Accelerating the Increase in the Refundability of the Child Tax Credit - Motion to Proceed

ACCELERATING THE INCREASE IN THE REFUNDABILITY OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT—MOTION TO PROCEED

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered today by Senator BOXER to repeal the global gag rule.

We take up this debate once again during the consideration of the State Department authorization, a bill which governs our country's federally sponsored foreign aid programs. Each year, we have to fight for the adoption of this amendment which would bolster these international assistance efforts, and yet each year we find ourselves here again debating this same issue.

There is no question that U.S. population assistance is of critical importance to our international aid efforts. Population assistance is the primary deliverer of health education, health care, and prenatal care to millions of women in developing countries. But beyond the social and physiological aid that this program brings to these nations, there is a real economic benefit as well. According to USAID, studies in several countries have shown that for every dollar invested in family planning programs, governments save as much as $16 in reduced expenditures in health, education, and social services. This is not only an investment in the health of women, and their children, and their families but for whole nations and their ability to stabilize and grow stronger.

There is also no question that U.S. population assistance efforts in developing countries have been successful, as demonstrated by the fact that the average family size in countries that have received U.S. population assistance has decreased from six children to four. AID assistance has increased the use of contraceptives in developing countries from 10 percent of married couples in the 1970s to 50 to 60 percent today. This not only allows for family planning which helps ensure healthier pregnancies, resulting in healthier babies, but is critical to our efforts to fight infectious diseases like AIDS that are plaguing many Third World countries.

The discussion of contraceptives leads me to a very critical point .    .    . the issue before us today is not abortion, because current law already prohibits the use of any U.S. funds for abortion-related activities. This is a crucial fact that needs to be on record. Under the Helms amendment of 1973, U.S. funds cannot be used for abortion-related activities and have not been permitted for that purpose for 30 years. I support that law as an important guarantee that our international family planning programs stay apart from domestic debates on the issue of abortion.

At the hear of the issue we are debating today is the so called Mexico City policy because it was at the 1984 U.N. Population Conference in Mexico City that the Reagan administration adopted this policy. Under the Mexico City policy, the Reagan administration witheld international family planning funds from all groups that had the slightest involvement in legal abortion-related services even though they were paid for with their own private funds. This was done despite the fact that similar restrictions were not placed on funding programs run by foreign governments that related to legal abortions.
Quite appropriately, this policy is also referred to as the international "gag rule" because it prevents organizations from even providing abortion counseling or referral services.

The need for the passage of this amendment is in part about leadership. The United States has traditionally been the leader in international family planning assistance. This has been the case ever since this issue rose to international prominence with the 1974 U.N. Population Conference in Bucharest. At that time, a great number of the world's developing countries perceived family planning as a Western effort to reduce the power and influence of Third World countries. However, in the years since, the need and importance of family planning has been recognized and embraced by most developing nations.

If, as a country, we believe in volunteerism in family planning—and we do—then we should maintain our leadership.
Because of our leading role in international family planning, we have unrivaled influence in setting standards for family planning programs. A great number of other donors and recipient countries adopt our models in their own efforts.

According to the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, the Mexico City policy penalizes 56 countries whose nongovernmental organizations—NGOs—receive family planning assistance funds from the United States. NGOs are prohibited not only from providing abortion-related services but also counseling and referrals regarding abortions.

That is the policy; let's consider the real effect on people. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, about 4 in every 10 pregnancies worldwide are unplanned, and 40 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Knowing this, the net effect of the Mexico City policy on these 56 nations is to limit or eliminate critical family planning work that has a very real impact on the quality of life. Moreover, the absence of family planning increases the instance of the one thing that the advocates of the Mexico City policy are most opposed to—abortion.

The bottom line is, family planning is about health care. Too often, women in developing nations do not have access to the contraceptive or family planning services they need because contraceptives are expensive, supplies are erratic, services are difficult or impossible to obtain, or the quality of care is poor. In a report by the Population Action Institute it was estimated that about 515,000 women die each year in pregnancy and childbirth, or almost one death every minute, and millions more women become ill or disabled. In addition, an estimated 78,000 women die every year from illegal and unsafe abortion and thousands more are injured. How many women die because the access to these services is limited?

Quite simply, the Mexico City policy is bad public policy. That is why year after year we fight for this amendment and some years we win in committee and other years we don't, yet we still fight this important fight. The Mexico City policy not only limits discussion, counseling, and referrals for abortion, but it also limits the ability of organizations, in at least 59 nations, to carry out needed family planning work.

We must remember that family planning is about—just that—planning one's family. By spacing births at least 2 years apart, family planning can prevent an average of one in four infant deaths in developing countries. Family planning provides access to needed contraceptives and gives women worldwide the ability to properly space out their pregnancies so that they can have healthier babies, which will lead to healthier children and healthier nations.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment before us and ensure that international organizations are no longer forced to limit or eliminate critical family planning work that has a very real impact on the quality of life of women and families worldwide.