By NRLC Federal Legislation Office
WASHINGTON (April 14) - - This is a summary of congressional action that has occurred on several major pro-life issues since the update that appeared in the last issue of NRL News ("Pro-Life Issues Brewing in Congress," March 11 edition, page 6).
Foreign Aid for
Pro-Abortion Groups
Led by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), on March
26 pro-life forces narrowly succeeded in winning House approval of a bill
that would place substantial restrictions on the Clinton Administration's
promotion of abortion through the U.S. foreign aid program.
The House approved the conference report (final version) of the State Department
authorization bill (HR 1757). Much of the bill, ordering certain changes
in the structure of the State Depart-ment and placing certain conditions
on U.S. funding of the United Nations, is the handiwork of pro-life Sen.
Jesse Helms (R-NC), who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
NRLC strongly supports the bill because it also includes language, authored
by Rep. Smith, that would prohibit the Clinton Administration from funding
organizations that campaign to repeal the pro-life laws in effect in most
less-developed nations, including most countries in Latin America and Africa.
In addition, the bill would cut off U.S. funding of the United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA) because of that agency's participation in China's population-control
program, which relies heavily on compulsory abortion.
The pro-life language in HR 1757, while vital, is weaker than the original
so-called "Mexico City Policy" that was in effect under Presidents
Reagan and Bush. The Reagan-Bush policy would have been fully restored by
an amendment sponsored by Smith and repeatedly approved by the House since
1995. Under that language, private foreign organizations that perform abortions
(with narrow exceptions), even with non-U.S. funds, would have lost eligibility
for U.S. funds, whether or not they campaigned to change foreign abortion
laws. However, this policy has been opposed by a narrow majority of senators,
and by President Clinton.
The pro-life provision in HR 1757 differs from the earlier policy in that
it allows the President to waive the prohibition on funding groups that
perform abortions
- - but if he does so (as President Clinton certainly would), funding for
the population-control program would automatically be reduced by $29 million.
The bill would not allow a waiver of the prohibition of funding groups that
seek to change foreign abortion laws.
Smith proposed the compromise language last fall, but the White House refused
to accept it. Smith, backed by the House Republican leadership, then vowed
to link the pro-life language with key Administration foreign aid requests,
some of which are contained in HR 1757.
The bill would authorize the Clinton Administration to pay $819 million
which the U.N. considers the U.S. owes in "back dues," a provision
strongly desired by the Administration. However, the White House continues
to assert that President Clinton would veto the bill because of the pro-life
language.
When the bill was originally scheduled for floor action in early March,
pro-life forces anticipated that most House Democrats and a small number
of Republicans would oppose the bill because they opposed the pro-life provision.
Unexpectedly, however, some pro-life Republicans announced their opposition
to the entire bill because they objected to the provisions authorizing certain
funds for the United Nations - - a position urged in letters sent to House
members by Concerned Women for America (CWA).
The House Republican leadership postponed the vote for weeks while Smith
and others, including Rep. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) and Republican Whip Tom DeLay
(Tx.), worked hard to educate other pro-life lawmakers on why the bill deserved
their support. Mike Schwartz, legislative director to Congressman Tom Coburn
(R-Ok.), the co-chairman of the House Family Caucus, wrote an influential
memo arguing that critics of the U.N. should support the bill because of
budget cuts and other new constraints it would place on that organization.
On March 12, NRLC sent House members a letter stating, "U.S.-funded
private organizations, led by the London-based International Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF), are engaged in a systematic assault on the laws that
protect unborn children in many developing nations, including most of the
nations of Latin America and Africa.... Because of the critical importance
of these issues, NRLC intends to 'score' the vote on the conference report
on H.R. 1757 in its compilation of key right-to-life votes for the 105th
Congress."
The bill was also supported by the Christian Coalition and a number of other
pro-life groups.
When the bill was finally brought to the House floor on March 26, the outcome
was still in doubt. But during the floor debate, it became evident that
about two dozen pro-life Democrats were prepared to support the bill. Combined
with the absence of a group of pro-abortion Democrats on a trip to Africa,
this was more than enough to make up for the expected Republican defections,
so the senior Democrat managing the bill, Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-In.), decided
not to request a recorded vote. Thus, the bill passed on a voice vote -
- much to the amazement of observers who were aware of the weeks of intense
lobbying for and against the measure.
Following the House's action, Rep. Smith - - who is the chairman of the
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the House International
Relations Committee, and also co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus -
- commented, "In the give-and-take of the legislative process, Congress
has given plenty. Now we expect the President to do the same. If the President
is truly concerned about his foreign policy priorities, he will sign today's
bill with the compromised language."
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in an interview on March 11, "I
refuse to contemplate that the president would veto legislation to pay the
U.N. debt so taxpayers can pay for lobbying foreign countries on abortion."
The Senate is expected to take up the bill shortly after returning from
Easter recess on April 20. A close vote is expected. (See
Action Request, back cover.)
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Last October, President Clinton vetoed the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act. The president's "veto message" was returned
to the House of Representatives, where it now awaits a "veto override"
vote. A two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate will be required
to override the veto, with the House required to vote first.
Last fall, before the veto, the House approved the bill by 10 votes more
than a two-thirds margin. However, the Senate vote in favor of the ban -
- 64-36 - - was three votes short of the required two-thirds majority. So
far, none of the 36 senators who voted against the bill have announced a
change of heart.
In order to allow as much time as possible for pro-life and pro-family groups
to engage in lobbying campaigns aimed at obtaining the additional three
votes, Republican congressional leaders are expected to delay the veto override
votes until late in the year - - perhaps as late as September. However,
the votes may occur earlier, and on short notice, if pro-life forces believe
that they have won commitments for the votes needed to prevail in the Senate.
Child Custody Protection Act
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold
a public hearing on the Child Custody Protec-tion Act (S. 1645) on April
30. The hearing might be broadcast on the C-SPAN network.
The bill would make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state
lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, if this circumvents a state
law requiring parental or judicial involvement in a minor's abortion decision.
[For details on the bill, see
"NRLC Pushes for Federal Ban on Interstate Circumvention of Parental
Consent Laws," February 11 NRL News, page 1.]
The Judiciary Committee is closely divided on abortion-related issues. No
date has been set for the committee to vote on the bill.
Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mi.), the chief sponsor of the bill, is a member
of the Judiciary Committee.
On April 1, pro-life Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), with 99
co-sponsors, introduced the same bill in the House. The bill, HR 3682, was
referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Congressman Henry
Hyde (R-Il.), and to the Constitution Subcommittee, chaired by Congressman
Charles Canady (R-Fl.). Both Hyde and Canady are co-sponsors of the measure,
as are all of the top Republican leaders in the House. The co-sponsor list
also includes 10 Democrats.
Free Speech about Politicians
On March 30, the House defeated a so-called "campaign reform" bill sponsored by pro-abortion Congressman Bill Thomas (R-Ca.), which was opposed by NRLC. That bill was also opposed by groups such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, because they regarded it as too weak.
Those organizations, and most House Democrats, are continuing to push for a vote on bills that would place far more sweeping restrictions on free speech about politicians, such as the Shays-Meehan bill (HR 3526), which is the House version of the controversial McCain-Feingold bill.
For further information on this subject, see "194 House Members Sign Petition," page 7, and "74 House Members Vote
for Bill," page 9.)
To Assist NRLC's Lobbying Efforts
Please send a copy of any letter received from
a Member of Congress on these or other pro-life issues, or any newspaper
report that discusses a lawmaker's position on such issues, to the NRLC
Federal Legislative Office, 419-Seventh Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington,
D.C. 20004, fax (202) 347-3668, e-mail: Legfederal@aol.com.
For Further Information
For extensive further information on the issues discussed above, and other right-to-life matters under consideration in Congress, visit the NRLC Home Page on the World Wide Web. The address is www.nrlc.org. The NRLC home page contains a powerful search engine that can help you find specific information on the subjects in which you are interested.