The Department Of State, Foreign Operations And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 21, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pitts amendment.
As an original cosponsor of the President's $15 billion, 5-year law to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa, I rise in strong opposition to the language in the bill that undermines and dismi sses the successful HIV/AIDS prevention spending requirement in the PEPFAR legislation.
Where the epidemic has spread among the general population, the only successful evidence-based approach to HIV/AIDS prevention is that which emphasizes abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in relationships, and, lastly, where necessary, condoms.
The success of the ABC approach depends on the proper balance between these three elements. The spending requirement is necessary to attain that balance.
The v ast majority of PEPFAR's focus countries have generalized epidemics; and those that have emphasized A and B, abstinence and being faithful programming, have experienced significant increases in the number of youth and adults who are either abstaining or being mutually faithful, and, at the same time, they have seen significant drops in those countries, in the percentage of their population infected with HIV/AIDS.
Examples of countries that have aggressively promoted abstinence and fidelity at the nation al level, backed by real resources, and have experienced decreased HIV rates include Uganda, Senegal, Jamaica, Thailand, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Dominican Republic and Kenya.
On the other hand, no country with a generalized epidemic that has relied primarily on condom promotion has reported a decline in HIV rates. Southern Africa is a tragic example of this.
The Washington Post on March 2 pointed out that ``researchers increasingly attribute the resilience of HIV in Botswana, and in Southern Africa genera lly, to the high incidence of multiple sexual relationships ..... [Western AIDS experts] brought not just ideas, but money, and soon billboards in Botswana touted condoms. Schoolchildren sang about them. Cadres of young women demonstrated how to roll them out. The anti-AIDS partnership between the ..... Gates Foundation and drugmaker Merck budgeted $13.5 million for condom promotion, 25 times the amount dedicated to curbing dangerous sexual behavior. But soaring rates of condom use,'' The Washington Post we nt on, ``have not brought down high HIV rates. Instead, they rose together until both were among the highest in Africa.''
As indicated in The Washington Post report, those who are considered AIDS experts in the West, including some of those who directed U.S. prevention funding prior to PEPFAR, imposed their narrow-minded condom promotion mentality on Africa.
The PEPFAR coordinator, on the other hand, Ambassador Mark Dybul, testified last fall that the 33 percent prevention spending requirement ``has helped support PEPFAR's field personnel in appropriately broadening the range of prevention efforts ..... In addition, the directive has helped PEPFAR to align itself with the strategies of the host nations, of which ABC is a key element.''
In a letter to the editor of Lancet, June 2006, the Minister of Health of Namibia noted that PEPFAR support for AB, abstinence and faithful, is needed to ensure the balance of the ABC programs that Namibia seeks. That is because, he goes on to say, other internation al donors support only condoms but not abstinence or being faithful programs.
Finally, let me say that even with the spending requirement, the United States remains by far the largest condom distributor in the world.
If our goal here is to save lives by implementing the strongest evidence-based prevention programs possible, we should be at least maintaining, and I would suggest increasing, the percentage of funding directed to abstinence and to being faithful programs. It works, it has proven that i t works, and I support the Pitts amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the Lowey amendment reiterates the unambiguous intention of the underlying language in the bill that Mr. Stupak and I will seek to strike later on, that, if enacted, provides in-kind U.S. taxpayer assistance to pro-abortion organizations around the world. That's what's happening here, nothing more and nothing less.
Prolife Members, especially some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, know and fully understand that in-kind contributions are of no less value than money. In-kind or cash, it is a distinction without a difference.
The intended recipients of the Lowey amendment are precisely those pro- abortion organizations that have refused to divest themselves of abortion and agree to the Mexico City provisions. The Mexico City policy, separates family planning from abortion. The Mexico City policy helps to ensur e that foreign nongovernment organizations that want U.S. grants, be they in the form of cash or in-kind commodities contraceptives, only engage themselves in family planning, as advertised.
It stands to reason, if we support pro-abortion organizations, unborn children and their mothers, and the laws that today protect them, will be put into jeopardy; and the violence of abortion will increase and not be diminished.
Let me just note that neither the Mexico City policy, nor the amendment that Mr. Stupak and I will offer today, reduces family planning by so much as a penny. It simply strikes the language in the bill that carves out an exception to the Mexico City policy for who? The pro-abortion organizations.
As a matter of fact, since the restoration of the Mexico City policy, several countries, including Ethiopia, DR Congo, Nigeria, Uganda, Haiti, Pakistan, have gotten huge increases in contraceptives and family planning assistance. Ethiopia, for example, went from $4.9 million to $19.5 mill ion in 2007 under the Mexico City policy, almost a 300 percent increase.
Congo went from $1 million to $9 million. Pakistan for 1.4 to 16.5. U.S. funding to Nigeria and Uganda doubled while Haiti tripled. USAID has made it clear that it targets what its analysts say is unmet need. Even Ghana has seen its average annual contraception shipment rise, from $1.5 million in calendar years 1998-2001 to $2.3 million for calendar years 2002-2003.
Under the Mexico City policy, the U.S. has remained the la rgest donor nation by far to international family planning. We just insist and direct that those funds are used in a way and go to the groups that are about family planning and are not double hatted, trying to enable abortionists and abortion lobbyists overseas.
I would point out, as Mrs. Lowey stated earlier when she talked about lobbying, the Mexico City policy, I have a copy for anybody to read, makes it very clear that when it comes to lobbying, we are only talking about lobbying for abortion a s a method for birth control. Exempted explicitly, unlike what she said earlier, are rape, incest and life-of-the-mother provision.
I hope she will correct the record. It is clearly false.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. USAID has done, I think, a remarkable job in focusing on unmet needs, not just in the area of family planning, but child survival, microcredit lending and a whole host of other very important interventions that help poor people.
It's all about prioritization. I showed you earlier one country after another that has had a doubling and a tripling of their money and commodities and contra ceptives since the Mexico City policy was reinstated in 2001. It's all about prioritization.
Let me also say, because Ghana was mentioned earlier today, just because Planned Parenthood of Ghana is so obsessed with abortion promotion that it won't sign the policy, other NGOs and other providers have stepped into the breach and provide family planning and not abortions to the people of Ghana.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source