prevent
U.S. taxpayer dollars from continuing to benefit USFPA in
contravention of U.S. law.
I would note that, while some claim that UNFPA does not use
U.S. funding for its programming in China, we all know that
money is fungible. Directing U.S. funding to UNFPA activities
in other areas of the world simply frees up other funding for
their China program.
There are far better uses of U.S. taxpayer dollars than
funding for the UNFPA. In fact, UNFPA clearly does not need
U.S. funding. Reports indicate that UNFPA has built up reserves
and unspent funds of $500 million.
UNFPA's annual report for 2010 indicated that its budget
totaled $870 million, a record amount. So why when Americans
are facing a struggling economy, skyrocketing deficits, and
crushing debt should our taxpayer dollars go to an organization
that supports coercive abortion and is flush with cash. Again,
there are much better uses for taxpayer funds than sending
millions to UNFPA.
And so I thank the distinguished gentlelady from North
Carolina, Ms. Ellmers, for introducing this important bill. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support it in its current form.
And I now am pleased to recognize the ranking member for
his remarks on this measure.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
And thank you on this issue we disagree. This legislation,
like the State Department authorization bill we marked up in
July and the U.N. bill we will soon consider, I believe will
undermine America's influence and standing in the international
community. It is an example of civilian cut and run par
excellence.
Tragically, the bill takes aim at poor women and children
in the developing world, women and children who all too often
suffer from the effects of disease, war, rape, and a host of
absolutely horrid conditions that few of us can even begin to
imagine.
Rather than helping these desperate people, as UNFPA seeks
to do, this legislation makes them pawns in a debate over
social issues that often seem divorced from reality. Indeed I
can think of few other organizations subject to more
misinformation, misunderstanding, and outright falsehoods than
UNFPA.
I know that discussing UNFPA generates a lot of emotion
among some of my colleagues. But that does not mean that
passionate arguments should be allowed to trump the facts.
UNFPA does not promote abortion as a method of family planning
period.
UNFPA is guided by the Cairo Programme of Action, which is
quite clear in saying, I quote, ``in no case should abortion be
promoted as a method of family planning. All one has to do is
visit UNFPA's Web site to find that,'' UNFPA does not support
or promote abortion as a method of family planning.
And directly addressing the issue raised by the chairman,
the State Department in the last administration, not the Obama
administration, conducted an investigation of the UNFPA and
found, ``no evidence, no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly
supported or participated in the management of a program of
coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the People's
Republic of China. In fact, the UNFPA opposes coercive family
planning methods and opposes China's one-child policy.
I know that for many here, UNFPA's own words and those of
the State Department on this issue may ring hollow. So would
ask you to consider the position of the late Henry Hyde, the
author of the Hyde Amendment, when he was chairman of this
committee, he passed a very tough U.N. bill through the house,
which would have ended a great deal of U.S. support for the
U.N. But in his bill, he decided not to try to defund UNFPA.
Today we are being asked to permanently end assistance to
an organization working to prevent cholera among pregnant women
and people living with HIV/AIDS in Haiti, lowering the maternal
mortality in Rwanda, protecting women in Kenya fleeing from
famine and war across the Horn of Africa.
Rather than lobbing another grenade in our culture wars,
this committee should be working to strengthen maternal
mortality prevention efforts, improve the capacity of health
systems in the developing world, and protect women from rape as
an instrument of war.
If you want to prevent abortions, this is what we should be
doing. And that is exactly what UNFPA does.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman.
And at this point, I am pleased to recognize the author of
the measure, the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina,
Ms. Ellmers, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ellmers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you to all the members who have helped to
cosponsor this very important bill.
Madam Chairman, the American people have spoken. On May
31st, I introduced a bill to prohibit funding to the United
Nations Population Fund, which was the winning YouCut program
for that week.
This bill, H.R. 2059, has now reached an important stage,
making it to the committee for markup and review. It cuts $50
million from our Foreign Affairs budget by disallowing the
Secretary of State to make a contribution to the UNFPA.
The United National Population Fund, the principle unit
within the United Nations for global population issues, is the
world's largest source of population and reproductive health
programs without doubt. For the last 30 years, however, there
has been contentious debate about whether the United States
should financially contribute to the UNFPA because it aids
China's coercive family planning programs and policies.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan withheld all U.S.
contributions to the UNFPA after determining that it was
supporting and participating in the co-management of China's
population program. Under the Bush administration, which was
pointed out by ranking member Berman, there was subject to a
State Department investigation, and yes, Mr. Berman is correct.
However, that report also went on to say that China maintained
coercive elements in its population restrictions in counties
where UNFPA operates.
China maintain coercive elements in its population programs
in law and practice. And Chinese leaders viewed population
control as a high priority and remained concerned over
implications of socioeconomic changes. As a result, it was
recommended that the U.S. should release not more than $34
million in previously appropriated funds. But that over time,
it should monitor the allocation of this program and
subsequently President Bush withheld U.S. funds from UNFPA due
to concerns that the organization supported or participated in
what the administration viewed as a program of coercive
abortion and involuntary sterilization in China.
The Obama administration and the 111th Congress resumed
contributions to UNFPA. UNFPA has been widely denounced for its
involvement in China's one-child policy, which relies on forced
abortion and sterilization.
Whether or not you believe the U.S. should be borrowing
money from China to fund U.N. projects in China, U.S. taxpayers
should not be forced to fund the program that violates
provisions in the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which bans U.S. aid to
organizations involved in the management of coercive family
planning.
Proponents of the program argue that the monies are
separate. And that we are throwing out good programs with the
bad. However, in 2008, the State Department issued a report
that showed clear violations because the UNFPA funnels money to
the various Chinese agencies that enforce the coercive policy
and forcibly abort and sterilize as a matter of standard
operating procedure.
If the Chinese wish to do such things, they should not
expect funding from the United States' hard-earned taxpayers.
The American taxpayer deserves to know where their hard-earned
money is going. And we must do our part to make people
accountable.
H.R. 2059 cuts $50 million from our Foreign Affairs budget
by disallowing the Secretary of State to contribute to the
UNFPA and deserves our support.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentlelady from North
Carolina.
Before we move to consider amendments, I am pleased to
recognize members to speak on the underlying bill.
Mr. Connolly of Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam
Chairwoman, as you know, I have great and deep respect for you.
But I do not have great and deep respect for this particular
bill and this particular process.
This is nothing short of a smear campaign against an
international organization of which we are a member that
promotes and protects the health of women and their children
all over the world.
The State Department report referred to is the 2008 State
Department report. The 2009 State Department report actually
determined that there is no violation by UNFPA of the terms of
Kemp-Kasten. The facts, however, do not matter because we have
decided to make UNFPA a symbol of our support for a particular
cause, irrespective of the consequences.
Some of the loudest voices in this committee who champion
the human rights of the unborn and, to their credit, had real
trouble however supporting the same human rights for those who
were born but happened to have a different sexual orientation.
I was at this dias that night when we could not get some of the
loudest champions of this particular cause to embrace that
particular cause. And from my point of view, a human rights
violation is a human rights violation, irrespective of status.
So consistency is not our strong suit here. But picking on
the UNFPA as an easy target, irrespective of the fact that its
record is clean, and what it is doing to protect women and
women's health is essential, without which we are going to
jeopardize the lives of women in developing countries all over
the world, and the consequences, very real, does not matter
because we are making a big political point that will energize
our base. And the consequences be damned.
So I am not going to support this bill. And I will have an
amendment later to try to make sure that at least one aspect of
women's health is protected, Madam Chairwoman.
I think this is a sad day for this committee.
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. I would.
Mr. Berman. Just because in this general debate, I think
the point you made deserves some affirmation.
The author of the bill makes the argument that because
UNFPA operates in municipalities and counties in China where
the Chinese Government or the local governments practice
coercive family planning practices that they are culpable. The
logic of that escapes me.
Are the American companies who do business in those
counties or municipalities of China culpable? Are the American
tourists who visit that culpable? Without having a nexus
between what UNFPA does in the specific practices, that
argument just does not hold water. And I think the committee
should reject it.
Do not hold UNFPA responsible for what a sovereign country
does, as obnoxious as it is, unless you have an allegation of
advocacy and support that has not yet been presented.
Mr. Connolly. And reclaiming my time, thank you, Mr.
Berman, for that insight. I would also point out that if you
actually look at the record of accomplishments since UNFPA was
actually founded as a specialized U.N. agency and you look at
fertility rates and birth rates in the developing countries,
more and more families have successfully be able to plan and
space children, infant mortality has dropped, survivability has
increased.
You know the family planning efforts, combined with the
health efforts and initiatives to protect women's health,
especially pregnant women and new mothers, has actually paid
off huge dividends in both improving the status of morbidity
and mortality in the Third World and in making sure that child
survival rates have significantly and dramatically improved.
And we are about, in passing this bill, to turn our back on
all of that progress because of a political issue that I think
does not hold up under scrutiny, as you suggest, Mr. Berman.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. Ellmers. Oh, may I?
Mr. Connolly. Yes, yes, of course.
Ms. Ellmers. Thank you.
I would like to address--Mr. Connolly, thank you. And to
ranking member Berman, again, as you have pointed out, that is
not my assumption. That is actually the 2002 Bush
administration investigation which--and I will read on here in
my 19 seconds left--that the $34 million previously
appropriated funds to the UNFPA until China ends all forms of
coercive cohesion of law and practice and that no U.S.
Government funds should be allocated to population programs in
China and that appropriate resources, possibly from the U.S.,
should be allocated----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Connolly's time has
expired.
Ms. Ellmers. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I
rise in strong support of Ms. Ellmer's legislation, thank her
for offering it, and for the courage to stand up for women in
China.
You know it is interesting, 3 days after President Obama
was sworn in, he directed the administration to resume funding
for the UNFPA. So there was no careful analysis as to the
complicity of the UNFPA in the barbaric one-child-per-couple
policy.
China's one-child-per-couple policy constitutes massive
crimes against humanity. The sheer magnitude of the loss of
human life, the babies as well as the women's lives who have
been utterly hurt, and I will get to this in a moment, by this
policy has no parallel in human history. The one-child-per-
couple policy has made brothers and sisters illegal.
Illegal, imagine that. Any member here who has a sibling or
who has more than one child, the Government of China tells you
when and if you can have that child and under what
circumstances because you do not necessarily get a birth-
allowed certificate just because you want to have a child.
There are no single moms in China. Let me say that again.
Single moms are forcibly aborted. I held my 30th hearing on
human rights abuses in China. And just 2 weeks ago, Chai Ling,
the great human rights activist who was a Tiananmen Square
hero, one of the most wanted people by the government,
testified right here or in 2200 I should say, and talked about
how she had been forcibly aborted three times, three times
because she was an unwed mother. And that is part of their
rules.
I would ask members to read the regulations. Look at the
national policy. And most importantly, look at the 2008 report
that was done by the Department of State. John Negroponte,
Secretary Negroponte pointed out, and this is, I think, the
crux of it or the key, UNFPA program, this is his words, all
UNFPA programming relating to contraceptive and reproductive
health incorporates and defers to Chinese law and regulation.
The national law and provincial regulations are the
framework for China's coercive birth policies. China, the UNFPA
comports, implements, supports. And if you look over the 30
years of what the UNFPA has done in China, it has been to
aggressively defend the one-child-per-couple policy to all
comers, critics here in the Congress, critics anywhere in the
world. And now in particularly south to south work, they are
actually exporting child limitation policies to Africa and
elsewhere.
The population and refugee Assistant Secretary, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, asked a series of 38 questions to the
UNFPA back in 2008. There is no transparency. We are not told.
And we are not told what it is that the UNFPA does in China,
what their teaching materials are made up of. And when asked
about audits and internal reports, we were told to pack our
bags. We will not tell you. These are all confidential.
So we are expected to fork over $50 million of hard-earned
taxpayer dollars. And they will not even tell us what they are
doing, what the teaching materials look like. And the bottom
line is, what is the consequence? Broken women and dead babies.
I would finally just say to my colleagues that I hope the
members will read this report. You know we are talking about
dictatorship. We are talking about a U.N. agency that has aided
and abetted a one-child-per-couple policy that we would never
accept in the United States, that no democracy, I do not think,
would allow to happen.
And yet because it is a dictatorship and the UNFPA can
operate under cloak and concealment and not provide
information, again there is no transparency, women are being
exploited as never before.
Five hundred women per day commit suicide in China
according to the World Health Organization. At my hearing, I
had three women who had been forcibly aborted. And they told
their horrific stories about how they were told you are out of
plan. You do not have permission to carry this child to term.
Therefore, you will be aborted.
Again, look at what the UNFPA does in China. They
completely and totally adhere to Chinese law. They are just
following orders. When did we hear that before?
I hope members will join with Ms. Ellmers. Support this
legislation. Because when Mr. Berman, and I certainly respect
the ranking member, we have other programs that we could
provide money to for important life-saving maternal health
issues and the like----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. UNFPA has disqualified itself.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Deutch of Florida is recognized.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, saying
that the UNFPA supports the one-child policy in China does not
make it so. But I would like to talk about what the UNFPA does
support, what the UNFPA does to really stand up for women's
rights and human rights.
And I would like to talk about two of the areas that often
are not addressed. The first is the leadership role that this
body has played in combating female genital mutilation. Female
genital mutilation comprises all procedures that involve
partial or total removal of the external female genitalia.
What does it mean to women? It is a violation of human
rights, the violation of human rights of girls and women. It
reflects a deep-rooted inequality between the sexes. It
constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It
is nearly always carried out on minors. It is a violation of
the rights of children.
It also violates a person's right to health security and
physical integrity, the right to be free from torture, the
right to be free from cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, and
the right to life when the procedure results, as it often does,
in death.
There is a lot of debate that is going to take place here
about China's one-child policy. This organization does not
support that. My colleagues have made that clear. And the
debate, I suppose, will continue.
But this organization has taken a leadership role in
stopping female genital mutilation. Between 100 and 140 million
women worldwide have undergone this procedure. Three million
girls each year face the prospects of female genital
mutilation.
Because of the work that this body does that this bill
wishes to defund, because of the work that they do, 6,000
communities through Africa and the Middle East have abandoned
the practice. We cannot turn our back on this important work
that stands up for women's rights and helps protect women's
lives.
Madam Chair, that is not the only area that unfortunately
is often ignored, the work that the UNFPA does. I would also
point out that this organization, this body, is likewise a
leader internationally in stopping obstetric fistula. Fistula
is another serious problem in the poorest countries in the
world.
Again, we do not often talk about that because we get
carried away in other debates. But the fact is where mothers
give birth without any medical help, in many cases if a woman's
labor becomes obstructed, she will endure days of painful,
prolonged labor. Her baby is unlikely to survive. If the woman
survives, her body is literally broken by childbirth,
uncontrollably leaking bodily waste, these women are shunned by
their families and communities. So many of them are young
girls.
There are a lot of people in the nonprofit world who are
focused on preventing fistula, which can be prevented. But it
is this body that this bill seeks to defund which has taken a
leadership role.
There is going to be a lot of heated debate over the course
of this hearing, Madam Chair. And I appreciate it. But too
often we lose sight of a lot of the good work that is done
every single day by organizations that some choose to demonize.
In this case, these two issues, stopping fistula, stopping
female genital mutilation, are vitally important to preserving
the rights of women and children around the world. This body,
the UNFPA, has taken a leadership role. And for that reason,
needs our continued support.
I oppose this legislation, Madam Chair. And I appreciate
very much the opportunity to focus on these two issues. And I
yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know I think it is our responsibility to ensure that
the money that is spent from our hard-working taxpayers is done
in accordance with the laws. The UNFPA refuses to supply the
United States with detailed information regarding its programs
and activities in China.
We have a responsibility to know how our money is being
spent by organizations here and abroad. China's one-child
policy breeds a culture of forced abortions and involuntary
sterilization in addition to parents aborting their daughters
in hopes that their sole child will be a boy. It is brutal and
coercive and should in no way be assisted or enabled by U.S.
tax dollars. This is the worst cruelty that can be imposed upon
a woman.
By essentially ignoring the Kemp-Kasten bill, what sort of
message are we sending? By funding UNFPA, which has a history
of giving to organizations like Marie Stopes, an organization
that partners with national population and family planning
commissions of China, a message is sent that the U.S. does not
take coercive abortion and other human rights violations
seriously. That is not a message I would ever want to send to
our hard-working taxpayers.
Defunding UNFPA was a YouCut winner voted on by the America
public. The American people understand what the current budget
situation is here and sent a message to us, their elected
officials, to spend their tax dollars more wisely, cautiously,
and effectively.
According to a report prepared by the Norwegian Government,
the UNFPA has a reserve of over $480 million in 2010, which is
approximately the same amount as their regular income of 2009.
In our current budget situation, we have no business supporting
organizations that have the necessary cash on their own.
It is argued that this money is not going to abortions,
coerced or otherwise. But we know that money is fungible. And
when we cannot get an accurate accounting from the Chinese
Government as to how that money is being used, then that money
should be taken away.
There is an argument that the UNFPA does a lot of good
things. And I agree that it does. But those can be paid for
separately.
And finally, we can take our money and use it elsewhere for
other programs within the U.N. and other places. And if this
program is so important, then let us let other member countries
stand up and fill this gap.
But, Madam Chair, it is imperative that our hard-earned
taxpayer dollars from the hard-working Americans, are used
appropriately, efficiently, and responsibly.
We are at a place now where we have very serious concerns
about how China is using this money. We have no accountability
of how China is using this money. And we need to use this money
in a better way to help people not just in the United States,
but around the world, because all life is precious, unborn,
born, poor, elderly. And it is our responsibility as a moral
nation under God to respect life in all cases and all
instances.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
And let me express my strong opposition to this amendment.
I would like to certainly speak in opposition to this
legislation, which would eliminate funding for the United
Nations Population Fund.
Last week my office hosted a meeting with a group of
women's health leaders. They worked in health services from
Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, and Tanzania. And they were
participating in a 2-week conference hosted by the Center for
Development and Population Activities.
The women told devastating stories about the impact of
inadequate family planning on their lives and the lives of poor
and rural communities in Africa. They spoke of the devastating
impact of multiple unwanted pregnancies on the health and
economic livelihoods of the mothers. They spoke of the trauma
of unsafe, self-induced abortions, the pain and stigma of
obstetric fistulas, the terror of gender-based violence. They
talked about overstretched, overburdened, rundown health system
that cannot meet the basic material health needs of their
communities.
And at the end of the meeting, they asked us to share their
message today to those that wish to end family planning
programs in Africa and the developing world. They want you to
know that women of Africa want healthy babies. They want the
ability to space their births. They desperately need family
planning commodities in rural and poor communities.
Women do not often have a real shot at improving the
quality of life for themselves. As a matter of fact, since the
program has been in existence, infant mortality is down. The
life expectancy in Africa is increasing because of the fact
that there are spaced children. And that it is not felt that
they need to have eight and ten children in order to ensure
their future.
And so they asked us to increase its commitment to
lifesaving family planning in the U.S. And to work for maternal
health and child survival programs.
So today I ask that we take their point of view into
consideration as we debate this issue. We know that our
constituents also have a point of view on our foreign aid
spending. And we owe it to them to be honest about where their
tax dollars are going.
We have always heard about this overburdening of the
taxpayers of America. But let me tell you about the truth of
last year's U.S. contribution, $40 million, about one-hundredth
of 1 percent of our budget. Now we know that one-hundredth of 1
percent is very important because--and twice that is two-
hundredths of 1 percent of the budget.
However, I think when we talk about this cost to American
taxpayers, we are really kind of overstating the situation.
These programs help women to develop healthy babies, provide
post-rape care and emergency obstetric care in post-conflict
and disaster situations, help to the practice of female genital
mutilation, prevent obstetric fistula, and prevent unsafe
abortions.
The truth is that the UNFPA does not provide assistance for
abortion services or abortion-related equipment and supplies as
a method of family planning. I will say again UNFPA's work
reduces the need for abortion and the whole question of
voluntary planning.
I would also like to mention that we do hear so much about
the China policy, which I totally oppose. One child, you know
it is illegal to have a brother or a sister, but I always see
us lavish with the Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers. I never hear the business people
who talk about this coercive, one-child policy, people that
support many folks on the other side.
So I see the inconsistency. Why don't we tell our business
community why don't you raise this issue as we raise it here?
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Ms. Buerkle is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise in strong
support of H.R. 2059.
Our country has an obligation to spend our taxpayers'
dollars wisely. And I would say first of all, if this is such a
good program and they are not involved in China's coercive
abortion policy, then they should just supply the detailed
information that they have been asked for by the State
Department. Their failure to provide what we have asked for is
not transparency. And certainly leads one to believe that they
are not being honest and forthright with how they are spending
the money.
I think even more than that, by ignoring Kemp-Kasten, the
U.S. Government sends a message to oppressive governments, that
coercive abortion and other human right violations are not a
big deal. We not only give a green light to abusive governments
to continue to abuse their people without fear of repercussions
but we also signal that we will fund organizations and support
them and subsidize their programs. That is the wrong message to
be sending. Those are not principles consistent with the United
States of America.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Smith. Would my friend yield?
Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
Mr. Smith. I thank my good friend for yielding.
And just a quick response to my good friend from New
Jersey. You know I actually raised the issue of China human
rights abuses and coercive population control at the New Jersey
Chamber of Commerce annual event here in Washington. And I
bring it up all the time.
And I also show the nexus with what population control,
particularly the missing girls, 40-50 million missing girls in
China today, if ever there was a crime of gender, it is sex
selection abortion where a girl is targeted because she is a
girl and then aborted. And in China that is so rampant.
And so I have raised it at the Chamber of Commerce as I
said to my friend.
But Ms. Buerkle brings up a very, very important point
about lack of transparency. I mention those 48 questions--let
us see--38 questions that were posed by the Population Refugee
Migration Bureau in 2008. And I would ask members to read those
answers.
When asked about what Marie Stopes International, the
implementing partner for UNFPA in the health area was actually
doing, UNFPA responded these are internal documents. And as
such are for internal use only. Audit reports are internal
management tools and are of a confidential nature.
So we do not know what they are doing. They are absolutely
non-transparent.
And yet they want 50 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to carry
on what clearly--and let me also say if my friend will continue
yielding--look at what UNFPA spokespersons, including the
executive director, Dr. Sadik, former exec director, said.
He praised the one-child-per-couple policy. In 2002, Dr.
Sadik got an award from the National Family Planning
organization in China, the state-run organization, for their
work.
I met with Peng Peiyun, the woman who ran the program for
years on one of several trips to China protesting a myriad of
human rights abuses in that country. She kept saying over and
over and over again in that conversation the UNFPA is here.
They do not see any coercion. They support what we are doing.
Not only do they support it, they are trying to export it to
other countries under the guise of child limitation policies.
So this is a very serious problem.
I also say to my friends, yes, UNFPA may do some other
things. But so do other multilateral organizations. So does
USAID. Our dollars ought to go where we are not in any way
complicit with these crimes against women--and that is not a
smear, I say to my friend--these are crimes against women and
children.
Let us not forget at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal,
forced abortion was called rightfully so, a crime against
women. And a crime against humanity. It is no less a crime
today.
And in scope, in the vastness of its implementation in
China, through its laws and regulations, which the UNFPA
absolutely adheres to, that was the finding by the State
Department in 2008--there has been no change. They have carried
the water of the Chinese Government. They live within those
parameters of those laws, one child, one child only. And yet
when we ask questions, they say it is confidential. We cannot
tell you what we are doing.
I do believe that on behalf of the Chinese women and all
those children who have been slaughtered and the Chinese women
who have been so cruelly exploited, that the leaders of the
UNFPA ought to be at The Hague for their complicity in these
crimes. These are gross human rights abuses.
Mr. Connolly. Would my colleague yield for a question?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Buerkle's time.
Ms. Buerkle. Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And it is 5 seconds.
Mr. Connolly. I wonder if my friend from New Jersey would
favor disinvestment of all U.S. businesses in China with the
same line?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. No, Ms. Buerkle's time
has expired.
Mr. Cicilline is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Cicilline, could I have 3 seconds?
Mr. Cicilline. Sure.
Mr. Payne. All right. I would just like to tell my
colleague from New Jersey that you are the exception to the
rule. I have to agree that you are consistent with the Chamber
of Commerce. And so I will want to have the record straight
that I was not criticizing you per se because I have heard you
criticize the Chamber.
I yield back.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their
own beliefs. And to have strong opinions and beliefs.
But the facts matter, particularly when we are dealing with
issues of life and death. And UNFPA does not support the one-
child policy of China. UNFPA does not provide abortion or
abortion-related services. Those are the facts. And that
matters.
In fact, what makes those assertions particularly
disturbing is that UNFPA does just the opposite. One of the
basic tenets of UNFPA is to promote voluntary family planning
and oppose all forms of coercion, targets, or quotas. So that
is not the policy that UNFPA, the one-child rule is not the
policy obviously that they embrace. And, in fact, the governing
principles are just the opposite.
The United States was instrumental in the creation of UNFPA
in 1969. And today their work reflects our commitment as a
country to saving lives, to slowing the spread of HIV and AIDS
and to ending horrific practices like female genital
mutilation. And most importantly, to promote the health of
women and children in 151 countries around the world.
And it is based on our long-standing belief that women
deserve access to quality maternal and reproductive healthcare.
And what has UNFPA done? They have, in a single decade,
contributed significantly to reductions in maternal death in
countries all over the world. Nearly every day, 1,000 women die
in pregnancy. And almost all of those are preventable if they
have access to quality reproductive healthcare.
And so this bill today would eliminate those programs. It
would eliminate the possibility to provide the kind of care
that has saved so many lives, that has done so much to end this
hideous practice of female genital mutilation, has done so much
to deal with injuries of obstetric fistula, and other
debilitating diseases.
And so while I know there has been a lot of discussion
about the one-child rule, and obviously that is something which
is an anathema to everything that we believe in as a country,
that is not what this bill is about. This bill ends all funding
for UNFPA, for all of the programs that are helping to reduce
deaths during pregnancies and childbirth, in helping to deal
with disease and the transmission of disease, and for some of
the most vulnerable populations all over the world.
That is what the bill is about. There is nothing in here
about China's one-child policy. In fact, it will end all of the
incredibly successful and hard work of UNFPA.
So the consequences of passing this bill and the impact it
will have on children and women all across the globe should
cause everyone to reject this piece of legislation. There is no
question that if this bill passes, it will surely result in
harm to women and children by ending important and life-saving
access to reproductive healthcare and family planning. We
should not do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And I would like all members to give me some hand signals
if you wish to be recognized.
Mr. Poe is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I see this legislation as a situation where the UNFPA does
not want to be transparent about their records. Why is that?
They have something to hide. Maybe something is taking place
that we, as Americans, do not agree with.
There are other reasons why this legislation, I think,
should pass. And specifically one reason is China's one-child
policy, which I think is an awful disgrace to the nation of
China and their government.
I will yield time to Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Poe.
And I would just like to follow up with some of the
concerns that have been raised. And I think the overwhelming
piece or point, I agree, facts do matter, to Mr. Cicilline.
Facts do matter. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we do not
have.
The UNFPA does not provide us with facts. And Ranking
Member Berman, you had pointed out that there are falsehoods
and that there is misinformation about how this money is spent.
I could not agree more. And that is exactly the reason that we
have put this bill forward because when the American people
were asked what is the situation, what would you say about
cutting back on spending, this was it.
Why? Because of the practices it supports, because of the
lack of facts, because of the lack of information.
You know we have also heard about the good work that UNFPA
participates in. Things like working against female mutilation.
Well, my question to you is enforced abortion, mutilation is
part of that. What about that point? What about some of the
other organizations that help to prevent, as has been pointed
out, USAID has programs against the fistula preventions.
These are all things that I think the American people are
aware of. And they understand.
You know in the past--and according to a 2008 report, when
funding like this has been withheld, the European Union has
come forward. In the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
Spain, Luxembourg, Japan, UK have all come forward to help in
these efforts.
Why is it on the burden of the hard-working American
taxpayer that they continue to fund a program that we know so
little about, that we know participates in the Chinese one-
child policy. They enforce this.
Now whether or not the UNFPA says that they agree with
that, money is fungible. The money gets put where it needs to
go in these practices.
Now this is the issue. Regardless of where you stand on
these issues, I am a woman. I am a nurse. There is nothing I
believe in more than women's health.
The fact of the matter is the American people are forced to
pay for a practice in other countries that we know nothing
about. And that is the issue here. The American people have
spoken about this. They have told us that they want an end to
this wasteful spending, that they are participating in acts
which are horrific.
And I applaud the concerns that have been brought forward
in this debate. I understand that there are some good things
that get done. But by far, the inhumanitarian efforts that are
put forward in things like this that the American taxpayers are
being forced to pay for outweigh any of the minimal benefits
that we have seen.
Again, I say that because there are other organizations
that help in these efforts. And the American taxpayer should
not have to be forced to pay for this.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Cicilline. Would the gentlelady yield for a question?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Is it Mr. Poe's time? Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. Yes, I'll yield.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I would ask the sponsor, she just
indicated there was a lot of good things or there are some good
things that UNFPA does. Would you acknowledge then that your
bill would prevent those good things from continuing? Because
it eliminates funding and----
Mr. Poe. I yield to Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. Well, unfortunately, that is correct. And the
reason that that is so significant is because of the lack of
information that we have been able to obtain. Now again, I
agree. That is unfortunate. However, there are other
organizations that come forward in this aid. This is not the
only form of funding for these needed agenda items. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe?
Mr. Poe. I yield to Ms. Schmidt.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 10
seconds.
Ms. Schmidt. There is some money in the account that could
pay for those programs right now and it doesn't preclude other
countries from funding this agency. So in answer to your
question, yes, there are other ways to pay for those good
programs.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Poe's time is----
Mr. Poe. Expired.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Mr. Engel is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Look,
everyone who is speaking this morning is heartfelt and feels
very strongly about it. I am what you would call pro-choice,
but I do understand my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Many who have spoken this morning are good, personal friends of
mine. And I understand the heartfelt feelings that those on the
other side of the aisle have expressed regarding abortion and
regarding all of the things they have said.
I oppose the bill because I just don't think--this to me is
like using a meat axe to get at everything because some are
annoyed at some of the programs that have. I mean some of us
are also annoyed at the United Nations, in general. I think
it's time, frankly, to reassess a lot of U.S. contributions to
the United Nations because the United Nations has not been
balanced and fair in a number of instances, certainly in the
Middle East and in the Israeli-Palestinian question and other
questions as well. Those of us who have fought against
dictatorships, whether it's in Cuba or other places, we get
frustrated with the United Nations because they seem to tilt on
the side of dictators and also it irks me, I'm talking about
me, that the United States pays the yeoman's share of
contributions to the U.N. and yet the countries of the U.N.
kind of spit in our face. And it's kind of annoying.
So some of that I think is inherent in this argument. And
of course, the major thing is the whole abortion issue. I think
UNFPA does do good work. I think access to contraception, my
personal feeling, is important for women, particularly in the
Third World, and women's healthcare is critical for individual
health and family wellbeing and I just think that's important.
So the UNFPA promoting voluntary family planning, it
doesn't force anyone to do family planning, but it's voluntary
family planning and does oppose all forms of coercion. I think
it's a program that should be continued. It doesn't mean that
we should keep writing blank checks. It doesn't mean that we
should not monitor it. I think some of the concerns that have
been voiced on the other side are legitimate concerns and I
think we need to monitor things because I don't think that the
United States can keep pouring money and not have any kind of
oversight. I don't think that's right either. But I think to
cut off the funding to UNFPA again is like taking a meat
cleaver when all we need to do is ask questions and do it in a
much more general way. So I oppose the bill, but I do hope we
can keep the dialogue going. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. The
Chair will recognize herself just to make a note. I know that
we have some members who would like to speak, but I know Mr.
Connolly had indicated that he has an amendment. And I think
many of the arguments that perhaps our colleagues will be
making could be applicable to argue on the Connolly amendment.
Unless there's an overriding need to speak at this time,
perhaps we could move to the amendment process. If Mr. Connolly
offers his amendment, I don't know what it is, but I'm sure our
arguments will be applicable to that as well. If that is all
right, then we will have several amendments. So if the clerk
will--would any member like to be recognized in order to offer
an amendment? Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And then Ms. Bass and Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Connolly. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. I do not have the amendment.
Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
In section 1 insert ``and accept as provided in section 2''
before ``the Secretary of State''. Add at the end of the
following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in
the case of contributions to UNFPA to carry out activities to
prevent and treat cases of obstetric fistula.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Connolly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly is recognized. Well,
the Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the author
for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And given what the author
of the defunding of UNFPA indicated in terms of her continuing
commitment to women's health, and then her intention wasn't to
deny the legitimate activities of UNFPA with respect to that
health, I would hope she could support this amendment.
This amendment addresses a very difficult subject,
especially in developing countries among women called obstetric
fistula. For those who haven't heard of the condition of
fistula is frankly a hole. And obstetric fistula is a hole
between the digestive tract and the reproductive tract. It is
life endangering. It can lead to the natural abortion of a
fetus and it can lead to ultimately the illness, sickness, and
death of the carrying mother.
If this was a rare occurrence, I suppose some might be able
to turn their head and ignore it. But it's not rare. It's
estimated that more than 2 million young women live with
untreated obstetric fistula in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa
alone. Each year, 50,000 to 100,000 additional women are
affected by obstetric fistula. How does it happen? In general,
it happens because of prolonged labor without prompt medical
intervention, usually a caesarian section. The risks of damage
are heightened by pregnancy at too young an age, by harmful
practices such as female genital mutilation and by the lack of
timely access to obstetric care.
So fistulas are actually preventable. They can be prevented
by expanding access to family planning, skilled birth
attendance, and emergency obstetric care facilities. The risk
can be reduced by things like improving girls' nutrition and
conducting educational campaigns. And when you prevent
obstetric fistula, you also reduce infant mortality, something
I know Mr. Smith and others absolutely share a concern about
since most cases of fistula end up with a stillborn baby.
Now only is obstetric fistula preventable, Madam Chairman,
it's treatable. Fistula can be completely repaired up to 90
percent of the time if survivors have access to a trained
surgeon at a hospital providing fistula repair. The average
cost of such treatment and post-operative care is about $300 in
these countries. Sadly, most women with the condition do not
know that treatment is available or they can't afford it.
UNFPA is one of the world's leaders in addressing this
problem. In 2003, UNFPA and its partners launched a global
campaign to end fistula with the goal of making obstetric
fistula as rare in developing countries as it is here in the
industrialized world.
My amendment is simple. If the money is used to prevent or
treat obstetric fistula, we would provide that exemption for
the overall ban on funding of UNFPA and I would yield to the
distinguished ranking member.
Mr. Berman. I could not have said it better myself. Between
you and Mr. Deutch, you've made a compelling case.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman and yield back, Madam
Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The Chair
yields herself 5 minutes. And certainly the services in Mr.
Connolly's amendment, they are noble goals, but the amendment
presumes that whatever good activities the UNFPA conducts will
cease unless it receives our U.S. taxpayer dollars. And that's
simply not true. And I'm sure that we will have a series of
amendments, not just on fistula, but there will be a series on
other services that UNFPA provides, and they will use these
services as cover to continue their practice.
Given recent reports that UNFPA may be sitting on $500
million in unspent reserves, it appears unlikely that they will
run out of this money and probably will be able to resume their
activities with whatever money they have still to spend.
And further, UNFPA's noble goals are tainted by the fact
that they are listed in this amendment and in many amendments
to come for no other reason than to justify funding an
organization that supports and participates in the management
of China's unthinkable, brutal, one-child policy, a policy in
which women are snatched out of their homes, forced into a
clinic, and held down while their baby is killed and extracted
from their bodies, all while UNFPA likely provides financial
support to the agency responsible for these terrible abuses.
Instead of boldly speaking out against the one-child policy at
every opportunity, UNFPA gives cover to the Chinese Government.
Regardless of what UNFPA claims, UNFPA does not enforce,
monitor, or certify that UNFPA funds are not going to forced
sterilization and coerced abortion. UNFPA does not hold
recipient governments accountable and it refuses to share their
records.
Remember, fistulas on one continent simply cannot offset
participation in the most draconian population control program
on the globe. Fortunately, USAID already has a program for
fistula prevention and repair, and the millions of dollars
currently going to UNFPA could more transparently and
effectively be directed through our bilateral assistance
programs.
One day fistula will be eradicated worldwide and when that
day comes, I hope that we will be proud that the scourge of
fistula was eliminated without using the suffering of women in
Africa and other parts of the world to justify and mask the
unthinkable suffering of women who are subjected to forced
abortions in China.
I'd like to yield my remaining time and then he will get
his own time to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise in
opposition to the amendment and associate myself with the
remarks of the gentlelady, the chair of the committee.
In the late 1990s, I began an effort after being made aware
of obstetric fistula by Dr. Wali from Modern Care to get a
program that would combat fistula. I asked the Clinton
administration, I asked the Bush administration. I finally got
legislation passed as an amendment in my bill, H.R. 2601 that
established a fistula program. The gentlelady from Florida was
the chief cosponsor. It passed the House, failed in the Senate.
I then talked to Kent Hill who was then the head of Health
for USAID and said we've passed a program to combat obstetric
fistula, will you do it administratively? You have the
authority, just do it. He did it.
We now have a USAID fistula program that has spent over $70
million. It has repaired 20,000 women, mostly in Africa, and it
has a preventive capacity to it as well as repair capacity. And
30 USAID-supported fistula repair centers operate in 11
countries. We have built a capacity. UNFPA does some things on
fistula, does some things on other things that some might think
are important, but frankly, the massive crime of forced
abortion should not be overlooked and somehow put under the
table because somehow they're doing something else somewhere
else.
We have a fistula program. I started it. And I believe
deeply along with the gentlelady from Florida who was the co-
author of that legislation, that that's the way to go. If UNFPA
was stealing money, would anybody here on either side of the
aisle say oh, let's look askance with regards to their huge
thefts and we would find another NGO, another regional body to
give our money to. In this case, we're doing it on fistula.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Fortenberry is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, Madam Chair, I simply want to concur
with what you said. You most capably and aptly and frankly
beautifully laid out the case that we do not have to be
complicit with this agency as they are complicit in China's
one-child barbaric policy, but at the same time we have a
certain level of responsibility to the international community.
And as Mr. Smith just stated, we can use our own funds and
direct them in a way toward the essential and important goal of
helping the victims of this fistula difficulty as well as other
programs out there that will again be targeted to the poorest
and marginalized, particularly women who are hurting and in
need. But to simply say that the conduit has to be the United
Nations Population Fund I think is a point of disagreement
here. There are many people who would be deeply troubled after
learning about this hearing as to what's been said and I think
it's appropriate to remove taxpayer dollars from that
organization, but continue to look for creative ways, as Mr.
Smith has done through his extraordinary leadership to help the
world's most vulnerable. With that, I'll yield.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir. Mr. Payne is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. Do any of the members seek
recognition on the Connolly amendment? And if not, the Chair
withdraws the point of order and, hearing no further requests
for recognition, the question occurs on the Connolly amendment
that is before you.
All those in favor say aye.
[Ayes.]
All opposed, no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Respectfully, I would ask for a recorded vote
on that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. A recorded vote has been requested
and the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no. Mr. Gallegly. Mr.
Rohrabacher. Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Royce. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Paul. Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes no. Mr. Poe. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no. Mr. Griffin. Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no. Mr. Duncan. Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no. Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye. Mr. Ackerman. Mr.
Faleomavaega. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. Mr.
Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye. Mr. Cardoza. Mr.
Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms.
Schwartz.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no. I haven't finished the
roll yet.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If we will allow the clerk to finish
the roll and then we will ask if all members have been
recorded.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Murphy. Ms. Wilson. Ms.
Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye. Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo, you are not recorded.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no. Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Royce, you are
recorded as voting no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 12 ayes
and 21 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it and the question is
not agreed to. Are there further amendments on this bill? Ms.
Bass has an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Ms. Bass. In
section 1 insert ``and accept as provided in section 2'' before
``the Secretary of State''. Add at the end of the following:
Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in the case of
contributions to UNFPA to carry out activities to reestablish
reproductive and maternal health services in areas where
medical infrastructure and such services have been destroyed by
natural disasters.
[The amendment offered by Ms. Bass follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Bass is recognized to explain
her amendment.
Ms. Bass. Madam Chair, this amendment will allow the United
States to continue working with the Population Fund in disaster
areas to help reestablish maternal health services. The
amendment would continue funding again for critical health
services after a natural disaster. For example, after the
tsumani in '05, the Population Fund moved rapidly to protect
maternal and reproductive health and to ensure the security,
hygiene and dignity of women and girls throughout Indonesia,
Sri Lanka and Thailand. In Indonesia, for example, the Fund
continues to provide hygiene kits, medicines, and medical
equipment.
In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake in 2010, the Fund
worked closely with clinics on the ground to assist pregnant
women who were struggling to stay alive and deliver healthy
babies.
My amendment aims to protect women's reproductive health
after a natural disaster strikes. I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment. I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much for your
brevity, Ms. Bass. It is so greatly appreciated. Do other
members seek recognition on this amendment? Mr. Chabot is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the
gentlelady, first of all, from North Carolina, Ms. Ellmers for
offering her excellent legislation. I can't think of a better
way to save $50 million in American taxpayer dollars than by
prohibiting funding the United Nations Population Fund. As my
colleagues know, the U.S. for quite some time withheld funding
the UNFPA, a leading proponent of China's unconscionable one-
child policy. That changed in 2009 when President Obama
reinstated funding to the UNFPA. Since then, the taxpayers of
the United States, a majority of whom oppose taxpayer-funded
abortion have unwillingly allocated $145 million for this
abusive policy.
I would like to again thank my colleague from North
Carolina, Ms. Ellmers, for offering her thoughtful legislation.
We talk a lot about human rights around here. This legislation
is all about human rights. The fundamental right to life, I
wholeheartedly support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
And I would ask the gentlelady from North Carolina, would she
like to speak to this amendment or her amendment specifically?
Ms. Ellmers. Yes. And thank you, Mr. Chabot. There again,
wonderful intention to continue funding especially in those
countries that are faced with those natural disasters as our
own country has been faced with, but there again, we are faced
with a situation where all too often, the taxpayer dollars are
not being spent wisely because we don't know what is being--
what is taking place. And although again, as the chairman has
pointed out, there are many situations which I think we all
support on a humanitarian level.
The fact that there is such lack of transparency in this
program that why should the American people continue to pay for
it, especially when there are other sources of funding that are
available. And as the chairman has pointed out, $500 million of
surplus that can be used for these actually needed efforts.
I agree. There are many--it tugs at our heartstrings
whenever we hear these issues, but the overall riding issue is
the abuses that are taking place. And this is what the American
people are calling out to us as elected officials to take care
of and to recognize. And to stop the continued funding of their
taxpayer funds. So thank you.
Again, to the gentlelady, I am in disagreement with your
amendment, although I know your intentions are more than
honorable. I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time. And having had the
opportunity to interact with the gentlelady from California,
the former Speaker of the House, I would agree that her
intentions are honorable. Nonetheless, I have to oppose the
amendment and I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chabot. I
would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Berman who will speak in
favor of the amendment and then I will recognize him for
unanimous consent request to make it easier for our members in
terms of voting.
Mr. Berman is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And I
support this amendment very strongly. But I'd like to engage
Ms. Ellmers, the sponsor of the legislation. And here, I'm
quite serious in trying to understand particularly given your
last comments, what our differences are.
I think there's a general consensus that China and areas of
China forced abortion, coercive population control, one-child
policy are going on and are odious to us and constitute
violations of fundamental human rights.
You've acknowledged that UNFPA does many good things that
have nothing to do with that. But there's been a general
allegation that the UNFPA supports those practices as opposed
to the services we think of. I've not heard--I've heard vivid
descriptions of the outrage of China's practices, but I haven't
heard UNFPA. But you just referenced that part of this problem
isn't so much we have specific evidence of what UNFPA has done
as there is a lack of transparency, so if they're operating in
a country where these odious things are going on, we should cut
off the funding.
I'm wondering if you could share with us what is the
information that you seek that you're not able to get. What is
the--give me some detail the problem with the transparency. I
say this honestly because I think----
Mr. Engel. Would my friend yield?
Mr. Berman. I asked Ms. Ellmers, but whoever.
Ms. Ellmers. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Berman. Yes.
Ms. Ellmers. Yes, well, you have pointed out some fine
points. In fact, you've outlined in your opening comments the
lack of information, the misinformation that is out there and
this is exactly the point. And I would reiterate to you again
that this was the winning you cut proposal that the American
people--please, if I could just maintain my----
Mr. Berman. No, let me just reclaim my time, it is my time.
I want to understand what is the information. No one has told
me about something UNFPA has done that constitutes a coercive
family planning practice, a forced abortion or one child--no
one has made such an assertion. What they have said is they're
operating in a country where that is going on and then you have
added and we don't know what they're doing there. There's a
lack of transparency. And I'm trying to find out what is it
that you're--what have you tried to get that you haven't been
able to get?
Ms. Ellmers. Well, let me outline to you, John Negroponte,
then Deputy Secretary of State, June 26, 2008, State Department
determination denying U.S. funds to the UNFPA that--and I
quote--``all UNFPA programming related to contraceptive and
reproductive health incorporates and defers to Chinese law and
regulation.'' This is the Chinese law that is in place for the
one-child policy and the UNFPA adheres to that. The national
law and the provincial regulations are a framework for Chinese
coercive birth policy.
Mr. Berman. What is UNFPA--reclaiming my time--what do they
do? My guess is American companies, American tourists, comply
with all kinds of Chinese laws. What does the agency and its
people do in China that holds them culpable for the odious and
outrageous practices of the Chinese Government? That's what I'm
trying to get my hands on.
Ms. Ellmers. I will once again point out, one, the lack of
transparency, but I would like to further that with a statement
from Sven Burmenester in 1999, a UNFPA representative talking
about the Chinese population control programs. His quote was,
``China has had the most successful family planning policy in
the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that China
has done mankind a favor.''
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman's time has expired. I
just want to say we were going to entertain unanimous consent
to roll the votes because it seemed to be easier for our
members, but apparently we want to keep on voting so I will
continue to recognize members who wish to speak on the
amendment that is before us. And then we still have Mr. Payne's
two amendments. We have a Cicilline amendment, and we have a
Keating amendment, and a Murphy amendment.
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. First of all, let me say to the sponsor, I
deeply respect her and thank her for her good work. The other
day when we were at the White House, I thought it was excellent
that she was working on foster care. But let me just say as
well, that I was in Banda Aceh. I was in Sri Lanka. And also
visited Phuket after the horrific tsunami in 2005 as you
pointed out.
UNFPA is not the only player in town. There are large
numbers of NGOs, large numbers of private volunteer
organizations, government health departments and the like, all
who have capacity, who provide much needed and often compete
for very scarce dollars for virtually every program that we
provide.
We always have more people asking for money than those that
we are able to fund. UNFPA, we argue, disqualifies itself
pursuant to the Kemp-Kasten law that says very simply that any
organization that support or co-manages a coercive population
control program is precluded funding. It is to say that all
family planning absolutely bright lined in the sand must be
voluntary and also we would hope would be not abortive because
abortion is not family planning. It takes the life of a baby,
as Planned Parenthood itself admitted in the '60s after that
child's life has begun.
So money that doesn't go to the UNFPA is reprogrammed for
maternal healthcare or some other program somewhere else. It's
not like the money is lost somehow in the system. And in the
past, we have had amendments that suggested that it ought to go
to this program or that program in order to ensure that vital
programs like fistula repair are funded.
UNFPA, though, as Sven Burmenester, as Ms. Ellmers has just
mentioned a moment ago, they have been saying China is the
model. They're not saying don't coerce, don't exploit women.
They're saying China is the model.
I have met about 100 women, both in China and at all of
those hearings that I've held including the one just a couple
of weeks ago, three of whom were forcibly aborted and you hear
them tell how the government so aggressively coerces. It starts
with economic disincentives, fines and penalties, and if the
woman persists, she is literally dragged in.
There has been no record of UNFPA saying publicly or
privately, they don't tell us what they do privately, that they
have tried to stop this. Instead, they say to all-comers, they
whitewash these crimes, frankly. They say to everybody who is a
critic that this is the program that needs to be emulated.
God forbid that we have a one-child-per-couple policy, and
I will yield, all over the world, because--and you look at what
just recently at a summit in Cancun. Ted Turner said we need a
world, including the United States, with a one-child-per-couple
policy. That means brothers and sisters are illegal. In
dictatorships, it will be very easy, obviously, it would be a
lot harder to get that implemented in a democracy like the
United States or many of European friends.
We've asked--the administration previously--PRM asked does
UNFPA training include explicit prohibitions against using
coercive measures? No answer. They were asked exactly what is
Marie Stopes International, the health implementing partner
doing? They were told in this Q&A that that is confidential. We
can't tell you.
So we see all of this support for the Chinese family
planning program. We see awards going to the executive director
of the UNFPA from the China State Family Planning Organization.
It's not rocket science to say they are complicit. They are
supporting it. And as I said before, the woman who ran it, Pong
Peyun. I got a rare meeting with her when I was in Beijing. She
kept telling me how the UNFPA is here, on the ground, and sees
no evidence of coercion.
Please, if you believe that, I'll sell you the Brooklyn
Bridge. It is horrific. Take the time to know what's going on
on the ground. It's all about defending women. They can't fight
against--look at Chen Guangcheng, the blind activist lawyer who
is under house arrest along with his wife, has been beaten to a
pulp repeatedly by Chinese secret police, went to prison and
what was his crime? Defending women in Liaoning province who
were being forcibly aborted. And they absolutely threw the book
at this man.
And then we want to give money to an organization that is
also on the ground like Chen Guangcheng who are saying this is
what not only what China should continue doing, but also what
the rest of the world needs to emulate. And believe me, in
Africa and elsewhere, the lessons learned, negative lessons at
that, are being promoted all over Africa. Child limitation is
the means to an end and of course in dicatorships it absolutely
includes coercion just like in China.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Do other members seek
recognition on the amendment?
If not, the question occurs on the amendment. All those in
favor, say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those opposed, no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair the noes
have it. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Ms. Bass requests a roll call vote and the clerk will call
the roll. This is on the Bass amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no. Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Paul. Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no. Mr. Fortenberry. Mr.
McCall. Mr. Poe. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no. Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no. Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no. Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr.
Payne.
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. Mr.
Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye. Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye. Mr. Cardoza. Mr.
Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms.
Schwartz. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye. Ms. Wilson. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye. Ms. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman on that vote there are 13 ayes,
and 21 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it and the question is
not agreed to. Mr. Payne is recognized to explain his two
amendments to offer.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair, Amendment 647, it's at
the desk and while they are distributing it, I'll move on for
the benefit of the time, Madam Chair. This amendment that I
introduce with Mr. Keating grants the President authorization
to support UNFPA in their work to promote the access of woman,
unaccompanied minors, and other vulnerable people to vital
services including access to water, sanitation facilities, food
and healthcare as well as support services to prevent and
respond to gender-based violence and emergency in conflict
situations.
As you know, UNFPA is a critical player in emergencies
whether it's armed conflict, famine or natural disaster. Some
60 million people are currently internally displaced and lack
basic human necessities. Most vulnerable in this population, of
course, are women and children and they account for over 75
percent of this displaced people in conflict zones. More women
die from childbirth complications, preventable diseases and
malnutrition than from the actual violence that is occurring on
the field.
Failing to target and treat these women as consequences
beyond the individual often threatens the child. More than 15
of all pregnancies have complications requiring emergency
obstetric care during delivery. However, in times of crisis,
obstetric care is often overlooked, increasing child mortality
and vulnerability to HIV.
The last two decades, the number of natural disasters has
quadrupled and the number of people affected by these disasters
has increased by 76 million. Over the last decade an additional
100 people per hour have become displaced through the
conflicts. Now is not the time to reduce the support we provide
to the most vulnerable among us. In emergency situations UNFPA
is on the front line saving lives of men, women, and children,
newborns, and that is why I urge you support this amendment,
and Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Payne and Mr. Keating
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Hearing no
other members requesting recognition, the question occurs on
the amendment. All those in favor say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Payne. Madam Chair, may I have a recorded vote?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr.
Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Paul. Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. Mr. McCaul.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no. Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no. Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr.
Payne.
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. Mr.
Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye. Mr. Deutch. Mr.
Cardoza. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms.
Schwartz. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye. Ms. Wilson. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye. Ms. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? The
clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote, there are 13 ayes
and 23 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it. The question is
not agreed to. Mr. Payne is recognized for his next amendment.
Mr. Payne. I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment 658.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Payne.
In section 1, insert ``and except as provided in section 2''
before ``the Secretary of State''. Add at the end of the
following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in
the case of contributions to UNFPA to carry out activities in
the Democratic Republic of Congo.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Payne follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We will wait 1 second until the
members have the amendment, and then I will recognize Mr.
Payne. Mr. Payne is recognized.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My amendment,
as has been indicated, grants the President authorization to
support UNFPA's activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The infant mortality rate in the DRC is 78.43 deaths per 1,000
live births, which of course makes the DRC one of the highest
incidences of infant mortality in the world.
The UNFPA is on the ground in the DRC, combating this in a
number of ways, and working to make motherhood safer. Ensuring
there is a skilled birth attendant and access to emergency
obstetric care are some of the simple solutions UNFPA employs
to prevent the complications from becoming debilitating and
life-threatening.
In the DRC, half of all women will have a child by the age
of 19. A child bride faces greater health risks and experiences
real physical violations and trauma as her young body is forced
to deal with early sexual activity and the strain of pregnancy
and childbirth.
The UNFPA is working across the DRC to educate people about
how delaying childbirth for even 5 years would have immense
health benefits to women. In this war-torn country, rape and
sexual violence plague the population. The U.N. has declared
DRC to be the rape capital of the world.
I recently returned, about a month or so ago, from three
camps where rape victims live, in the hardship that they lived
with, and their children. It was just heart-wrenching. UNFPA
has been aiding survivors of sexual violence throughout the
country for many years, by providing everything from medical
care to legal assistance.
UNFPA has also trained thousands of troops in the armed
forces, and from the U.N., on how to deal with and assist rape
victims. UNFPA has entered refugee camps, including Camp
Kibaki, to provide condoms, STD test kits, as well as treatment
for STDs. It also provides kits for rape victims, and clean
delivery kits.
UNFPA is on the front lines fighting for human rights. I
ask that you please support the UNFPA's work in the DRC by
voting yes for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Do any members seek
recognition on this amendment? Seeing no requests for
recognition, the question occurs--yes. Mr. Ackerman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ackerman. I would just like to ask Mr. Payne a
question. Does any of this money go to abortions?
Mr. Payne. Absolutely not.
Mr. Ackerman. Could somebody explain, if none of this money
is going for abortions, and it is going for only those good
purposes that Mr. Payne outlined, why would somebody object to
this amendment?
Ms. Ellmers. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ackerman. I would be delighted.
Ms. Ellmers. And again, a very good question, and one that
I think has been reiterated over, and over, and over again
today. You know, good things in one part of the world do not
offset human rights abuses in another. If the UNFPA truly does
care----
Mr. Ackerman. But this is only for that part of the world,
as I----
Ms. Ellmers. Again, and this goes to Mr. Payne's actual
amendment, about human rights and the UNFPA supporting human
rights efforts. If they truly do believe this, and they truly
do believe in the rights of women and families, children, then
they will start by pulling their assistance to the Chinese
population control agencies----
Mr. Ackerman. But I can't----
Ms. Ellmers [continuing]. And stop the strong----
Mr. Ackerman. I take it your argument goes to fungibility?
Ms. Ellmers. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Would my good friend yield?
Mr. Ackerman. I have a hard time reconciling how we apply
standards here, and I understand all of the sensitivities of
the issue. But if there were--let me first just state that I am
a very strong believer in separation of church and state.
Nonetheless, like a lot of us, I support providing funds for
certain religious institutions, so that they can use it for
transportation or general education, within church schools or
church supported schools, despite the fact that money might be
fungible, so that we can provide general services for the good
things they do.
Nobody makes the case that because a particular church or
religion may have some people running amok and abusing
children, that until that policy stops we shouldn't be doing
the good things that that church, or institution, or religion
might be doing, because that money is fungible. How do we
reconcile that?
I know that it is not an official policy of the church, but
certainly cover-ups some people consider an official policy.
And we know that everybody on both sides decries those abuses,
if indeed they do take place, but why do we not cut off those
funds until that organization, I think you said ``cleans up its
act'' internationally.
Mr. Connolly. Would my good friend yield for a question?
Mr. Ackerman. I would.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Ackerman, over here. Following your
logic, Mr. Ackerman, I agree with what you are getting at. If
we are going to buy into guilt by association--no proof that
the party that is the subject of the legislation has done
anything wrong, but just the fact that it operates in another
country where we think some things have been done wrong--we
believe they have been--that is good enough.
And this issue of fungibility. Wouldn't it logically
follow, Mr. Ackerman, that we ought to be actually marking up
legislation to require the disinvestment of all U.S. companies
in China? Because money is fungible, and guilt by association:
The fact that they are there automatically makes them complicit
in a policy we abhor.
Mr. Ackerman. I think I get your point, and I think you get
my point. I don't think anybody else gets it. I think there is
a lack of consistency here. And I understand the sensitivities,
and I don't think any of us want to cut off money for doing
good things, and you don't want to condemn everybody for
everything when there are policies that were obviously--or seem
obviously to be taking place, either in commission or in
covering those up.
And I don't know how you punish good acts, that are done by
good people, because of things that you might believe are bad
things to do.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Ackerman, would you yield?
Mr. Ackerman. I would.
Mr. Payne. I would just ask--and I can appreciate the
feelings of people who are very much pro-life, but I would
implore some of you to visit a place like the DRC, where people
live on volcanic rock, and women who have been raped, who stand
up before you and tell you about their situations. I think you
might have a little bit different----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired, Mr. Ackerman's time. And the gentleman, Mr. Smith, is
recognized, who knows a bit about this issue.
Mr. Smith. First of all, as my good friend and colleague
from New Jersey knows, I have been to the DR Congo, not only
chaired several hearings on it, the violence against women and
the like, I went to Goma. And I visited several NGOs that were
working and doing Herculean, outstanding efforts expended upon
women who were subjected to violence, and women who experienced
obstetric fistulas. And Heal Africa, for example, is doing
magnificent things. They are not UNFPA.
There are other organizations that, if the United Nations
Population Fund insists on aiding and abetting coercion and
violence against women in China, and then seeks to export that
model elsewhere, including to Africa--as you may recall, 3
years ago, the health ministers of most of the sub-Saharan
African countries were invited to Beijing, and under the
auspices of the UNFPA and the coercive State Family Planning
Council, were told, ``If you want to have economic prosperity,
the means to that end is to limit the number of children.''
Paul Kagame from Rwanda came back, and he is talking now
about a three child per couple policy, and you only get there
through coercion. Women and families will always want to have
children, and the government then steps in and says, ``You
can't have that child.''
Mr. Berman said earlier that there is no consensus for what
China is doing. I would agree, but that doesn't apply to the
U.N. Population Fund. They like the program in China. They say
it repeatedly, publicly. They tell me that. So after a while--
they train family planning cadres. So their consensus is to
support, enable, aid and abet this horrific crime against
women.
And again, for an NGO or some group that we don't support,
we provide that money to another group, like in the DR Congo
where other organizations are there. And as I would also say,
with fistula, I worked very hard to build capacity within USAID
so we have complete transparency, accountability, so those
monies are going where we can say, ``How much did we spend?
What did we do to try and mitigate the misery and pain suffered
by fistula victims?''
We have no such accountability whatsoever with UNFPA. They
take our money, and then slam the door in our face. That is no
way to run an NGO, a multilateral organization, or a U.N.
organization.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Hearing
no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on the
Payne amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Payne. Recorded vote.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne requests a recorded vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe votes no.
Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Berman.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Burton. Have I been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton, you are not recorded.
Mr. Burton. I vote no.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 14 ayes
and 23 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to. We have a Cicilline amendment, and a possible
two amendments from Mr. Keating. Mr. Cicilline, would you like
to----
Mr. Cicilline. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I actually
have two amendments at the desk. I would like to begin with
Amendment 649, which is co-sponsored by Congresswoman Allison
Schwartz.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the Cicilline-
Schwartz amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr.
Cicilline of Rhode Island and Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania.
In section 1 insert ``and except as provided in section
2,'' before ``the Secretary of State''. Add at the end of the
following: Section 2----
[The amendment offered by Mr. Cicilline and Ms. Schwartz
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. The Chair reserves a
point of order, and in the interests of time I would like to
recognize the author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment,
while the amendment copies are being given out. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am strongly
opposed to this underlying bill, but hope that passage of this
amendment will mitigate the detrimental impact of this
legislation on women's reproductive health all around the
globe.
UNFPA is the organization that provided safe delivery kits
to women in the days after the 2004 tsunami in Asia, so that
thousands of women could give birth safely in the aftermath of
this disaster. UNFPA leads efforts to eliminate obstetric
fistula, distribute effective contraceptives, prevent HIV and
AIDS, and deliver healthy newborns. United States funds are
essential to the continued provision of these types of
services.
In addition, some of the benefits of U.S. international
family planning assistance include 37.4 million women and
couples receiving contraceptive services, 11.7 million
unintended pregnancies are prevented. There are 5.1 million
fewer abortions, and 32,000 maternal deaths averted. If the
United States stops funding these crucial life-saving
initiatives, we can expect more unintended pregnancies, more
abortions, and more maternal deaths.
For these reasons, I am offering an amendment that would
allow the U.S. to continue to contribute to UNFPA's work in
post-conflict and disaster situations by providing and
distributing equipment, medicine, supplies, and expertise,
including safe delivery kits and hygiene kits to ensure safe
childbirth and emergency obstetric care.
UNFPA provides safe delivery and hygiene kits to ensure
safe childbirth and emergency care to those most vulnerable to
complications of pregnancy and childbirth which are a leading
cause of disease and death among refugee women of childbearing
age.
UNFPA responds to emergencies in a broad range of
situations and settings. The conditions may be hostile or
hospitable, politically charged or on the path to peace. But
they are never easy. In the aftermath of the earthquake in
Haiti in January 2010, the needs of 63,000 pregnant women were
met through dissemination of safe delivery kits that were
provided with UNFPA's support.
After unrest in East Timor damaged or destroyed almost
every medical facility, UNFPA worked with NGOs to distribute
equipment for clinics and basic supplies, such as soap, plastic
sheeting, and even a razor blade for cutting the umbilical cord
of a newborn.
Whether the emergency is due to violence, as in Timor, or
earthquakes, as in Haiti, or a hurricane, as in Guatemala,
UNFPA stands ready to assist pregnant women in this time of
compounded vulnerability, and I strongly urge my colleagues to
support this amendment and to oppose the underlying bill. But
this amendment will ensure that in those circumstances,
emergencies, that the UNFPA can continue to carry out
activities that provide and distribute medicine, supplies,
expertise, equipment--that will include safe delivery kits and
hygiene kits--to ensure safe childbirth and emergency obstetric
care.
And I hope that everyone can support this amendment. This
is an opportunity to be certain that, in those instances where
we have an opportunity to really help in the safe birth of a
child, that the UNFPA will continue to be able to devote
resources to those activities. And with that, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman is recognized.
Mr. Ackerman. Yes, I have a question for the author of the
amendment, Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Yes.
Mr. Ackerman. Does your amendment promote abortion?
Mr. Cicilline. Absolutely not. In fact, it specifically
refers to ensuring the safe childbirth and emergency obstetric
care, so it is----
Mr. Ackerman. Does it pay for abortions?
Mr. Cicilline. It does not.
Mr. Ackerman. Does it encourage abortions?
Mr. Cicilline. It does not.
Mr. Ackerman. Does it help provide for safe deliveries and
live births?
Mr. Cicilline. Yes.
Mr. Ackerman. So this is a pro-life amendment?
Mr. Cicilline. It is absolutely a pro-child amendment.
Mr. Ackerman. Does anybody think that this is anything--
this specific amendment is anything but a pro-child, pro-child-
being-born-live-and-safely amendment? If not, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Hearing--yes, Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Madam Chairman, again I rise in support of the
amendment. The only thing specific that I have heard regarding
UNFPA and support for Chinese coercive birth control, forced
abortion, one-child policies is a statement from a UNFPA
employee in 1999. That employee was let go.
The current executive director and the past three executive
directors have come out publicly and forcefully against the
practices in China for all kinds of reasons, including the fact
that this policy--these policies are used to indicate sex
preference in terms of who is going to be born or not.
Again, the horrible consequences of a horrible policy. It
sounds to me like a gross distortion to make the contention
that somehow, because they are operating in China, they are
complicit in the practices that we, I think by strong
consensus, share here. If--the logical extension of what you
are suggesting with this amendment is, ``Let us repeal MFN
status for China. Let us go to the leadership of the Republican
Party to schedule the markup of a vote on a bill to deal with
Chinese manipulation of currency fluctuations. Let us stop
export subsidies to China. Let us''--if the notion that,
because we do things in the normal way with this country, even
though they have these policies is the logic here, you have got
a lot more to do than cut off the funding of UNFPA.
Mr. Deutch. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Berman. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Deutch. Since the ranking member first asked the
question earlier in this hearing, or earlier in this markup, we
have also heard--and I am not sure the ranking member was here
for all of these statements--we have heard that the UNFPA
supports the one-child policy, that it co-manages the one-child
policy, that it says the one-child policy should be emulated.
We have heard that it repeatedly speaks in favor of the
one-child policy. And I would join with the ranking member for
some support that actually is consistent with these statements,
and is inconsistent with the State Department's own conclusion
that the UNFPA never supported the policy of coercive abortion
or involuntary sterilization. And I yield back to the ranking
member.
Mr. Berman. I yield back to you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Just to remind members, the finding by the U.S.
Department of State in 2008, after an extensive review--and I
would invite members to avail themselves of reading that--said
that ``all,'' repeat, ``all UNFPA programming incorporates and
defers to Chinese law and regulation.''
Mr. Berman. What does that mean?
Mr. Smith. In this, if you would take the time--with
respect to my friend--and read it, the regulations are all laid
out--not all of them, but many of them--the Federal
regulations, and some of the----
Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith. In a minute. And some of the county regulations
make it very clear that one-child is the norm. There are very,
very few exceptions. And UNFPA, in order to operate, to train
family planning cadres, for example, is there any evidence that
they have said coercion has no place? Marie Stopes
International actually has the health program for the UNFPA.
Mr. Berman. Where are you----
Mr. Smith. Our State Department asked repeatedly, ``Exactly
what are they doing?''
And they said, UNFPA, ``We won't tell you.''
When we asked for the family planning programs--we trained
tens of thousands of cadres on how to implement this policy.
When that was done, we said, ``Where are the training manuals?
What did they do?''
They said, ``Call Beijing and get it from them.'' Not UNFPA
Beijing, but the State Family Planning. And that never was
forthcoming. So that is the problem. No transparency. They have
aided and abetted this. They are----
Mr. Berman. How have they aided and abetted it?
Mr. Smith. By supporting it. They are on the ground,
supporting----
Mr. Berman. Where? Why do you say that? Give me the facts?
Mr. Smith. Well, the facts are--I have said it several
times.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If you could go through the Chair?
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I have said it several times.
Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Smith. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Deutch. And I don't think that this is repetitive. It
is one thing to suggest that the abhorrent China one-child
policy is in place in a country where the UNFPA offers services
to help maternal health. It is----
Mr. Smith. Reclaiming my time. They can't operate outside
of the regulations of the government.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is Mr. Smith's time.
Mr. Smith. Their laws. They are in tune with them, in sync
with those regulations. That makes them a part of it. We have
asked them repeatedly, ``Leave China.''
Mr. Deutch. Would the----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No. Mr. Smith will be glad to yield
to you, if he so chooses.
Mr. Deutch. If I could----
Mr. Smith. I yield.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you. There is a difference between that
argument and stating that the UNFPA co-manages the one-child
policy, says repeatedly around the world that the one-child
policy should be emulated. There is simply no evidence for
that.
Mr. Smith. UNFPA executive directors have gotten awards.
They have said it is a totally voluntary program. I mean, that
is denial of----
Mr. Marino. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. Marino. According to Secretary of State Colin Powell,
2008 report, UNFPA supplied cars and computers to China to
carry out their population control policies. Look it up. I'll
give you the cite.
Mr. Deutch. Will----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Deutch, no. Mr. Smith has the
time.
Mr. Smith. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time. We are getting----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yielded back the
balance of his time. Do any other members seek recognition to
speak on the first Cicilline amendment?
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schmidt is--oh, someone over
here?
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, Mr. Connolly is recognized, and
then Ms. Schmidt.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. First, I would yield to Mr.
Ackerman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. I have a question of our colleague, Mr.
Smith. Does the U.N. abide by the laws in every member country?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Ackerman, you are not allowed to
ask Mr. Smith. Mr. Connolly may give time to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Ackerman. It is my----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. It is Mr. Connolly's time.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Connolly, may I ask Mr. Smith a question?
Mr. Connolly. Certainly, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Smith, isn't it the rules of the U.N. to
abide by every country's laws?
Mr. Connolly. I would yield to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. My hope would be that any U.N. personnel, any
member agency, voluntary agency--UNFPA, for example--if there
is a country that is practicing torture, for example, the U.N.
police, peacekeepers, should in no way be complicit in that.
That is the issue here. And if a country were to say----
Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Yes, Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Could I ask Mr. Smith if we should boycott
Google because they have to obey the laws in China?
Mr. Connolly. I would yield to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I am glad you brought that up, because I am the
one who asked Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Cisco here to
testify, and introduced legislation to hold them to account,
because they had no transparency either in their enabling of
censorship in the People's Republic of China.
Mr. Ackerman. So we should not be supporting Google?
Mr. Smith. Wait a minute. Let me finish.
Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Smith. We are talking about the massive abuse of
women----
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, as it is my time----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Connolly has the time.
Mr. Connolly. It is my time. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairman. I would ask the ranking member--I hear Mr. Smith and
Mr. Marino quoting from a 2008 Bush administration report. I
would ask the ranking member, is it not the case that there was
a 2009 report that, in fact, found there was no violation of
Kemp-Kasten?
Mr. Berman. That is, in fact, correct.
Mr. Connolly. So it is convenient to cite a 2008 report,
but not convenient to cite a 2009 report. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Berman. I would.
Mr. Smith. I would love to see that report, because again--
--
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excuse me. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Smith [continuing]. The President of the United States
said 3 days----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Excuse me. So Mr. Berman, you have
answered the question to Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly, would you
like to yield to Mr. Smith?
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, that was the point I was
going to make. We are being awfully selective in the reporting
we want to cite. And I think the point has been made by Mr.
Ackerman and Mr. Berman, and others, that essentially this is
nothing but insinuation.
The fact that UNFPA is in China, the fact that China has a
policy in place we don't like--correctly so--makes UNFPA
guilty, even though there are other U.N. agencies, I might add,
in China, and at least I give Mr. Smith credit, he is being
consistent. Based on his logic, and that of the author of the
underlying legislation, this committee ought to be considering
legislation to force U.S. companies to disinvest in China,
because all money is fungible, and apparently guilt by
association is the order of the day. And that is what this
legislation represents.
With that, I would--do my colleagues seek?
Mr. Ackerman. I am not sure----
Mr. Connolly. I will yield to Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. I just want to say, I am not sure who was
Edgar Bergen and who was Charlie McCarthy, but I just wanted to
thank you for all that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield
back his time?
Mr. Connolly. I do, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Do any----
Mr. Smith. Madam Chairman?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Connolly----
Mr. Smith. Can I just say, Madam Chair, that it is
absolutely----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [continuing]. Yields back, and Mr.
Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. It is absolutely consistent to condition funding
for----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Smith. I do
apologize. I had said that I was going to recognize Ms. Schmidt
first, and Ms. Schmidt is recognized at this time for 5
minutes.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I apologize.
Ms. Schmidt. And I really appreciate all the dialogue that
is going on with this issue. There, I think, is an overriding
concern here, and that is, ``How do we best spend the hard-
working American taxpayer dollars in this country and abroad?''
There was a report in July 2011 on Fox News regarding unspent
money in various U.N. agencies. Over $12.2 billion in unspent
money. One of those agencies was this one, with $500 million in
unspent money, which is about what their annual budget is.
Now, no matter where you are on this issue, apparently they
have got the money to run themselves for another year without
our help. There are also other member organizations that can
pick up the slack. My concern is, how do we help our hard-
working taxpayer Americans understand that we are being prudent
and wise with their money? This is their money. This is not our
money.
And if you see an agency that is flush with cash, maybe you
just don't give that agency money this year. You know, the
Super Committee is charged with doing massive cuts, and if they
don't do their job, we might see massive cuts for men and women
on the battlefield, and our men and women that are in nursing
homes. The elderly, the Medicare population.
Nobody wants to see either, so we have to find dollars. And
$500 million is a lot of money, at least where I come from,
where I grew up. And I think that is a lot of money to the
American public as well. And so, when we are looking at, how do
we fund the agencies in the U.N.?, maybe we pick agencies that
actually need the money, that don't have money in the cash
reserves.
That is where I am coming from, Madam Chair, on this. I
want to make sure that our hard-working Americans are having
the dollars that they send to the Federal Government being
spent prudently, and wisely, and efficiently, and not going to
agencies that already have the cash to operate. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Ms. Schmidt. And
hearing no further requests for recognition, the question
occurs on the Cicilline-Schwartz amendment. All those in favor,
say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those say no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Cicilline. Roll call.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline requests a roll call
vote, and the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson votes no.
Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes aye.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? The
clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 13 ayes
and 22 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to. Mr. Cicilline is recognized to offer his
second amendment.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chair. My second amendment
is Amendment 650.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr.
Cicilline of Rhode Island. In section 1, insert ``and except as
provided in section 2,'' before ``the Secretary of State''.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order
and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment while the copies are given out. Mr. Cicilline?
[The amendment offered by Mr. Cicilline follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My amendment
would allow the United States to continue supporting UNFPA in
their critical efforts to end the practice of female genital
cutting, and I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague,
Congressman Deutch, for his eloquent words earlier on this
important issue.
Every year, approximately 3 million women and girls in
Africa alone face the prospect of female genital mutilation,
while 100-140 million worldwide have already undergone this
hideous practice. UNFPA and UNICEF are working together and
making real progress to end this horrific practice. Three years
ago, through a joint program, more than 6,000 communities in
Ethiopia, Egypt, Kenya, Senegal, Burkina Faso, the Gambia,
Guinea, and Somalia have already abandoned this practice.
Success has come from UNFPA and UNICEF's work in educating
communities and changing social norms and cultural practices,
leading women and men in communities to unite to protect the
rights and health of girls. My amendment would allow UNFPA and
UNICEF to continue their important and often life-saving work
in combating female genital mutilation. I strongly urge my
colleagues to support my amendment, and to, again, oppose the
underlying bill.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Do any
members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Seeing no recognition request,
hearing no further requests for recognition, the Chair
withdraws her reservation and the question occurs on the
Cicilline amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Cicilline. Roll call.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline requests a roll call
vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 13 ayes
and 21 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to. Who has amendments at the desk? Mr. Keating
is recognized. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Keating.
In section 1, insert ``and except as provided in section 2''
before----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order,
and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Keating follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment will
allow the United States to continue working with the United
Nations Population Fund to end the practice of early and forced
marriages worldwide. If we agree on one thing, let it be this:
That child marriages only contribute to the devastating cycle
of poverty, keeping young girls and women from receiving the
proper education, and harming them both physically and
mentally.
These young women then have young children of their own,
and they are brought into another dangerous environment
themselves. It is estimated that at the decade ending in 2014,
more than 100 million girls in the developing world will be
married before the age of 18. That means 10 million children
each year are jeopardizing their future, their health, and
their well-being.
The majority of child brides are exposed to frequent sexual
relations, leading to repeated pregnancies and childbirth
before they are really ready, physically or mentally, for this.
And pregnancy-related deaths are also among the leading causes
of mortality in 15- to 19-year-old girls, and those aged under
15 are five times--five times--more likely to die than those
averaged over 20. Infant mortalities are also twice as high in
babies born to young mothers.
Respectfully, I urge you to support this amendment. It is
one area that we have cut out of this that I think should have
universal agreement.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Sir, the Chair withdraws her
reservation of a point of order. Are there any requests for
recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Seeing no requests for recognition,
the question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say
aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All those opposed say no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Keating. Madam Chair, I would request a roll call.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating requests a roll call
vote, and the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Paul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? The
clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 14 ayes
and----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Sorry. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote now.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 15 ayes
and 20 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to this bill?
Mr. Murphy is recognized.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have an
amendment at the desk.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Murphy
of Connecticut. In section 1, insert ``and except as provided
in section 2'' before----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order,
and recognizes the author, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes to explain
the amendment.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Murphy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This amendment
would allow for UNFPA to carry out activities dedicated to
family-centered family planning throughout the world. And I
think it underscores the surrealness of some of the debate that
we have been having here today. There is not a single person on
this panel that doesn't abhor and oppose the forced abortion
policies that have been outlined over, and over, and over again
over the course of this debate. What we are talking about is
the best way for the United States to intervene and stop those
policies.
Now, I will certainly sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge if
they believe that, by withdrawing funds from UNFPA, that China
is all of a sudden going to stop this policy. The question is,
what can we do to build a social resistance movement within
China toward responsible family planning?
And so this amendment is pretty simple. It would allow
UNFPA to conduct family-centered family planning as part of
their activities. The fact is, is that this country has a long
history of combating irresponsible and reprehensible policies
around the globe by funding responsible and humane policies, to
give people in those countries a vision as to what life would
be like if they threw off the yoke of that inhumanity.
Now, we have heard rumor and innuendo about what UNFPA
does, and little to no evidence--certainly within the most
recent report from the Department of State--that they are
actually funding and supporting these activities on the ground
in China. And so I would put forward this amendment, frankly,
as a way to get at the problem that I think we all agree on.
I would also note that we have spent a lot of time talking
about China here today, and there was the ability for the
majority to offer an amendment here that was specific to China.
But they didn't. They put forward an amendment that bans UNFPA
from operating with American funds anywhere in the globe.
And it strikes me, frankly, that this amendment is part of
an assault that we have seen in this Congress on family
planning and contraception, both abroad and in the United
States. And because there was a much more targeted response
that could have been offered here, it makes more sense to me
that the amendments that we are looking at fits within this
much broader attempt to defund contraception and birth control
services, whether here in this country or across the globe.
And I have heard several of the proponents of this
legislation sort of champion the fact that it came out of this
YouCut proposal, it came out of this YouCut movement. And it, I
think, saddens me to know that we have now sort of devolved
into a government that legislates by Internet voting.
It is bad enough that the media covers this place like a
soap opera or a reality TV show. We now are proud of the fact
that we are having proposals before this committee and this
Congress that come from Internet votes. And I think what
happens is that you get extreme proposals like this that could
have been much more targeted.
We could have been having a conversation about how we
specifically take on the issue of forced abortion in China, and
instead we are denying funding to family planning services
across the world, family planning services that have, over
time, linked 56 million women across the world with access,
that have driven down the rate of unintended pregnancies by the
millions, that have saved thousands upon thousands of women's
lives from the consequences of unintended pregnancies that go
wrong in the delivery room.
And so I would offer this amendment, I think, as a way to
properly fund the kind of responsible family planning that
ultimately convinces people in countries like China that they
should no longer accept the type of practices that we all
abhor. And I think it is probably a good idea for all of us to
step back and wonder whether we should be crowing about the
fact that an Internet vote leads us to this debate today, or
whether we should be having a little bit more thoughtful
discussion with our constituents and with our colleagues about
how we go about foreign aid.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. And seeing no
further requests for recognition, the Chair withdraws her
reservation and the question occurs on the Murphy amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Murphy. I request a roll call vote.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Murphy requests a roll call
vote, and the clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 14 ayes
and 22 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to. And for what I think is the last amendment,
Mr. Murphy is recognized. I mean Mr. Keating. So sorry, sir.
Mr. Keating. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating has an amendment at the
desk. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Keating
and Mr. Cicilline. A bill to prohibit funding to the United
Nations Population Fund. Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, section 1. Prohibition on funding to United Nations
Population Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which would support
coercive----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The Chair reserves a point of order,
and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the
amendment.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Keating and Mr. Cicilline
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Madam Chair. This really dovetails
into the comments that my colleague who just preceded me talked
about. One of the things that I had considered as a final
amendment was not allowing funds at all to a country that had a
policy of coercive abortion, and a policy like China's one-
child policy. I was concerned, however, Madam Chair, that there
might be a point of order against that.
And to try and be on point, and to have this survive a
point of order, and make clear one thing--and that is this:
That there have been a lot of arguments that have been made
through the discussion of this, that the reason people opposed
it was because of China's one-child policy, its coercive
abortion policy.
Albeit, there have been other arguments that have been made
in terms of financing and the use of funds, generally speaking
whether or not we can afford that, from my standpoint I think
that these are really cost-saving measures that are going to
save our country in other respects so many times over that it
is a good investment.
However, I want to use--I put this amendment in to just
clarify the fact that--and make, as part of this legislation,
something that is there with the reauthorization of Kemp-Kasten
that we do, and just make sure that we are clear, those of us
that want to be, like myself, that we do not want any of the
UNFPA funds used for coercive abortion and China's one-child
policy.
So that is the intent of it. The intent of it is one of
clarification, for those of us that want to be clear on
something that, perhaps, through the course of the discussion
today, wasn't clear. So with that, I hope that this amendment
is adopted. I do think that it serves as a very strong message
from this committee. I think, for those of us that believe that
the UNFPA funding serves some purpose, it also clarifies the
fact that many of us want to make sure that those funds are not
used that way.
And I think this complements Kemp-Kasten in that respect,
and for that matter I hope and urge all the members of the
committee who have spoken so strongly on this issue to work
together and find an amendment we can all agree on. Thank you,
Madam Chair. I yield my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. The gentleman
yields back. Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. I would just say that the first part of Ms.
Ellmers' proposed bill is, ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of law.'' We know that Kemp-Kasten has not--or we
believe it has not been faithfully adhered to. The President of
the United States, on January 23rd, 2009, a couple of days
after he took office: ``I look forward to restoring U.S.
financial support to the U.N. Population Fund.''
There had been no analysis done by the State Department.
There had been no due diligence done. This would shift it back
to the administration to suggest that they are going to take
another look at it. They can do that right now. It is because
we are frustrated by the lack of application of Kemp-Kasten in
a faithful way that Ms. Ellmers is offering this very, very
important human rights bill.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And the gentleman yields back.
Hearing--oh, Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am not sure I
understood the argument that was just advanced. If, in fact,
the concern is that resources would be devoted to supporting
coercive abortion or supporting China's one-child policy, Mr.
Keating's amendment makes it very clear that that cannot happen
in this provision of the bill.
And whether Kemp-Kasten clearly already does that, this
reinforces that. And I think it would go a long way toward
settling, once and for all, so that we won't have to spend lots
of time on this question, because it would be clearly stated in
the bill. But I would also like to ask if a member of the
committee knows the answer to this: I have been advised that
not a single penny of U.S. taxpayer money is spent in China by
UNFPA. Not one penny.
If that is true----
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If the gentleman would like Mr.
Smith to respond to that?
Mr. Cicilline. Yes, I would certainly yield to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. First, on the latter point, money is absolutely
fungible. And the money that we contribute--it all really comes
down to, I say to my good friend, how barbaric do you regard
forced abortion to be.
Mr. Cicilline. I am reclaiming----
Mr. Smith. This organization is on the ground and we are--
--
Mr. Cicilline. I am reclaiming my time.
Mr. Smith. No, I----
Mr. Cicilline. I am reclaiming. I think there is no
question it is barbaric. There is no disagreement about that.
But if, in fact----
Mr. Smith. And we are doing this with other programs.
Mr. Cicilline. I've reclaimed my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cicilline has the time.
Mr. Cicilline. If, in fact--no, and I appreciate the
gentleman's passion on this, because I think we all have the
same view: Of course it is barbaric. But if, in fact, it is
true, and as it seems to be confirmed by your response to my
question, that not a single penny of U.S. taxpayer money is
spent in China by UNFPA, that is an important fact.
And so I think it confirms that Kemp-Kasten is being
applied. It will make the Keating amendment just a
reinforcement of that. But in fact, taxpayer money is not
currently being spent by this agency, U.S. taxpayer money, in
China. Not a single penny. That is an important fact for the
committee to know.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Smith wants to know if you would
yield.
Mr. Smith. Let me say to my colleague that, again, this is
grant money. There is no treaty obligation here. This is grant
money. Who we donate to does matter. If the organization has a
program that supports coercive population control, refuses any
kind of transparency, I think we have a reason to say, ``We
will put the money somewhere else.''
Let me also point out to my friend and colleague that, in
the bill we just passed, the underlying law, the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, makes it very clear that the Department
will terminate any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement if
the grantee or subgrantee engages in any severe form of human
trafficking. ``Severe form'' is one instance. Here we are
talking about massive imposition of human rights abuse upon
women.
Mr. Cicilline. No, I agree. And reclaiming my time, it
would seem to me that that would argue in favor of the
amendment. And the key word you just said is, ``If there is an
agency that does that.'' I think we have seen emphatically that
they do not support this policy, that they do not support--in
fact, they support voluntary decision-making in health care.
So I agree with you. If that were the case, that would
warrant looking at their funding. But that is not the fact,
that we have heard repeatedly throughout this hearing and from
the supporting materials we got prior to this hearing. So I
don't know if he wants to----
Mr. Smith. Will you yield again, very briefly?
Mr. Cicilline. I yield.
Mr. Smith. Two weeks ago I held a hearing on the massive
crime against women and children on the 32nd anniversary--I
hate the word anniversary, but remembering that that is, almost
to the day, when that program was initiated, with UNFPA having
a hand-and-glove relationship since 1979 with the hardliners in
Beijing.
With all due respect, not one Democratic Member showed up.
And I hoped desperately for Members to be there, to hear the
testimony from Chai Ling, two other women who were forcibly
aborted. Because it is not until you really realize the
desperation that these women have suffered, going through that
forced abortion, the fact that in one case, the woman talked
about how they held her husband. There is no doubt that they
hold other family members, they being the State Family Planning
Cadres, until the woman submits to a voluntary abortion.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Mr. Cicilline's time has
expired. Hearing no further requests for recognition--oh, yes.
Sorry. You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Carnahan
Mr. Carnahan. I will not take 5 minutes, but I have been
sitting here throughout this debate. And maybe this amendment
should have been the first amendment that was brought up today.
Because I don't think there is a single member on this
committee--with respect to Mr. Smith and others--that supports
any kind of coercive abortion policy. Not one member on this
committee, I would venture to say.
And if that is the case, then we should all support this
amendment. This is clear, no matter what you think is going on,
whether you think this is already in current law or not, or
needs clarification, this seems very clear, that funds would
not go to this. I think we all should be able to agree on that.
Let us do that, instead of sending a mixed message about what
we are doing with these funds.
This amendment, I think, helps clear that up. And I would
hope we can support this amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Before you yield back, I think Mr.
Burton wanted to see if you would yield, instead of taking his
own time. Mr. Burton?
Mr. Carnahan. I would yield to my friend from Indiana, yes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Dealing with the definition of
support by the administration. Mr. Burton, he is yielding.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Chairman. By allowing the
administration to define support, this would be a reversion to
the status quo. And the other side is making our point: The
administration currently claims that UNFPA funding does not
support China's coercive policy. There is obviously, obviously
disagreement.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Burton yields back. And do you
yield back your time?
Mr. Carnahan. I happily yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, sir. And Mr.
Marino is recognized.
Mr. Marino. One minute. My colleague, on the other side at
the end, we passionately argue. It is in our heritage. But I do
want to clarify one statement. There is a report, according to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he was Secretary of
State. It stated that the UNFPA contributed vehicles and
computers to the Chinese to carry out their population control
policies.
Now, I was not being selective in reports, as it was
stated. I was only answering a question that has been
repeatedly asked: ``Give us some information, or a fact.'' And
I have to believe Colin Powell that funds have been used by the
Chinese to carry that out.
Granted, it was when the Secretary of State was in office,
and there has been a subsequent report. So I just wanted to
make that clear. According to Colin Powell, expenditures were
made.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no
further requests for recognition, the Chair withdraws her
reservation and the question occurs on the amendment. All those
in favor, say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Keating. Madam Chair, I definitely ask for a recorded
vote on this.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Keating asks for a recorded
vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Ms. Schwartz.
Ms. Schwartz. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes----
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll [continuing]. Aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk is good. She edits your
votes. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 16 ayes
and 22 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to. And like a typical politician, I fibbed. I
said it was the last amendment, but Mr. Meeks has the last
amendment, I am sure. Mr. Meeks is recognized, and the clerk
will report the amendment.
Ms. Carroll. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Meeks
and Ms. Wilson. In section 1, insert ``and except as provided
in section 2'' before ``the Secretary of State.'' Add at the
end of the following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not
apply in the case of contributions to UNFPA to carry out
activities in Haiti.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Wilson of
Florida follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. And Mr. Meeks is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you to the
ranking member, Mr. Berman. Now, this basically is a simple
amendment that we have before us today, and it states that 2059
would not apply to activities in Haiti. Now, I, overall--this
bill, I have problems with it, period. But when you look at
what is taking place in Haiti, and to say that UNFPA should not
provide the vital services that it is currently providing in
Haiti--it provides critical health services to both mothers and
children, especially in nations that are impoverished.
To me, it becomes a matter of--we really need to examine
our own consciences if we talk about cutting these tremendous
services, these much-needed services, to a country like Haiti.
Why are we going to hinder the kinds of aid that they need? Why
would we have a problem with trying to help mothers, or to
ensure that mothers are able to celebrate life with her child?
What this bill is doing, what this bill talks about, it
talks about because, as we sit here--this amendment--as we sit
here, comfortably, there is an entire nation that is in ruins.
There is an entire nation attempting to rebuild, and there is
an entire nation that we have committed to assisting.
So why are we undercutting the commitment to Haiti now? One
in every 47 pregnancies in Haiti turns fatal during delivery.
One in every 47 pregnancies in Haiti turns fatal during
delivery. Why would we ever dream of cutting funding to a
program that recruits senior midwives to dedicate a year in
Haiti, to address the shortage of experienced maternity
clinics? Why would we ever consider cutting funding to a
program that provides blood transfusions to a nation such as
this?
This seems to me the very essence of what we want to do.
And if we were honest with ourselves with this piece of
legislation, we would target cutting funds to those areas of
the UNFPA considered to be offensive, not just get rid of the
whole program. A wholesale cutting of funding to an entire
program is not a path forward, especially if I have not heard
any alternatives proposed.
So what it will do is, if we eliminate this funding, it is
like amputating an arm to deal with an elbow scrape. And no one
here would recommend that. And therefore, that is why I have
got a problem with recommending passing this bill. Now, I
understand the spirit in which things are done, but I would ask
all my colleagues to seriously consider their votes in its
entirety on this bill, and especially also their vote on this
amendment, which I think is an amendment that is good, that is
still tacked onto a bill that I have a problem with.
But in the end, I ask people to please, remember Haiti.
Please think about how all of us felt when that devastating
earthquake took place. We should not--and we made a commitment
that it shouldn't have been just a 2-week effort to help those
individuals in Haiti. It should have been a continuing
struggle, a continuing fight and commitment on our part.
Eliminating all funding to Haiti will show that we are going
back on our word then, and turning our back on the neediest of
the needy.
And we talk about life, but this helps those women who are
pregnant bring that life forward without that child dying in
birth. And so, Madam Chair, I ask that we vote aye on this
amendment. And I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, sir. Seeing and
hearing no further requests for time, the question occurs on
the Meeks amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
[Noes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Meeks. Recorded vote.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Meeks would like a recorded
vote, and the clerk will call the roll, please.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes no.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes no.
Mr. Burton.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes no.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes no.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes no.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Paul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes no.
Mr. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes no.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes no.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes no.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes no.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes no.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes no.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes no.
Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes no.
Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes no.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes no.
Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes no.
Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes no.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes aye.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes aye.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes aye.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes aye.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes aye.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes aye.
Mr. Cardoza.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes aye.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Ms. Schwartz.
Ms. Schwartz. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes aye.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes aye.
Ms. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes aye.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Burton. Am I recorded?
Ms. Carroll. You are not recorded, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. I vote no.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 16 ayes
and 22 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The noes have it, and the question
is not agreed to.
Hearing no further amendments, the question occurs on
agreeing to the bill H.R. 2059. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. The chairman votes aye.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Smith votes aye.
Mr. Burton.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly.
Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Manzullo votes aye.
Mr. Royce.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
Mr. Paul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Pence votes aye.
Mr. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mack. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Mack votes aye.
Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye.
Mr. McCaul.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Poe.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Ms. Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schmidt votes aye.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Johnson votes aye.
Mr. Rivera.
Mr. Rivera. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Rivera votes aye.
Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Kelly votes aye.
Mr. Griffin.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Marino votes aye.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Duncan votes aye.
Ms. Buerkle.
Ms. Buerkle. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Buerkle votes aye.
Ms. Ellmers.
Ms. Ellmers. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Ellmers votes aye.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Turner votes aye.
Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Berman votes no.
Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Ackerman votes no.
Mr. Faleomavaega.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sherman votes no.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Engel votes no.
Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Meeks votes no.
Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Sires votes no.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Connolly votes no.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Deutch votes no.
Mr. Cardoza.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Chandler. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Chandler votes no.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Higgins votes no.
Ms. Schwartz.
Ms. Schwartz. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Schwartz votes no.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Murphy votes no.
Ms. Wilson.
[No response.]
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. No.
Ms. Carroll. Ms. Bass votes no.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Keating votes no.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Cicilline votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded?
Mr. Burton. Madam Chair?
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton, you are not recorded.
Mr. Burton. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Yes.
Mr. Burton. Oh, excuse me. Let me correct that, aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Burton off no, on aye.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Royce votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin. Aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Griffin votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. No.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. Payne votes no.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. McCaul.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. I vote aye.
Ms. Carroll. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have all members been recorded? The
clerk will report the vote.
Ms. Carroll. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 23 ayes
and 17 noes.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The ayes have it, and the question
is agreed to. The Chair moves that the bill be reported
favorably to the House. All those in favor say aye.
[Ayes.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. All opposed, no.
[No response.]
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. In the opinion of the Chair, the
ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. I want to thank all
the members and the staff for their work and cooperation that
went into today's markup. Having concluded our business, the
committee stands adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, the committee was adjourned at 1:48 p.m.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
