Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009

Floor Speech

OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 -- (Senate - March 05, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. If I may, let me begin the debate. I understand Senator Brownback and others may be coming also. I had, frankly, understood the debate would begin later so I rushed over from a hearing.

The Senator from Vermont has questioned the necessity of this amendment. Actually, I will point out to my colleagues that what the Wicker amendment does is restore the Kemp-Kasten provision that has been a part of the foreign policy of this Nation for almost a quarter century. It has worked well under Republican and Democratic administrations. I submit it would be wrong to change that policy at this point.

What does Kemp-Kasten say? Kemp-Kasten says Federal funds, American taxpayer dollars, should not go to fund coercive abortion practices or involuntary sterilization practices. It prohibits the appropriation of American dollars to organizations involved in such activities. But it has always made provision that the President of the United States has the right to investigate and certify whether these organizations have been engaged in practices involving coercive family planning activities.

Should my amendment pass, President Obama would have the same authority President Reagan, President Bush 1, President Bush 2, and President Clinton had to make this certification. In other words, the Wicker amendment keeps the Federal policy as it has been, and the underlying bill would amount to a dramatic shift in foreign policy.

Why do we need the amendment to begin with? I quote from a letter, dated June 26, 2008, from John D. Negroponte, the Deputy Secretary of State, to Representative ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN on this question, wherein he writes:

As reflected in the law and as a matter of longstanding policy, the United States opposes coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.

Let me interject at this point. Certainly, that should still be the policy of the United States. That should always be the policy of this Federal Government, that we oppose coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.

The letter goes on:

I have determined that by providing financial and technical resources through its sixth cycle China Country Program to the National Population and Family Planning Commission and related entities, UNFPA provides support for and participates in management of the Chinese government's program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. If that is true, this Senate, this Congress has no business taking hard-earned tax dollars from taxpayers and sending them to UNFPA, if it, indeed, is true that they participate in the management of this coercive Chinese program.

If it is not true, the President will be able to make a determination. But if he investigates the question and finds that such coercion is still being practiced in China and if American dollars, through UNFPA, are being used to assist the program, then I would hope he would truthfully make the determination and, once again, it would not be a matter of the U.S. taxpayer funding such awful practices.

Now, let me read, then, from the Analysis of Determination that Kemp-Kasten Amendment Precludes Funding to UNFPA, which was attached to Secretary Negroponte's letter.

The analysis says:

China's birth limitation program retains harshly coercive elements in law and practice, including coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.

That is what this debate is about. Do we want tax dollars of American workers to go for coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization?

The analysis goes on to say:

These measures include the implementation of birth limitation regulations, the provision of obligatory contraception services, and the use of incentives and penalties to induce compliance.

Further quoting:

[I]t is the provinces that establish detailed birth limitation policies by regulation, enforce their compliance and punish noncompliance.

Quoting from the second page of this analysis:

China's birth limitation program relies on harshly coercive measures, such as so-called "social maintenance'' fees ..... the threat of job loss or demotion, loss of access to education--if Chinese citizens do not comply with these harsh measures--extreme social pressure, and economic incentives.

In families that already have two children, one parent is often pressured to undergo sterilization.

On the third page:

Since fiscal year 2002, the Administration has reviewed annually UNFPA's program in China and determined that the U.S. cannot fund UNFPA in light of its support or participation in the management of China's program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Let's be careful. I would say to my colleagues, let's be careful with American tax dollars. Let's keep the provision that allows the President of the United States to make this determination. If there is evidence to prove that American tax dollars would be used by the United Nations to fund these coercive practices, then, for God's sake, let's not allow the U.S. taxpayers to be a party to these abhorrent and coercive practices.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I am prepared to close, and I assume the Senator from Vermont will do so also.

The Senator from Vermont says the money in this bill will go to sanitization, to protect against child marriage, to protect against female genital mutilation, to promote maternal health care. No one objects to that. If the President of the United States, under the Wicker amendment and under the 25-year-old Kemp-Kasten provision, can certify that such organizations do not promote coercion in the name of family planning, then the money will go to these worthy causes. The question is, Why does the Senator from Vermont and the people who agree with him on this issue not trust the President of their own political party to make a determination?

Now, the Senator says that the Kemp-Kasten language is still in the bill. I would submit that, in fact, is not true. The bill purports to retain Kemp-Kasten, but it goes on to say that funds will be directed to the United Nations Population Fund ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' I say to my friend from Vermont, that is the change in the law that guts Kemp-Kasten, that changes 23 years to 25 years of Federal policy and allows U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent for coercive sterilization, for forced abortion, and that is the issue. Yes, Kemp-Kasten is purported to be in the bill, and then it is gutted in the next paragraph.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source