Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009

Floor Speech

OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 -- (Senate - March 02, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, tomorrow I will rise to offer a pro-life and pro-child amendment to the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. But more than that, it will be an amendment that is profreedom that follows in the line of reasoning of my friend and my colleague from New Jersey. It is anti-oppression, prowoman and anticoercion.

My amendment tomorrow will restore the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion population control provision that has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter of a century.

Since 1985, the Kemp-Kasten provision has denied Federal funding to organizations or programs that, as determined by the President, support or participate in a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Should my amendment be adopted, then President Obama would be able to make an official determination as to whether organizations engage in such coercive practices.

The Kemp-Kasten amendment has been included in appropriations bills without substantial changes for 23 years, until today. Perhaps at this point it would be helpful to my colleagues if I outlined the differences between the Mexico City policy and the Kemp-Kasten provision.

Already, as one of his very first acts as President, President Obama chose to nullify the so-called Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy said the United States would not federally fund groups that promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning. According to a Gallup poll released last month, overturning this pro-life policy was the least popular of the President's actions in his first week in office. Only 35 percent supported funding groups that promote or provide abortions as a method of family planning, and 58 percent oppose this new Obama administration policy.

I disagreed with President Obama on his Mexico City policy. I think most Americans, frankly, disagree with President Obama on this Mexico City decision. I think most Americans would rather not spend taxpayer dollars on international organizations that promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Having said that, I am not surprised by the President's decision. He ran, frankly, as a pro-abortion candidate. Senator McCain ran as a pro-life candidate. I think the decision in the election came down to other issues. Elections have consequences, but can we not all agree that forced abortion is wrong? Can we not all agree that coerced sterilization is wrong? That is what Kemp-Kasten has stood for for almost a quarter of a century.

Regardless of how Senators come down on the pro-life or pro-choice debate, can we not all at least agree on this one proposition, that the United Nations should not be able to spend American tax dollars on coercion in the name of family planning? That is the issue dealt with in Kemp-Kasten, and that is the only issue addressed in my amendment.

Here is what the bill language currently does. It purports to retain Kemp-Kasten, but then goes on to direct funds to the United Nations Population Fund ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law''--these six words, in effect, nullify the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion provision. It is either contradictory or purposely deceptive that one portion of the omnibus bill purports to retain Kemp-Kasten while another paragraph has the real effect of gutting Kemp-Kasten.

One might inquire: Why does the majority party not trust a President of their own party to make a determination about whether U.N. funds are provided to coercive abortion programs? Surely a majority of this body does not favor funding UNFPA even if the organization is engaging in coercion. Surely we can all agree on that. Perhaps not.

The truth is, the U.N. Population Fund, UNFPA, has actively supported, comanaged, and whitewashed pervasive crimes against women in the guise of family planning. Just last year, the U.S. State Department found, once again, that the UNFPA violated the anticoercion provision of Kemp-Kasten and, accordingly, reprogrammed all funding originally earmarked to the UNFPA to other maternal health care and family planning projects.

The most recent State Department report on UNFPA activities in China shows that UNFPA funds are, indeed, funneled to Chinese agencies that coercively enforce the one-child policy.

What has changed in less than a year? Are we to believe that all these organizations have suddenly shifted their policies? This bill gives UNFPA a 25-percent funding increase and a deadly exception.

What has really changed is that we have a new administration with a pro-abortion agenda. I don't think coerced abortions were what the American people voted for last November. Creating this exception specifically for UNFPA makes a mockery of longstanding U.S. policy to protect human rights abroad. If we cannot stop the abuse in other parts of the globe, at the very least we should not be encouraging abuse with U.S. funds. We should be pressing the UNFPA to conform to human rights standards, instead of trying to change human rights standards to conform to the oppressive Chinese population control program.

By creating a loophole for UNFPA, we regrettably send a message to oppressive governments that coercive abortion is not a serious concern for American citizens. This message could not be further from the truth.

I urge my colleagues tomorrow to support the Wicker amendment and continue our longstanding policy against coercive abortion. Let's continue the time-honored Kemp-Kasten policy.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source