U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–662PDF 2012

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL

YEARS 2012 AND 2013 FOR THE TRAFFICKING

VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2000, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES; AND TO PROHIBIT FUNDING

TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2830 and H.R. 2059

OCTOBER 5, 2011

Serial No. 112–118

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP OF 

H.R. 2830, To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for 

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes ......... 3

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2830 offered by the 

Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey ................................................................................... 66

Amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

2830 offered by: .................................................................................................

The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ..................................................................................... 106

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California ............................................................................... 109

The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Connecticut .................................................................. 112

The Honorable Jeff Fortenberry, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Nebraska ............................................................................... 119

H.R. 2059, To prohibit funding to the United Nations Population Fund ........... 125

Amendments to H.R. 2059 offered by: ................................................................

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from 

the Commonwealth of Virginia ................................................................ 142

The Honorable Karen Bass .......................................................................... 147

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and the Honorable William Keating, a 

Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ............................................................................................................ 154

The Honorable Donald M. Payne ................................................................. 157

The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Rhode Island, and the Honorable Allyson Schwartz, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ...... 164

The Honorable David Cicilline ..................................................................... 173

The Honorable William Keating .................................................................. 177

The Honorable Christopher S. Murphy ....................................................... 181

The Honorable William Keating and the Honorable David Cicilline ....... 186

The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New York, and the Honorable Frederica Wilson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ................................. 193

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 202

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 203

(1)

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012 AND 2013 FOR THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION ACT OF 

2000, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND TO 

PROHIBIT FUNDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana RosLehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee will come to order. 

Before we move to today’s business, I would like to take a minute 

to welcome our newest member, Representative Bob Turner, who 

was appointed to the committee just this week. He is a lifelong 

resident of the neighborhoods of New York’s Ninth District that he 

now represents. 

Congressman Turner won the special election in that district just 

over 3 weeks ago. He is known to many for his successful career 

as an executive and an entrepreneur in media and television industries. 

But I suspect that what he is most known for is his role as husband to Peggy for 46 years now. And she is a dedicated foster care 

nurse. He is a father to their five children and a grandfather to 

their 13 grandchildren. 

And we are glad that he has joined us. He is known for his charity work on behalf of adoption services in his area. 

We look forward to his valuable contributions to the important 

foreign policy work of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the 

weeks and the months ahead. 

So please join me in welcoming Congressman Turner with a brief 

round of applause. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you and thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Turner. 

Next time you speak when I yield you the time. [Laughter.] Or 

this thing gets flung over there. 

Mr. Berman, I do not know if you want to make any opening remarks. 

2

Mr. BERMAN. Just join the chairman in welcoming you. And look 

forward to working with you in what I sometime refer to as—it is 

like going to graduate school where you do not have to take any 

tests or get any grades. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Well, thank you. 

Well, today we will have a pop quiz because we are going to proceed on to today’s business. At the outset, without objection, let me 

note that all members may have 5 legislative days to submit remarks on either of today’s bills for the record. 

Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill H.R. 2830, the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011. 

Ms. CARROLL. H.R. 2830, to authorize appropriations for Fiscal 

Years 2012 and 2013 for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection, the bill is considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[H.R. 2830 follows:]

3


70662a-1.eps
4


70662a-2.eps
5


70662a-3.eps
6


70662a-4.eps
7


70662a-5.eps
8


70662a-6.eps
9


70662a-7.eps
10


70662a-8.eps
11


70662a-9.eps
12


70662a-10.eps
13


70662a-11.eps
14


70662a-12.eps
15


70662a-13.eps
16


70662a-14.eps
17


70662a-15.eps
18


70662a-16.eps
19


70662a-17.eps
20


70662a-18.eps
21


70662a-19.eps
22


70662a-20.eps
23


70662a-21.eps
24


70662a-22.eps
25


70662a-23.eps
26


70662a-24.eps
27


70662a-25.eps
28


70662a-26.eps
29


70662a-27.eps
30


70662a-28.eps
31


70662a-29.eps
32


70662a-30.eps
33


70662a-31.eps
34


70662a-32.eps
35


70662a-33.eps
36


70662a-34.eps
37


70662a-35.eps
38


70662a-36.eps
39


70662a-37.eps
40


70662a-38.eps
41


70662a-39.eps
42


70662a-40.eps
43


70662a-41.eps
44


70662a-42.eps
45


70662a-43.eps
46


70662a-44.eps
47


70662a-45.eps
48


70662a-46.eps
49


70662a-47.eps
50


70662a-48.eps
51


70662a-49.eps
52


70662a-50.eps
53


70662a-51.eps
54


70662a-52.eps
55


70662a-53.eps
56


70662a-54.eps
57


70662a-55.eps
58


70662a-56.eps
59


70662a-57.eps
60


70662a-58.eps
61


70662a-59.eps
62


70662a-60.eps
63


70662a-61.eps
64


70662a-62.eps
65

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In addition, without objection, the bipartisan amendment in nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 

Smith, which was previously provided to your offices and which all 

members have before them, is made the pending business of the 

committee, is considered as read, and is open for amendment at 

any point. 

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2830 follows:]

66


70662b-1.eps
67


70662b-2.eps
68


70662b-3.eps
69


70662b-4.eps
70


70662b-5.eps
71


70662b-6.eps
72


70662b-7.eps
73


70662b-8.eps
74


70662b-9.eps
75


70662b-10.eps
76


70662b-11.eps
77


70662b-12.eps
78


70662b-13.eps
79


70662b-14.eps
80


70662b-15.eps
81


70662b-16.eps
82


70662b-17.eps
83


70662b-18.eps
84


70662b-19.eps
85


70662b-20.eps
86


70662b-21.eps
87


70662b-22.eps
88


70662b-23.eps
89


70662b-24.eps
90


70662b-25.eps
91


70662b-26.eps
92


70662b-27.eps
93


70662b-28.eps
94


70662b-29.eps
95


70662b-30.eps
96


70662b-31.eps
97


70662b-32.eps
98

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I will now recognize myself for remarks on this measure, followed by my friend, the ranking member, the bill’s author, Mr. Smith, and then any other members who 

seek recognition. 

As many here know, every year hundreds of thousands of people 

are trafficked around the world, most of them women and girls. 

Millions more are trapped within their own countries, forced to 

work in dangerous labor and sexual servitude. 

This form of modern-day slavery is an affront to human dignity 

as well as a major source of revenue for international criminal syndicates. This scourge is not limited to a particular geographic region or only to developing countries. 

Ultimately the tragedy of human trafficking lies not in statistics 

but in the individual lives, hopes, and dreams that are being 

crushed for a particular person, in a particular place, today. 

I am proud of the bipartisan, leading role that the House and 

this committee have played in moving the fight against human 

trafficking from a non-issue to a priority of our United States Government. 

I especially want to commend the leadership of my good friend 

from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, the author of the original Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act, which became law 11 years ago this month, 

who is the author of the bill before us today. 

I also want to recognize the long-standing efforts of the ranking 

member, Mr. Berman, with whom we worked on the last enacted 

reauthorization bill, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims 

Protection Reauthorization Act, which he introduced in 2008. 

We can take some solace in the fact that these efforts have dramatically raised the international profile of this slavery and have 

prompted a number of countries to pass their own anti-trafficking 

statutes. There has also been a rise in the number of international 

prosecutions for trafficking, over 6,000 last year, leading to over 

3,600 convictions. 

But so much more remains to be done. Trafficking arrests vastly 

outnumber prosecutions and convictions. And 22 countries have 

earned the dubious distinction of the worst Tier III status in the 

State Department’s annual rankings, an increase of ten countries 

since the last report. This means that those countries, which include the perennial rogues such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea 

are not trying to meet even the most basic anti-trafficking standards. 

For all of these reasons, this bill, which conditions and strengthens our anti-trafficking activities in a fiscally-responsible manner, 

is vitally important. 

I want to thank Mr. Smith, Mr. Berman, and all of those involved with this bipartisan effort. I support Mr. Smith’s amendment in the nature of a substitute and remain committed to moving his bill, H.R. 2830, forward. 

I now am pleased to yield to my friend, the ranking member, for 

his remarks on this measure. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And thank you for scheduling the markup so promptly. 

For the last 11 years, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, authored by our colleague, Chris Smith, has provided protection and 

99

assistance for victims of trafficking, authorized public awareness 

prevention campaigns, and strengthened the prosecution and punishment of traffickers. 

The bill before us today builds on the successes and lessons 

learned over the last decade. Many of us, including the author, supported a more comprehensive version of this reauthorization bill 

that was introduced a few months ago. Regrettably, that bill had 

to be scaled back due to cost and jurisdictional issues. 

Let me take just a moment to highlight a couple of important 

provisions from the comprehensive bill that will not be included in 

this version, the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

One is establishment of a Department of Defense director of antitrafficking policies. And the second relates to foreign labor contracting. Both of these would have addressed the urgent problem 

of fraudulent and deceptive labor recruitment in the United States 

and among DoD contractors, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Many of the contractors charge exorbitant fees for their services, 

forcing workers into debt bondage. Many of the workers are underpaid, ill treated, and deceived about their conditions of employment. They are housed in atrocious living conditions, starved and 

unable to leave the camp or return home as they have no travel 

papers. 

These kinds of problems are stark reminders that we need stricter regulation and monitoring of labor recruiters. So if we are truly 

serious about combating modern-day slavery in all its forms, we 

have to fund a way to fund these programs. 

Having said that, this bill does include a number of important 

provisions that will help prevent, deter, and monitor trafficking in 

the U.S. and abroad. 

The bill calls on the President to support public/private partnerships to generate youth employment opportunities to prevent trafficking. It asks the President to prioritize the initiatives for potential trafficking victims who are also refugees, internally displaced, 

stateless, victims of natural disasters, and other marginalized communities. 

It also requires the Department of Labor to report on the list of 

goods from countries believed to be produced by forced or child 

labor in foreign countries as well as the United States. And it encourages the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services to make reasonable efforts to raise public awareness for the 

national trafficking hotline. 

These are just a few of the ways in which this bill will strengthen our efforts to fight the trafficking of persons worldwide. I commend the author for introducing it, the chairman for sending it for 

markup, and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. 

At this point, I would like to recognize the author of this measure, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, 

and Human Rights, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I want to 

thank you for scheduling this markup, for your strong support for 

this anti-trafficking legislation, and for your many inputs as we 

went and drafted it. 

100

And I want to thank Mr. Berman for being the prime cosponsor, 

for his authorship of the Wilberforce Act just a couple of years ago. 

This is one of those examples I think where we can have very 

strong bipartisan cooperation to combat modern-day slavery in all 

of its forms, whether it be sex trafficking or labor trafficking. 

This is the fourth reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. And we have learned many lessons over the past decade. And we have made great strides in combating this fundamental human rights abuse. Women, children, and men around the 

world continue to be victimized and this effort is a very real remedy to that situation. 

It is critical we continue the United States leadership and efforts 

to end human trafficking, both domestically and abroad. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute takes into the account the extreme fiscal constraints that we face in our country 

and the need to reduce our Federal deficit. Much to my regret, the 

cost of several provisions in H.R. 3830 and now the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute necessitated their removal for consideration at this time. 

However, it is my sincere hope and expectation that important 

initiatives such as the creation of a special anti-trafficking office 

within the Department of Defense, something I pushed for 8 years, 

failed every time, but we will stay at it until we get that, and a 

comprehensive mechanism to regulate foreign labor contracting will 

be back on the table when resources are available. And especially 

with the latter, when the Senate shows some interest in backing 

it. 

We know that there is very strong opposition to that. There is 

a GAO report in the Senate version. Hopefully that will cause a 

change of heart over there. 

A number of important provisions for preventing and prosecuting 

trafficking and protecting trafficking survivors do remain in this 

amendment. One would give the Secretary of State the authority 

to limit the validity of the passports of registered sex offenders to 

1 year or such period as the Secretary would deem appropriate. 

The need for this authority became apparent when the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, reported last year that over 

4,500 registered sex offenders were issued passports in Fiscal Year 

2008. And, of course, they are good for 10 years. Who knows where 

they are going? What they are doing? We can only suspect. This includes an offender who was convicted of attempted rape of a child 

with special needs. And another who attempted sex with a 2-yearold girl. 

The State Department clearly needs this authority to limit the 

travel of such individuals who are likely to engage in severe forms 

of human trafficking in other countries. 

Furthermore, the amendment would authorize assistance to be 

used to protect vulnerable populations at risk of severe forms of 

human trafficking in post-conflict situations and humanitarian 

emergencies, provide additional tools to prosecute sex trafficking 

abroad, and increase monitoring of forced child or sex labor here 

in the United States. 

It also expands the information to be included in the Attorney 

General’s annual report to include any contracts terminated by a 

101

Federal agency as the result of human trafficking by a contractor 

and whether any employees have been disciplined, terminated, or 

prosecuted for violating the zero tolerance policy. 

I would also point out, and this came right out of your hearing, 

Madam Chair, when we looked at the Peace Corps and sexual violence that was being committed against women who were Peace 

Corps volunteers. It became apparent at that hearing, and I did 

ask some questions of the Peace Corps director, whether or not the 

Peace Corps was involved with the interagency trafficking task 

force. He said no. That legislation or that language is now included 

so the director of the Peace Corps will become part of the task 

force. 

So thank you to all of my colleagues for their support. And again, 

thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Ranking Member Berman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. 

Before we move to consider other amendments, do any other 

members seek recognition to speak on the underlying Smith 

amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

Ms. Bass is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking 

Member Berman for prioritizing the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 

Human trafficking continues to be a reality for as many as 27 

million people throughout the globe. Fortunately, advocates, survivors, and dedicated Members of Congress, like many in this room 

today, have shed light on this complex challenge and created laws 

to help stop this exploitation. 

I am proud to join in their efforts to strengthen policies that prevent human trafficking, prosecute perpetrators, protect victims, 

and build effective partnerships. 

I would also like to extend my gratitude to Representative Chris 

Smith for his tireless leadership in combating human trafficking. 

Even before the first incarnation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, he has pushed to improve the ways in which the 

United States responds to human trafficking and has continually 

worked to implement creative solutions to prevent this exploitation. 

Representative Smith, I commend your diligence and dedication. 

And I look forward to continuing to work with you on this issue. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Ms. Bass. 

I will now recognize Mr. Gallegly for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I believe we must do our part to provide the tools to combat trafficking of persons both worldwide and domestically. However, while 

I am very supportive of the improvements made in this amendment 

and have great respect for my good friend Chairman Chris Smith—

or the author of the bill, Chris Smith, and all of the work that he 

has done over the years on trafficking, and I agree with his objectives 100 percent. 

Having said that, I still think that there are some issues that I 

have concern with regarding the legislation. As the chairman of the 

Immigration Policy and Enforcement Subcommittee, I must state 

that I have some objectives—objections to several provisions of the 

bill under the Immigration Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

102

While I know that we are not here to mark up these parts of the 

bill today, I must make it clear that the legislation does have what 

I consider some problems that need to be addressed before we move 

to the floor. 

I do not believe we can require law enforcement to grant continued presence within 15 to 30 days to an alien who may be a victim 

of trafficking. Law enforcement needs more time to verify an individual’s identity, veracity of information, and so forth. 

We cannot afford to shift the standard so that all a victim applicant has to do is claim they are trafficking victims to obtain continued presence. Because law enforcement cannot do the job under 

many of the provisions under the bill, I think we need to really be 

careful as we move this bill forward so that we do not compromise 

the objectives that I think more of us, if not all of us, share in 

Chris Smith’s focus on doing everything humanly possible to eliminate or mitigate to the limits of our ability the issue of human trafficking. But we also have to be careful that we are not allowing individuals to use trafficking as a conduit to—as a claim and not just 

for real purposes. 

So I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes herself to say that she agrees with the gentleman from California, that he is right in stating that this committee’s jurisdiction does not extend to the areas that he has alluded 

to. The bill has been further referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

We will be marking up the sections of the bill that are under our 

jurisdiction. 

And with that, Mr. Connolly is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. And I commend my colleagues, 

Mr. Smith of New Jersey and the ranking member, Mr. Berman of 

California, for introducing H.R. 2830. 

This bill authorizes appropriations for the next two fiscal years 

for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. TVPA created 

the State Department’s Office to monitor and combat Trafficking in 

Persons (TIP), an office which has supported more than 450 

projects to combat modern human slavery in 109 countries. 

The office publishes the annual report, which ranks countries according to their compliance in combating human trafficking. No 

country is spared from being named and shamed in the TIP report. 

According to the 2011 report, the United States is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labor, debt bondage, document servitude, and sex 

trafficking. As recently as June of last year, an article in a Richmond-based magazine described the prevalence of such activity in 

the Richmond area. 

The article detailed a 2006 FBI case that involved Korean women 

being used in brothels from Rhode Island to Virginia. Similarly, 

there were reports in the Washington Post that year about massage parlors as fronts for prostitution rings. Such examples show 

how human trafficking takes place within our very own borders. 

The United States has not been passive with regard to the issue. 

Over the last decade, the TIP office has actively fought human trafficking through provisions laid out in the Victims of Trafficking 

and Violence Protection Act of 2010. 

103

The annual TIP report is a credible, detailed survey of violations 

in various countries, the office to monitor and combat trafficking of 

persons in the State Department under the leadership of Ambassador CdeBaca fulfils much needed duties in the United States foreign policy apparatus. The TIP office works to combat the issue of 

human trafficking and is a great example of a government-funded 

investment that pays dividends. 

I look forward to supporting the underlying legislation and the 

amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. Poe is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act has brought great 

changes throughout the world. I strongly support this reauthorization and glad to be a cosponsor. I commend Mr. Smith from New 

Jersey, the chairman, and the ranking member for bringing this to 

this committee. 

It is critical we continue program to prosecute traffickers and 

protect the victims. Because of the TVPA, we can no longer be 

blissfully ignorant of the dastardly crime happening throughout the 

world and even in the United States. Countries all over the globe 

have been forced to take a hard look at trafficking within their own 

borders and create policies to address this crime. 

In my travels to Eastern Europe as a part of this committee, I 

have discussed with people there the issue of human trafficking or 

slavery as it should be called. The way it works is this. Young 

women who cannot find work or jobs learn through the Internet or 

some ad in the local newspaper about employment somewhere else 

in the world, either in another country or even sometimes in their 

own cities. 

So they leave home, maybe from the nation of Ukraine or Romania. And they meet up with another person. It is usually a male. 

And he promises that he will take care of them. He will find them 

a job. And they will be happy. 

And, of course, what they end up doing is becoming a piece of 

property, a forced individual into prostitution, a slave of this individual. The male does what he can to sell that young female into 

slavery and even slave labor. 

Back home where the young female comes from, their families 

many times never even know what happened to their daughter or 

to their sisters. Sometimes then eventually when the slave is of no 

use in the prostitution racket, she just disappears and without 

knowledge of her parents. 

This takes place in countries throughout eastern Europe and 

other nations as well. But we cannot overlook the fact that human 

trafficking happens here in the United States of America. 

Here is the way it works here and it happens in my hometown 

of Houston, Texas. Young women—either adults but many times 

minors from a foreign country are smuggled into the United States 

illegally by someone who promises that when he gets them to the 

U.S., he will have a job waiting for them where they can work and 

send money back home to their families. 

104

In some cases, these young women have actually paid the trafficker to smuggle them to the United States, expecting that job 

that they were promised. Once they are in the United States, they 

become the property of the sex trafficker. And he forces them into 

prostitution. 

And he uses threats against them. It is as simple as if they do 

not cooperate, the slave master will have the family killed back in 

their home country. So what decision does a 14-year-old girl make 

when she is threatened that her family will be killed if she does 

not cooperate? Tough decision and many times they make the decision to continue in prostitution with the hope that their parents, 

their brothers and sisters, will not be murdered. 

The victim does not speak the language. She is in the United 

States and the person says cooperate and work for me or you will 

be punished and your family will be killed. So they chose the alternative they think they have to choose and become a slave and traffic it into the United States and allow the person to use them as 

property in the trafficking business. 

What a dastardly deed that is occurring in this country and other 

countries. But thanks to the TVPA, these international victims now 

have access to services so they can help recover from their exploitation. 

And we cannot forget about domestic victims as well. Young girls 

from our own neighborhoods are being forced into slavery, many 

times sex slavery. Their childhood, their innocence is stolen in the 

name of greed by some slave master. 

We must ensure that these victims have access to services. And 

we must make sure that they are treated as victims of crime and 

not criminals and not treated like prostitutes. Human trafficking 

is slavery. And as we fight for human rights throughout the world, 

we must fight to stop this slavery in all forms. Treat the young 

women as victims, not criminals. And then we need to take care 

of the customers and, of course, the traffickers and make sure they 

get their day in court. 

So I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. And 

that is just the way it is. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Poe. 

Mr. Chabot is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just want to take a moment to commend the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for his work on not only this legislation 

but for all the work he has done over the years in the area of 

human trafficking. 

I was traveling in South Asia last week and on Friday had the 

opportunity to visit an orphanage in Kathmandu called Mytai 

Nepal. The program benefits sexually abused girls, abandoned children, victims of trafficking, girls and children infected with HIV 

and hepatitis B, and returnees from Indian brothels, among others. 

It is a truly amazing operation that gives hope to women and girls 

who once had no hope whatsoever. 

And I have to say that visiting there was one of the more moving 

experiences that I have ever had. When I told folks there that I 

would discuss this when I got back here at the visit with Congressman Smith, who has worked on these humanitarian issues for 

105

many years, they all told me that they were actually well aware 

of Mr. Smith’s efforts around the world. They were grateful for 

what he has done on behalf of exploited women and children, you 

know, around the world, particularly in Nepal. 

So I just wanted to bring the gentleman best wishes from those 

as far away as Nepal who he has aided. And I commend him for 

offering this legislation today. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Seeing no further requests for time, 

we will now move to consider amendments to the underlying Smith 

amendment. 

Mr. KEATING. Madam Chair, if I could? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Sorry. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be very brief. 

I just wanted to underscore one aspect of this legislation. For the 

last 12 years before being elected, I was a district attorney. We 

worked exceedingly hard with local law enforcement, with state 

law enforcement, with regional officials, particularly in the area of 

Boston with special task forces that were there. 

And our frustration during that whole time was we were at the 

last stage, the receiving end of trying to deal with this and the 

frustration of saying more has to be done, not just at the national 

level but also in the international level. 

So as we go forward with this legislation, I just want to commend the author. And I want to say that this is very important legislation. So often we deal with international issues here in the committee. This is one that will have an effect right back home as well. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

Do any other members seek recognition? 

[No response.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Seeing no requests for recognition, we 

will now move to consider amendments to the underlying Smith 

amendment. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments, which the ranking member and I anticipate 

will be noncontroversial, be considered en bloc. And the amendments are in your packets. 

Amendment 30, offered by Ms. Bass, requiring a one-time report 

on Internet-facilitated trafficking; Amendment 59, offered by Mr. 

Royce, expressing the sense of Congress on trafficking in Cambodia; Amendment 49, offered by Mr. Murphy, directing the State 

Department Trafficking Office to encourage large business entities 

to publicly disclose their anti-trafficking efforts and policies; and 

Amendment 82, offered by Mr. Fortenberry, making amendments 

to Title IV of the 2008 Trafficking Reauthorization Act concerning 

child soldiers. 

[The amendments referred to follow:]

106


70662c-1.eps
107


70662c-2.eps
108


70662c-3.eps
109


70662d-1.eps
110


70662d-2.eps
111


70662d-3.eps
112


70662e-1.eps
113


70662e-2.eps
114


70662e-3.eps
115


70662e-4.eps
116


70662e-5.eps
117


70662e-6.eps
118


70662e-7.eps
119


70662f-1.eps
120


70662f-2.eps
121

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Do any of the amendment authors 

wish to be recognized to explain their portion of the en bloc amendments? 

Mr. Fortenberry is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this hearing and your leadership in this regard. 

In 2008, at a markup for the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Act, this committee did something very courageous. We stated 

that the policy of our nation will be that children, no matter where 

they are, belong on playgrounds and not battlegrounds. Children 

should not be forced to become soldiers. 

And we would not sit idly by and passively underwrite this pernicious form of human trafficking known as child conscription. 

The problem now is this. National security waivers continue to 

be given to countries found guilty of this human rights abuse. We 

know that these waivers must be rare and temporary and meaningfully intended to help stop this pernicious practice. 

So this body unanimously passed an amendment to the State Department authorization bill to require the President to report to 

Congress 15 days before issuing another waiver as to what credible 

and verifiable steps are being undertaken in those countries to implement a plan of action to end the recruitment of and demobilize 

child soldiers. 

The State Department authorization bill also included language 

prohibiting the use of peacekeeping operation funds for countries 

cited for child soldiers violations. 

So, Madam Chair, my amendment today is simple. It simply 

amends section 404 of the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Act 

to retain both of these provisions because strengthening our child 

soldiers policy is essential to our anti-human trafficking efforts. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield. 

Mr. BERMAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. This is—all 

four of these amendments that are part of the en bloc amendment 

are very good amendments. I particularly want to mention that I 

think we should not be casually waiving the restrictions on child 

soldiers in providing military assistance. 

And I think both the notification provision and the requirement 

for some action by that government to start the corrective action 

of that situation is a pretty reasonable requirement for this. And 

I urge adoption of this and the other amendments in the en bloc. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the ranking member for his support. 

I yield. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. 

Ms. Bass is recognized to explain her amendment. 

Ms. BASS. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am offering a bipartisan amendment that will investigate and 

prevent human trafficking online. With the widespread use of the 

Internet, the sale and trafficking of individuals has gotten easier 

and increasingly anonymous. 

While the Internet has helped to connect the world, it has also 

created a haven for the exploitation of men, women, and children. 

122

Cloaked by computers, online traffickers and perpetrators can gain 

24-hour access to vulnerable children and individuals. 

So the amendment calls for the State Department to spearhead 

an interdepartmental study on Internet-facilitated trafficking and 

proposed methods to prevent these crimes. You know often when 

we are talking about trafficking, we are talking about children and 

young people, women around the world. But this also relates to 

people inside the United States and in particular children. 

I also wanted to thank Representative Chabot and Representative Wolf for serving as the original cosponsors of the bill, which 

is now, you know, included as an amendment for this. But I also 

want to mention that another part, the language in the bill references children in the United States. And we did just launch a 

foster care caucus this morning with my colleague, Mr. Marino. 

We just came from the first meeting of that caucus. And I am 

excited that there is a part of this bill that has language in it that 

addresses who we essentially train the child welfare system, people 

in the system, so that they can recognize trafficking since we know 

that a lot of young people in our own country are involved in trafficking, especially with the Internet and the expansion of Web sites 

such as Backpage. 

So thank you very much. That is my amendment. I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. 

Mr. Royce is recognized to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to also 

congratulate Mr. Smith for his dedication in trying to call attention 

to this. 

But to also note that a number of NGOs and Dateline continue 

to focus on Cambodia. And the fact that it is a magnet for those 

preying on the youngest. 

Predators travel halfway around the world in order to link up in 

remote Cambodian villages with children, some as young as three. 

There are 30,000 children in that country that have been sold into 

this type of servitude. 

And my chief of staff, Amy Porter, traveled to Cambodia to work 

with these children rescued from the brothels there. And we have 

had a number of hearings in this committee and in the Lantos 

Human Rights Commission that have spotlighted these abuses. 

We have got the NGO groups that work in the country and the 

eyewitnesses reporting that the Cambodian Government continues 

to actually hamper and get in front of these investigations and 

block these investigations. The local police and government officials 

are often pocketing very lucrative profits out of this. 

So it is time to go on record against these really horrific abuses 

that have become endemic there. And the State Department needs 

to hold Cambodia accountable. That is the sense of this amendment. 

It finds that Cambodia should be designated as a Tier III country. When I brought this up with Ambassador Luis CdeBaca to reconsider when they were downgrading Cambodia, at a time when 

the situation was getting worse in-country, they sadly indicated 

well, this was the step they were going to take. 

123

They are taking the pressure off of Cambodia. We have to do exactly the opposite. We have to put them back up as a designated 

Tier III country. And that is what this amendment would do. 

And I thank you, Madam Chairman, for putting it in the en bloc 

amendment. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Royce. 

Mr. Murphy is recognized to explain his amendment. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you very much to Congressman Smith for his leadership on this bill. 

This bill, at its foundation, has the idea that our Government 

and our State Department can do so much more to try to prevent 

the child trafficking and forced labor that is still endemic to so 

many places around the globe. 

The amendment that is included in this en bloc that I am offering would recognize that we have another partner in this effort to 

combat human trafficking and child trafficking. And that is our 

corporate community. 

Already some of the world’s biggest and most expansive corporations have joined together in an organization called the Business 

Coalition against Human Traffic. It is Coca Cola, JP Morgan, 

Delta, The Body Shop, to name a few. 

And this amendment, which has as its genesis, the legislation offered by Carolyn Maloney, would encourage companies, through 

the State Department, to post on their Web site their policies for 

preventing forced labor, slavery, and human trafficking. 

And the amendment outlines a number of suggested steps that 

companies can take as part of that policy, whether it is requiring 

audits of their suppliers to makes sure that their supply chain does 

not have any of these elements to force labor or human traveling, 

whether it be training for people in the supply chain to again make 

sure that they are dealing only with responsible and humane contractors and suppliers internationally. 

This amendment would simply try to encourage these big companies with over $100 million in global receipts to post on their Web 

sites the steps that they are taking. And we hope that this amendment would encourage major international companies with long 

supply chains that are not already doing these types of audits 

throughout their international business platforms, to do so and 

then make those audits and make that information available. 

This really has to be a comprehensive effort at stopping human 

trafficking that starts with the government, that starts with the 

very good underlying bill, but it can also include a private consensus that is already developing around this business coalition 

that this amendment can facilitate. 

And I thank the chair and I thank the sponsor of the bill for allowing this amendment to move forward. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

Do any other members seek recognition? 

Mr. SMITH. Just very briefly. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Bass, Mr. Murphy, Mr. 

Royce for their amendments. I think they all are very, very important additions to the legislation. 

124

I would point out to Mr. Murphy that the language he is offering 

is an encouragement. And I think that is very important. 

Carolyn Maloney and I do have a bill in that parallels the California bill, which would be much stronger but it would use the SEC 

rather than the trafficking office. And I have checked with Luis 

CdeBaca, our Ambassador-at-Large for human trafficking. He is 

very supportive of this effort, feels that they can accommodate it, 

and do it. And, again, it is an encouragement rather than something that is mandatory. So I think it is a good strengthening 

amendment. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

Do any other members seek recognition on the en bloc amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on the en bloc amendment. All those 

in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the en bloc 

amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments to the trafficking measure? 

[No response.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Hearing no further amendments, the 

question is on agreeing to the bipartisan Smith amendment in the 

nature of a substitute, as amended. 

All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. 

Without objection, the underlying bill, H.R. 2830, as amended, is 

agreed to. And I now move that the Bill H.R. 2830 be reported favorably to the House as amended. 

All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed, no. 

The ayes have it. And the motion to report favorably is agreed 

to. 

Without objection, the bill, as amended, will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating the 

amendments adopted by the committee. And the staff is directed to 

make technical and conforming changes. 

This ends the trafficking bill consideration. 

And pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2059, to prohibit 

funding to the United Nations Population Fund. 

The clerk will read the bill. 

Ms. CARROLL. H.R. 2059, to prohibit funding to the United Nations Population Fund, be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled, section 1, prohibition on funding to the United Nations 

Population Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 

125

[H.R. 2059 follows:]


70662g.eps
126

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. The bill is read and open 

for amendment. 

As your offices were previously notified, before moving to amendments, I will recognize myself and the ranking member for general 

remarks on the bill followed by the author of the bill, Ms. Ellmers. 

And then any other members who seek recognition. 

This morning the committee will mark up H.R. 2059, which prohibits funding to the United Nations Populations Fund, or UNFPA. 

The purpose of this legislation is simple. To prevent U.S. taxpayer 

dollars from benefitting coercive abortion and sterilization programs. 

China’s policy of coerced abortions is one of the most visible and 

deplorable human rights abuses. It has contributed directly to the 

elimination of millions of young girls, which has increased the demand for trafficked women and girls in the region. 

But instead of condemning China’s behavior, UNFPA not only 

supports China’s coercive one-child policy, but commends it as a 

‘‘model’’ for population programs across the globe. 

In 1999, a UNFPA represented stated, ‘‘China has had the most 

successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in 

terms of quantity. And with that, China has done mankind a 

favor.’’

Now U.S. law is clear. The Kemp-Kasten Amendment, first enacted in 1984, states that U.S. assistance cannot be provided to any 

organization that ‘‘supports or participates in the management of 

a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.’’

The late Congressman Jack Kemp had stated that UNFPA funding would likely be effected by his amendment, ‘‘because of 

UNFPA’s involvement with a program of coercive abortions in the 

Peoples Republic of China.’’ Pursuant to this amendment, three 

previous administrations have stopped assistance to UNFPA. Justifying this cut off of assistance, then Secretary of State Colin Powell 

stated in 2002, ‘‘UNFPA’s support of and involvement in China’s 

population planning activities allows the Chinese Government to 

more effectively its program of coercive abortions. Therefore, it is 

not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time.’’

The State Department has repeatedly found that UNFPA refuses 

to provide detailed information on its activities in China. In December 2010, the Vice Minister of China’s National Population and 

Family Planning commission thanked UNFPA for, ‘‘its constant 

support to China’s population and family planning undertakings 

during the past 30 years or more.’’

UNFPA continues business as usual, and last year it approved 

another 5-year operations plan for China. Unfortunately, the 

Obama administration has failed to enforce U.S. law, claiming that 

the Kemp-Kasten amendment does not apply to UNFPA. 

Accordingly, congressional action is necessary to prevent U.S. 

taxpayer dollars from continuing to benefit USFPA in contravention of U.S. law. 

I would note that, while some claim that UNFPA does not use 

U.S. funding for its programming in China, we all know that 

money is fungible. Directing U.S. funding to UNFPA activities in 

other areas of the world simply frees up other funding for their 

China program. 

127

There are far better uses of U.S. taxpayer dollars than funding 

for the UNFPA. In fact, UNFPA clearly does not need U.S. funding. 

Reports indicate that UNFPA has built up reserves and unspent 

funds of $500 million. 

UNFPA’s annual report for 2010 indicated that its budget totaled $870 million, a record amount. So why when Americans are facing 

a struggling economy, skyrocketing deficits, and crushing debt 

should our taxpayer dollars go to an organization that supports coercive abortion and is flush with cash. Again, there are much better uses for taxpayer funds than sending millions to UNFPA. 

And so I thank the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Ellmers, for introducing this important bill. I strongly 

urge my colleagues to support it in its current form. 

And I now am pleased to recognize the ranking member for his 

remarks on this measure. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And thank you on this issue we disagree. This legislation, like 

the State Department authorization bill we marked up in July and 

the U.N. bill we will soon consider, I believe will undermine America’s influence and standing in the international community. It is 

an example of civilian cut and run par excellence. 

Tragically, the bill takes aim at poor women and children in the 

developing world, women and children who all too often suffer from 

the effects of disease, war, rape, and a host of absolutely horrid 

conditions that few of us can even begin to imagine. 

Rather than helping these desperate people, as UNFPA seeks to 

do, this legislation makes them pawns in a debate over social 

issues that often seem divorced from reality. Indeed I can think of 

few other organizations subject to more misinformation, misunderstanding, and outright falsehoods than UNFPA. 

I know that discussing UNFPA generates a lot of emotion among 

some of my colleagues. But that does not mean that passionate arguments should be allowed to trump the facts. UNFPA does not 

promote abortion as a method of family planning period. 

UNFPA is guided by the Cairo Programme of Action, which is 

quite clear in saying, I quote, ‘‘in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. All one has to do is visit 

UNFPA’s Web site to find that,’’ UNFPA does not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning. 

And directly addressing the issue raised by the chairman, the 

State Department in the last administration, not the Obama administration, conducted an investigation of the UNFPA and found, 

‘‘no evidence, no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or 

participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion 

or involuntary sterilization in the People’s Republic of China. In 

fact, the UNFPA opposes coercive family planning methods and opposes China’s one-child policy. 

I know that for many here, UNFPA’s own words and those of the 

State Department on this issue may ring hollow. So would ask you 

to consider the position of the late Henry Hyde, the author of the 

Hyde Amendment, when he was chairman of this committee, he 

passed a very tough U.N. bill through the house, which would have 

ended a great deal of U.S. support for the U.N. But in his bill, he 

decided not to try to defund UNFPA. 

128

Today we are being asked to permanently end assistance to an 

organization working to prevent cholera among pregnant women 

and people living with HIV/AIDS in Haiti, lowering the maternal 

mortality in Rwanda, protecting women in Kenya fleeing from famine and war across the Horn of Africa. 

Rather than lobbing another grenade in our culture wars, this 

committee should be working to strengthen maternal mortality prevention efforts, improve the capacity of health systems in the developing world, and protect women from rape as an instrument of 

war. 

If you want to prevent abortions, this is what we should be 

doing. And that is exactly what UNFPA does. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman. 

And at this point, I am pleased to recognize the author of the 

measure, the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. 

Ellmers, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ELLMERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And thank you to all the members who have helped to cosponsor 

this very important bill. 

Madam Chairman, the American people have spoken. On May 

31st, I introduced a bill to prohibit funding to the United Nations 

Population Fund, which was the winning YouCut program for that 

week. 

This bill, H.R. 2059, has now reached an important stage, making it to the committee for markup and review. It cuts $50 million 

from our Foreign Affairs budget by disallowing the Secretary of 

State to make a contribution to the UNFPA. 

The United National Population Fund, the principle unit within 

the United Nations for global population issues, is the world’s largest source of population and reproductive health programs without 

doubt. For the last 30 years, however, there has been contentious 

debate about whether the United States should financially contribute to the UNFPA because it aids China’s coercive family planning programs and policies. 

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan withheld all U.S. contributions to the UNFPA after determining that it was supporting 

and participating in the co-management of China’s population program. Under the Bush administration, which was pointed out by 

ranking member Berman, there was subject to a State Department 

investigation, and yes, Mr. Berman is correct. However, that report 

also went on to say that China maintained coercive elements in its 

population restrictions in counties where UNFPA operates. 

China maintain coercive elements in its population programs in 

law and practice. And Chinese leaders viewed population control as 

a high priority and remained concerned over implications of socioeconomic changes. As a result, it was recommended that the U.S. 

should release not more than $34 million in previously appropriated funds. But that over time, it should monitor the allocation 

of this program and subsequently President Bush withheld U.S. 

funds from UNFPA due to concerns that the organization supported or participated in what the administration viewed as a program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization in China. 

129

The Obama administration and the 111th Congress resumed contributions to UNFPA. UNFPA has been widely denounced for its 

involvement in China’s one-child policy, which relies on forced 

abortion and sterilization. 

Whether or not you believe the U.S. should be borrowing money 

from China to fund U.N. projects in China, U.S. taxpayers should 

not be forced to fund the program that violates provisions in the 

Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which bans U.S. aid to organizations involved in the management of coercive family planning. 

Proponents of the program argue that the monies are separate. 

And that we are throwing out good programs with the bad. However, in 2008, the State Department issued a report that showed 

clear violations because the UNFPA funnels money to the various 

Chinese agencies that enforce the coercive policy and forcibly abort 

and sterilize as a matter of standard operating procedure. 

If the Chinese wish to do such things, they should not expect 

funding from the United States’ hard-earned taxpayers. The American taxpayer deserves to know where their hard-earned money is 

going. And we must do our part to make people accountable. H.R. 2059 cuts $50 million from our Foreign Affairs budget by 

disallowing the Secretary of State to contribute to the UNFPA and 

deserves our support. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentlelady from North 

Carolina. 

Before we move to consider amendments, I am pleased to recognize members to speak on the underlying bill. 

Mr. Connolly of Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Chairwoman, as you know, I have great and deep respect for you. But 

I do not have great and deep respect for this particular bill and 

this particular process. 

This is nothing short of a smear campaign against an international organization of which we are a member that promotes and 

protects the health of women and their children all over the world. 

The State Department report referred to is the 2008 State Department report. The 2009 State Department report actually determined that there is no violation by UNFPA of the terms of KempKasten. The facts, however, do not matter because we have decided 

to make UNFPA a symbol of our support for a particular cause, irrespective of the consequences. 

Some of the loudest voices in this committee who champion the 

human rights of the unborn and, to their credit, had real trouble 

however supporting the same human rights for those who were 

born but happened to have a different sexual orientation. I was at 

this dias that night when we could not get some of the loudest 

champions of this particular cause to embrace that particular 

cause. And from my point of view, a human rights violation is a 

human rights violation, irrespective of status. 

So consistency is not our strong suit here. But picking on the 

UNFPA as an easy target, irrespective of the fact that its record 

is clean, and what it is doing to protect women and women’s health 

is essential, without which we are going to jeopardize the lives of 

women in developing countries all over the world, and the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:30 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\100511M\70662 HFA PsN: SHIRL
130

sequences, very real, does not matter because we are making a big 

political point that will energize our base. And the consequences be 

damned. 

So I am not going to support this bill. And I will have an amendment later to try to make sure that at least one aspect of women’s 

health is protected, Madam Chairwoman. 

I think this is a sad day for this committee. 

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would. 

Mr. BERMAN. Just because in this general debate, I think the 

point you made deserves some affirmation. 

The author of the bill makes the argument that because UNFPA 

operates in municipalities and counties in China where the Chinese 

Government or the local governments practice coercive family planning practices that they are culpable. The logic of that escapes me. 

Are the American companies who do business in those counties 

or municipalities of China culpable? Are the American tourists who 

visit that culpable? Without having a nexus between what UNFPA 

does in the specific practices, that argument just does not hold 

water. And I think the committee should reject it. 

Do not hold UNFPA responsible for what a sovereign country 

does, as obnoxious as it is, unless you have an allegation of advocacy and support that has not yet been presented. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And reclaiming my time, thank you, Mr. Berman, 

for that insight. I would also point out that if you actually look at 

the record of accomplishments since UNFPA was actually founded 

as a specialized U.N. agency and you look at fertility rates and 

birth rates in the developing countries, more and more families 

have successfully be able to plan and space children, infant mortality has dropped, survivability has increased. 

You know the family planning efforts, combined with the health 

efforts and initiatives to protect women’s health, especially pregnant women and new mothers, has actually paid off huge dividends 

in both improving the status of morbidity and mortality in the 

Third World and in making sure that child survival rates have significantly and dramatically improved. 

And we are about, in passing this bill, to turn our back on all 

of that progress because of a political issue that I think does not 

hold up under scrutiny, as you suggest, Mr. Berman. And with 

that, I yield back. 

Ms. ELLMERS. Oh, may I? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, yes, of course. 

Ms. ELLMERS. Thank you. 

I would like to address—Mr. Connolly, thank you. And to ranking member Berman, again, as you have pointed out, that is not 

my assumption. That is actually the 2002 Bush administration investigation which—and I will read on here in my 19 seconds left—

that the $34 million previously appropriated funds to the UNFPA 

until China ends all forms of coercive cohesion of law and practice 

and that no U.S. Government funds should be allocated to population programs in China and that appropriate resources, possibly 

from the U.S., should be allocated——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Connolly’s time has 

expired. 

131

Ms. ELLMERS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, 

I rise in strong support of Ms. Ellmer’s legislation, thank her for 

offering it, and for the courage to stand up for women in China. 

You know it is interesting, 3 days after President Obama was 

sworn in, he directed the administration to resume funding for the 

UNFPA. So there was no careful analysis as to the complicity of 

the UNFPA in the barbaric one-child-per-couple policy. 

China’s one-child-per-couple policy constitutes massive crimes 

against humanity. The sheer magnitude of the loss of human life, 

the babies as well as the women’s lives who have been utterly hurt, 

and I will get to this in a moment, by this policy has no parallel 

in human history. The one-child-per-couple policy has made brothers and sisters illegal. 

Illegal, imagine that. Any member here who has a sibling or who 

has more than one child, the Government of China tells you when 

and if you can have that child and under what circumstances because you do not necessarily get a birth-allowed certificate just because you want to have a child. 

There are no single moms in China. Let me say that again. Single moms are forcibly aborted. I held my 30th hearing on human 

rights abuses in China. And just 2 weeks ago, Chai Ling, the great 

human rights activist who was a Tiananmen Square hero, one of 

the most wanted people by the government, testified right here or 

in 2200 I should say, and talked about how she had been forcibly 

aborted three times, three times because she was an unwed mother. And that is part of their rules. 

I would ask members to read the regulations. Look at the national policy. And most importantly, look at the 2008 report that 

was done by the Department of State. John Negroponte, Secretary 

Negroponte pointed out, and this is, I think, the crux of it or the 

key, UNFPA program, this is his words, all UNFPA programming 

relating to contraceptive and reproductive health incorporates and 

defers to Chinese law and regulation. 

The national law and provincial regulations are the framework 

for China’s coercive birth policies. China, the UNFPA comports, implements, supports. And if you look over the 30 years of what the 

UNFPA has done in China, it has been to aggressively defend the 

one-child-per-couple policy to all comers, critics here in the Congress, critics anywhere in the world. And now in particularly south 

to south work, they are actually exporting child limitation policies 

to Africa and elsewhere. 

The population and refugee Assistant Secretary, Deputy Assistant Secretary, asked a series of 38 questions to the UNFPA back 

in 2008. There is no transparency. We are not told. And we are not 

told what it is that the UNFPA does in China, what their teaching 

materials are made up of. And when asked about audits and internal reports, we were told to pack our bags. We will not tell you. 

These are all confidential. 

So we are expected to fork over $50 million of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. And they will not even tell us what they are doing, 

what the teaching materials look like. And the bottom line is, what 

is the consequence? Broken women and dead babies. 

132

I would finally just say to my colleagues that I hope the members 

will read this report. You know we are talking about dictatorship. 

We are talking about a U.N. agency that has aided and abetted a 

one-child-per-couple policy that we would never accept in the 

United States, that no democracy, I do not think, would allow to 

happen. 

And yet because it is a dictatorship and the UNFPA can operate 

under cloak and concealment and not provide information, again 

there is no transparency, women are being exploited as never before. 

Five hundred women per day commit suicide in China according 

to the World Health Organization. At my hearing, I had three 

women who had been forcibly aborted. And they told their horrific 

stories about how they were told you are out of plan. You do not 

have permission to carry this child to term. Therefore, you will be 

aborted. 

Again, look at what the UNFPA does in China. They completely 

and totally adhere to Chinese law. They are just following orders. 

When did we hear that before? 

I hope members will join with Ms. Ellmers. Support this legislation. Because when Mr. Berman, and I certainly respect the ranking member, we have other programs that we could provide money 

to for important life-saving maternal health issues and the like——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. UNFPA has disqualified itself. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Deutch of Florida is recognized. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, saying 

that the UNFPA supports the one-child policy in China does not 

make it so. But I would like to talk about what the UNFPA does 

support, what the UNFPA does to really stand up for women’s 

rights and human rights. 

And I would like to talk about two of the areas that often are 

not addressed. The first is the leadership role that this body has 

played in combating female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia. 

What does it mean to women? It is a violation of human rights, 

the violation of human rights of girls and women. It reflects a deeprooted inequality between the sexes. It constitutes an extreme form 

of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on 

minors. It is a violation of the rights of children. 

It also violates a person’s right to health security and physical 

integrity, the right to be free from torture, the right to be free from 

cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, and the right to life when 

the procedure results, as it often does, in death. 

There is a lot of debate that is going to take place here about 

China’s one-child policy. This organization does not support that. 

My colleagues have made that clear. And the debate, I suppose, 

will continue. 

But this organization has taken a leadership role in stopping female genital mutilation. Between 100 and 140 million women 

worldwide have undergone this procedure. Three million girls each 

year face the prospects of female genital mutilation. 

133

Because of the work that this body does that this bill wishes to 

defund, because of the work that they do, 6,000 communities 

through Africa and the Middle East have abandoned the practice. 

We cannot turn our back on this important work that stands up 

for women’s rights and helps protect women’s lives. 

Madam Chair, that is not the only area that unfortunately is 

often ignored, the work that the UNFPA does. I would also point 

out that this organization, this body, is likewise a leader internationally in stopping obstetric fistula. Fistula is another serious 

problem in the poorest countries in the world. 

Again, we do not often talk about that because we get carried 

away in other debates. But the fact is where mothers give birth 

without any medical help, in many cases if a woman’s labor becomes obstructed, she will endure days of painful, prolonged labor. 

Her baby is unlikely to survive. If the woman survives, her body 

is literally broken by childbirth, uncontrollably leaking bodily 

waste, these women are shunned by their families and communities. So many of them are young girls. 

There are a lot of people in the nonprofit world who are focused 

on preventing fistula, which can be prevented. But it is this body 

that this bill seeks to defund which has taken a leadership role. 

There is going to be a lot of heated debate over the course of this 

hearing, Madam Chair. And I appreciate it. But too often we lose 

sight of a lot of the good work that is done every single day by organizations that some choose to demonize. In this case, these two 

issues, stopping fistula, stopping female genital mutilation, are vitally important to preserving the rights of women and children 

around the world. This body, the UNFPA, has taken a leadership 

role. And for that reason, needs our continued support. 

I oppose this legislation, Madam Chair. And I appreciate very 

much the opportunity to focus on these two issues. And I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

You know I think it is our responsibility to ensure that the 

money that is spent from our hard-working taxpayers is done in accordance with the laws. The UNFPA refuses to supply the United 

States with detailed information regarding its programs and activities in China. 

We have a responsibility to know how our money is being spent 

by organizations here and abroad. China’s one-child policy breeds 

a culture of forced abortions and involuntary sterilization in addition to parents aborting their daughters in hopes that their sole 

child will be a boy. It is brutal and coercive and should in no way 

be assisted or enabled by U.S. tax dollars. This is the worst cruelty 

that can be imposed upon a woman. 

By essentially ignoring the Kemp-Kasten bill, what sort of message are we sending? By funding UNFPA, which has a history of 

giving to organizations like Marie Stopes, an organization that 

partners with national population and family planning commissions of China, a message is sent that the U.S. does not take coercive abortion and other human rights violations seriously. That is 

134

not a message I would ever want to send to our hard-working taxpayers. 

Defunding UNFPA was a YouCut winner voted on by the America public. The American people understand what the current 

budget situation is here and sent a message to us, their elected officials, to spend their tax dollars more wisely, cautiously, and effectively. 

According to a report prepared by the Norwegian Government, the UNFPA has a reserve of over $480 million in 2010, which is 

approximately the same amount as their regular income of 2009. 

In our current budget situation, we have no business supporting organizations that have the necessary cash on their own. 

It is argued that this money is not going to abortions, coerced or 

otherwise. But we know that money is fungible. And when we cannot get an accurate accounting from the Chinese Government as to 

how that money is being used, then that money should be taken 

away. 

There is an argument that the UNFPA does a lot of good things. 

And I agree that it does. But those can be paid for separately. 

And finally, we can take our money and use it elsewhere for 

other programs within the U.N. and other places. And if this program is so important, then let us let other member countries stand 

up and fill this gap. 

But, Madam Chair, it is imperative that our hard-earned taxpayer dollars from the hard-working Americans, are used appropriately, efficiently, and responsibly. 

We are at a place now where we have very serious concerns 

about how China is using this money. We have no accountability 

of how China is using this money. And we need to use this money 

in a better way to help people not just in the United States, but 

around the world, because all life is precious, unborn, born, poor, 

elderly. And it is our responsibility as a moral nation under God 

to respect life in all cases and all instances. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

And let me express my strong opposition to this amendment. I 

would like to certainly speak in opposition to this legislation, which 

would eliminate funding for the United Nations Population Fund. 

Last week my office hosted a meeting with a group of women’s 

health leaders. They worked in health services from Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, and Tanzania. And they were participating in 

a 2-week conference hosted by the Center for Development and 

Population Activities. 

The women told devastating stories about the impact of inadequate family planning on their lives and the lives of poor and 

rural communities in Africa. They spoke of the devastating impact 

of multiple unwanted pregnancies on the health and economic livelihoods of the mothers. They spoke of the trauma of unsafe, selfinduced abortions, the pain and stigma of obstetric fistulas, the terror of gender-based violence. They talked about overstretched, overburdened, rundown health system that cannot meet the basic material health needs of their communities. 

135

And at the end of the meeting, they asked us to share their message today to those that wish to end family planning programs in 

Africa and the developing world. They want you to know that 

women of Africa want healthy babies. They want the ability to 

space their births. They desperately need family planning commodities in rural and poor communities. 

Women do not often have a real shot at improving the quality 

of life for themselves. As a matter of fact, since the program has 

been in existence, infant mortality is down. The life expectancy in 

Africa is increasing because of the fact that there are spaced children. And that it is not felt that they need to have eight and ten 

children in order to ensure their future. 

And so they asked us to increase its commitment to lifesaving 

family planning in the U.S. And to work for maternal health and 

child survival programs. 

So today I ask that we take their point of view into consideration 

as we debate this issue. We know that our constituents also have 

a point of view on our foreign aid spending. And we owe it to them 

to be honest about where their tax dollars are going. 

We have always heard about this overburdening of the taxpayers 

of America. But let me tell you about the truth of last year’s U.S. 

contribution, $40 million, about one-hundredth of 1 percent of our 

budget. Now we know that one-hundredth of 1 percent is very important because—and twice that is two-hundredths of 1 percent of 

the budget. 

However, I think when we talk about this cost to American taxpayers, we are really kind of overstating the situation. These programs help women to develop healthy babies, provide post-rape 

care and emergency obstetric care in post-conflict and disaster situations, help to the practice of female genital mutilation, prevent obstetric fistula, and prevent unsafe abortions. 

The truth is that the UNFPA does not provide assistance for 

abortion services or abortion-related equipment and supplies as a 

method of family planning. I will say again UNFPA’s work reduces 

the need for abortion and the whole question of voluntary planning. 

I would also like to mention that we do hear so much about the 

China policy, which I totally oppose. One child, you know it is illegal to have a brother or a sister, but I always see us lavish with 

the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers. I never hear the business people who talk about this coercive, one-child policy, people that support many folks on the other 

side. 

So I see the inconsistency. Why don’t we tell our business community why don’t you raise this issue as we raise it here? 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Ms. Buerkle is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I rise in strong 

support of H.R. 2059. 

Our country has an obligation to spend our taxpayers’ dollars 

wisely. And I would say first of all, if this is such a good program 

and they are not involved in China’s coercive abortion policy, then 

they should just supply the detailed information that they have 

been asked for by the State Department. Their failure to provide 

136

what we have asked for is not transparency. And certainly leads 

one to believe that they are not being honest and forthright with 

how they are spending the money. 

I think even more than that, by ignoring Kemp-Kasten, the U.S. 

Government sends a message to oppressive governments, that coercive abortion and other human right violations are not a big deal. 

We not only give a green light to abusive governments to continue 

to abuse their people without fear of repercussions but we also signal that we will fund organizations and support them and subsidize their programs. That is the wrong message to be sending. 

Those are not principles consistent with the United States of America. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. SMITH. Would my friend yield? 

Ms. BUERKLE. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank my good friend for yielding. 

And just a quick response to my good friend from New Jersey. 

You know I actually raised the issue of China human rights abuses 

and coercive population control at the New Jersey Chamber of 

Commerce annual event here in Washington. And I bring it up all 

the time. 

And I also show the nexus with what population control, particularly the missing girls, 40–50 million missing girls in China today, 

if ever there was a crime of gender, it is sex selection abortion 

where a girl is targeted because she is a girl and then aborted. And 

in China that is so rampant. 

And so I have raised it at the Chamber of Commerce as I said 

to my friend. 

But Ms. Buerkle brings up a very, very important point about 

lack of transparency. I mention those 48 questions—let us see—38 

questions that were posed by the Population Refugee Migration Bureau in 2008. And I would ask members to read those answers. 

When asked about what Marie Stopes International, the implementing partner for UNFPA in the health area was actually doing, 

UNFPA responded these are internal documents. And as such are 

for internal use only. Audit reports are internal management tools 

and are of a confidential nature. 

So we do not know what they are doing. They are absolutely nontransparent. 

And yet they want 50 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to carry on 

what clearly—and let me also say if my friend will continue yielding—look at what UNFPA spokespersons, including the executive 

director, Dr. Sadik, former exec director, said. 

He praised the one-child-per-couple policy. In 2002, Dr. Sadik got 

an award from the National Family Planning organization in 

China, the state-run organization, for their work. 

I met with Peng Peiyun, the woman who ran the program for 

years on one of several trips to China protesting a myriad of 

human rights abuses in that country. She kept saying over and 

over and over again in that conversation the UNFPA is here. They 

do not see any coercion. They support what we are doing. Not only 

do they support it, they are trying to export it to other countries 

under the guise of child limitation policies. So this is a very serious 

problem. 

137

I also say to my friends, yes, UNFPA may do some other things. 

But so do other multilateral organizations. So does USAID. Our 

dollars ought to go where we are not in any way complicit with 

these crimes against women—and that is not a smear, I say to my 

friend—these are crimes against women and children. 

Let us not forget at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, forced 

abortion was called rightfully so, a crime against women. And a 

crime against humanity. It is no less a crime today. 

And in scope, in the vastness of its implementation in China, 

through its laws and regulations, which the UNFPA absolutely adheres to, that was the finding by the State Department in 2008—

there has been no change. They have carried the water of the Chinese Government. They live within those parameters of those laws, 

one child, one child only. And yet when we ask questions, they say 

it is confidential. We cannot tell you what we are doing. 

I do believe that on behalf of the Chinese women and all those 

children who have been slaughtered and the Chinese women who 

have been so cruelly exploited, that the leaders of the UNFPA 

ought to be at The Hague for their complicity in these crimes. 

These are gross human rights abuses. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my colleague yield for a question? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Ms. Buerkle’s time. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And it is 5 seconds. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I wonder if my friend from New Jersey would 

favor disinvestment of all U.S. businesses in China with the same 

line? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. No, Ms. Buerkle’s time has 

expired. 

Mr. Cicilline is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Cicilline, could I have 3 seconds? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Sure. 

Mr. PAYNE. All right. I would just like to tell my colleague from 

New Jersey that you are the exception to the rule. I have to agree 

that you are consistent with the Chamber of Commerce. And so I 

will want to have the record straight that I was not criticizing you 

per se because I have heard you criticize the Chamber. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion and their own beliefs. And to have strong opinions and beliefs. 

But the facts matter, particularly when we are dealing with 

issues of life and death. And UNFPA does not support the one-child 

policy of China. UNFPA does not provide abortion or abortion-related services. Those are the facts. And that matters. 

In fact, what makes those assertions particularly disturbing is 

that UNFPA does just the opposite. One of the basic tenets of 

UNFPA is to promote voluntary family planning and oppose all 

forms of coercion, targets, or quotas. So that is not the policy that 

UNFPA, the one-child rule is not the policy obviously that they embrace. And, in fact, the governing principles are just the opposite. 

138

The United States was instrumental in the creation of UNFPA 

in 1969. And today their work reflects our commitment as a country to saving lives, to slowing the spread of HIV and AIDS and to 

ending horrific practices like female genital mutilation. And most 

importantly, to promote the health of women and children in 151 

countries around the world. 

And it is based on our long-standing belief that women deserve 

access to quality maternal and reproductive healthcare. And what 

has UNFPA done? They have, in a single decade, contributed significantly to reductions in maternal death in countries all over the 

world. Nearly every day, 1,000 women die in pregnancy. And almost all of those are preventable if they have access to quality reproductive healthcare. 

And so this bill today would eliminate those programs. It would 

eliminate the possibility to provide the kind of care that has saved 

so many lives, that has done so much to end this hideous practice 

of female genital mutilation, has done so much to deal with injuries 

of obstetric fistula, and other debilitating diseases. 

And so while I know there has been a lot of discussion about the 

one-child rule, and obviously that is something which is an anathema to everything that we believe in as a country, that is not what 

this bill is about. This bill ends all funding for UNFPA, for all of 

the programs that are helping to reduce deaths during pregnancies 

and childbirth, in helping to deal with disease and the transmission of disease, and for some of the most vulnerable populations 

all over the world. 

That is what the bill is about. There is nothing in here about 

China’s one-child policy. In fact, it will end all of the incredibly successful and hard work of UNFPA. 

So the consequences of passing this bill and the impact it will 

have on children and women all across the globe should cause everyone to reject this piece of legislation. There is no question that 

if this bill passes, it will surely result in harm to women and children by ending important and life-saving access to reproductive 

healthcare and family planning. We should not do that. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

And I would like all members to give me some hand signals if 

you wish to be recognized. 

Mr. Poe is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I see this legislation as a situation where the UNFPA does not 

want to be transparent about their records. Why is that? They have 

something to hide. Maybe something is taking place that we, as 

Americans, do not agree with. 

There are other reasons why this legislation, I think, should 

pass. And specifically one reason is China’s one-child policy, which 

I think is an awful disgrace to the nation of China and their government. 

I will yield time to Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Poe. 

And I would just like to follow up with some of the concerns that 

have been raised. And I think the overwhelming piece or point, I 

139

agree, facts do matter, to Mr. Cicilline. Facts do matter. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we do not have. 

The UNFPA does not provide us with facts. And Ranking Member Berman, you had pointed out that there are falsehoods and 

that there is misinformation about how this money is spent. I could 

not agree more. And that is exactly the reason that we have put 

this bill forward because when the American people were asked 

what is the situation, what would you say about cutting back on 

spending, this was it. 

Why? Because of the practices it supports, because of the lack of 

facts, because of the lack of information. 

You know we have also heard about the good work that UNFPA 

participates in. Things like working against female mutilation. 

Well, my question to you is enforced abortion, mutilation is part of 

that. What about that point? What about some of the other organizations that help to prevent, as has been pointed out, USAID has 

programs against the fistula preventions. 

These are all things that I think the American people are aware 

of. And they understand. 

You know in the past—and according to a 2008 report, when 

funding like this has been withheld, the European Union has come 

forward. In the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, 

Luxembourg, Japan, UK have all come forward to help in these efforts. 

Why is it on the burden of the hard-working American taxpayer 

that they continue to fund a program that we know so little about, 

that we know participates in the Chinese one-child policy. They enforce this. 

Now whether or not the UNFPA says that they agree with that, 

money is fungible. The money gets put where it needs to go in 

these practices. 

Now this is the issue. Regardless of where you stand on these 

issues, I am a woman. I am a nurse. There is nothing I believe in 

more than women’s health. 

The fact of the matter is the American people are forced to pay 

for a practice in other countries that we know nothing about. And 

that is the issue here. The American people have spoken about 

this. They have told us that they want an end to this wasteful 

spending, that they are participating in acts which are horrific. 

And I applaud the concerns that have been brought forward in 

this debate. I understand that there are some good things that get 

done. But by far, the inhumanitarian efforts that are put forward 

in things like this that the American taxpayers are being forced to 

pay for outweigh any of the minimal benefits that we have seen. 

Again, I say that because there are other organizations that help 

in these efforts. And the American taxpayer should not have to be 

forced to pay for this. 

And I yield back my time. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Would the gentlelady yield for a question? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Is it Mr. Poe’s time? Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Yes, I’ll yield. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. I would ask the sponsor, she just indicated there was a lot of good things or there are some good things 

that UNFPA does. Would you acknowledge then that your bill 

140

would prevent those good things from continuing? Because it eliminates funding and——

Mr. POE. I yield to Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. Well, unfortunately, that is correct. And the reason that that is so significant is because of the lack of information 

that we have been able to obtain. Now again, I agree. That is unfortunate. However, there are other organizations that come forward in this aid. This is not the only form of funding for these 

needed agenda items. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Poe? 

Mr. POE. I yield to Ms. Schmidt. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Ms. Schmidt is recognized for 10 seconds. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. There is some money in the account that could pay 

for those programs right now and it doesn’t preclude other countries from funding this agency. So in answer to your question, yes, 

there are other ways to pay for those good programs. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Poe’s time is——

Mr. POE. Expired. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Mr. Engel is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Look, everyone who is speaking this morning is heartfelt and feels very 

strongly about it. I am what you would call pro-choice, but I do understand my friends on the other side of the aisle. Many who have 

spoken this morning are good, personal friends of mine. And I understand the heartfelt feelings that those on the other side of the 

aisle have expressed regarding abortion and regarding all of the 

things they have said. 

I oppose the bill because I just don’t think—this to me is like 

using a meat axe to get at everything because some are annoyed 

at some of the programs that have. I mean some of us are also annoyed at the United Nations, in general. I think it’s time, frankly, 

to reassess a lot of U.S. contributions to the United Nations because the United Nations has not been balanced and fair in a number of instances, certainly in the Middle East and in the IsraeliPalestinian question and other questions as well. Those of us who 

have fought against dictatorships, whether it’s in Cuba or other 

places, we get frustrated with the United Nations because they 

seem to tilt on the side of dictators and also it irks me, I’m talking 

about me, that the United States pays the yeoman’s share of contributions to the U.N. and yet the countries of the U.N. kind of spit 

in our face. And it’s kind of annoying. 

So some of that I think is inherent in this argument. And of 

course, the major thing is the whole abortion issue. I think UNFPA 

does do good work. I think access to contraception, my personal 

feeling, is important for women, particularly in the Third World, 

and women’s healthcare is critical for individual health and family 

wellbeing and I just think that’s important. 

So the UNFPA promoting voluntary family planning, it doesn’t 

force anyone to do family planning, but it’s voluntary family planning and does oppose all forms of coercion. I think it’s a program 

that should be continued. It doesn’t mean that we should keep 

writing blank checks. It doesn’t mean that we should not monitor 

141

it. I think some of the concerns that have been voiced on the other 

side are legitimate concerns and I think we need to monitor things 

because I don’t think that the United States can keep pouring 

money and not have any kind of oversight. I don’t think that’s right 

either. But I think to cut off the funding to UNFPA again is like 

taking a meat cleaver when all we need to do is ask questions and 

do it in a much more general way. So I oppose the bill, but I do 

hope we can keep the dialogue going. And I yield back, Madam 

Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. The 

Chair will recognize herself just to make a note. I know that we 

have some members who would like to speak, but I know Mr. 

Connolly had indicated that he has an amendment. And I think 

many of the arguments that perhaps our colleagues will be making 

could be applicable to argue on the Connolly amendment. Unless 

there’s an overriding need to speak at this time, perhaps we could 

move to the amendment process. If Mr. Connolly offers his amendment, I don’t know what it is, but I’m sure our arguments will be 

applicable to that as well. If that is all right, then we will have several amendments. So if the clerk will—would any member like to 

be recognized in order to offer an amendment? Mr. Connolly is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And then Ms. Bass and Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will read the amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. I do not have the amendment. 

Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia. In 

section 1 insert ‘‘and accept as provided in section 2’’ before ‘‘the 

Secretary of State’’. Add at the end of the following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in the case of contributions to 

UNFPA to carry out activities to prevent and treat cases of obstetric fistula. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Connolly follows:]

142

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Connolly is recognized. Well, the 

Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the author for 5 

minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. And given what the author of 

the defunding of UNFPA indicated in terms of her continuing commitment to women’s health, and then her intention wasn’t to deny 

the legitimate activities of UNFPA with respect to that health, I 

would hope she could support this amendment. 

This amendment addresses a very difficult subject, especially in 

developing countries among women called obstetric fistula. For 

those who haven’t heard of the condition of fistula is frankly a hole. 

And obstetric fistula is a hole between the digestive tract and the 

reproductive tract. It is life endangering. It can lead to the natural 

abortion of a fetus and it can lead to ultimately the illness, sickness, and death of the carrying mother. 

If this was a rare occurrence, I suppose some might be able to 

turn their head and ignore it. But it’s not rare. It’s estimated that 

more than 2 million young women live with untreated obstetric fistula in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa alone. Each year, 50,000 to 

100,000 additional women are affected by obstetric fistula. How 

does it happen? In general, it happens because of prolonged labor 

without prompt medical intervention, usually a caesarian section. 

The risks of damage are heightened by pregnancy at too young an 

age, by harmful practices such as female genital mutilation and by 

the lack of timely access to obstetric care. 


70662h.eps
143

So fistulas are actually preventable. They can be prevented by 

expanding access to family planning, skilled birth attendance, and 

emergency obstetric care facilities. The risk can be reduced by 

things like improving girls’ nutrition and conducting educational 

campaigns. And when you prevent obstetric fistula, you also reduce 

infant mortality, something I know Mr. Smith and others absolutely share a concern about since most cases of fistula end up with 

a stillborn baby. 

Now only is obstetric fistula preventable, Madam Chairman, it’s 

treatable. Fistula can be completely repaired up to 90 percent of 

the time if survivors have access to a trained surgeon at a hospital 

providing fistula repair. The average cost of such treatment and 

post-operative care is about $300 in these countries. Sadly, most 

women with the condition do not know that treatment is available 

or they can’t afford it. 

UNFPA is one of the world’s leaders in addressing this problem. 

In 2003, UNFPA and its partners launched a global campaign to 

end fistula with the goal of making obstetric fistula as rare in developing countries as it is here in the industrialized world. 

My amendment is simple. If the money is used to prevent or 

treat obstetric fistula, we would provide that exemption for the 

overall ban on funding of UNFPA and I would yield to the distinguished ranking member. 

Mr. BERMAN. I could not have said it better myself. Between you 

and Mr. Deutch, you’ve made a compelling case. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the gentleman and yield back, Madam 

Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The Chair 

yields herself 5 minutes. And certainly the services in Mr. 

Connolly’s amendment, they are noble goals, but the amendment 

presumes that whatever good activities the UNFPA conducts will 

cease unless it receives our U.S. taxpayer dollars. And that’s simply not true. And I’m sure that we will have a series of amendments, not just on fistula, but there will be a series on other services that UNFPA provides, and they will use these services as 

cover to continue their practice. 

Given recent reports that UNFPA may be sitting on $500 million 

in unspent reserves, it appears unlikely that they will run out of 

this money and probably will be able to resume their activities with 

whatever money they have still to spend. 

And further, UNFPA’s noble goals are tainted by the fact that 

they are listed in this amendment and in many amendments to 

come for no other reason than to justify funding an organization 

that supports and participates in the management of China’s unthinkable, brutal, one-child policy, a policy in which women are 

snatched out of their homes, forced into a clinic, and held down 

while their baby is killed and extracted from their bodies, all while 

UNFPA likely provides financial support to the agency responsible 

for these terrible abuses. Instead of boldly speaking out against the 

one-child policy at every opportunity, UNFPA gives cover to the 

Chinese Government. Regardless of what UNFPA claims, UNFPA 

does not enforce, monitor, or certify that UNFPA funds are not 

going to forced sterilization and coerced abortion. UNFPA does not 

144

hold recipient governments accountable and it refuses to share 

their records. 

Remember, fistulas on one continent simply cannot offset participation in the most draconian population control program on the 

globe. Fortunately, USAID already has a program for fistula prevention and repair, and the millions of dollars currently going to 

UNFPA could more transparently and effectively be directed 

through our bilateral assistance programs. 

One day fistula will be eradicated worldwide and when that day 

comes, I hope that we will be proud that the scourge of fistula was 

eliminated without using the suffering of women in Africa and 

other parts of the world to justify and mask the unthinkable suffering of women who are subjected to forced abortions in China. 

I’d like to yield my remaining time and then he will get his own 

time to Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise in opposition to the amendment and associate myself with the remarks of 

the gentlelady, the chair of the committee. 

In the late 1990s, I began an effort after being made aware of 

obstetric fistula by Dr. Wali from Modern Care to get a program 

that would combat fistula. I asked the Clinton administration, I 

asked the Bush administration. I finally got legislation passed as 

an amendment in my bill, H.R. 2601 that established a fistula program. The gentlelady from Florida was the chief cosponsor. It 

passed the House, failed in the Senate. 

I then talked to Kent Hill who was then the head of Health for 

USAID and said we’ve passed a program to combat obstetric fistula, will you do it administratively? You have the authority, just 

do it. He did it. 

We now have a USAID fistula program that has spent over $70 

million. It has repaired 20,000 women, mostly in Africa, and it has 

a preventive capacity to it as well as repair capacity. And 30 

USAID-supported fistula repair centers operate in 11 countries. We 

have built a capacity. UNFPA does some things on fistula, does 

some things on other things that some might think are important, 

but frankly, the massive crime of forced abortion should not be 

overlooked and somehow put under the table because somehow 

they’re doing something else somewhere else. 

We have a fistula program. I started it. And I believe deeply 

along with the gentlelady from Florida who was the co-author of 

that legislation, that that’s the way to go. If UNFPA was stealing 

money, would anybody here on either side of the aisle say oh, let’s 

look askance with regards to their huge thefts and we would find 

another NGO, another regional body to give our money to. In this 

case, we’re doing it on fistula. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Fortenberry is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, Madam Chair, I simply want to concur 

with what you said. You most capably and aptly and frankly beautifully laid out the case that we do not have to be complicit with 

this agency as they are complicit in China’s one-child barbaric policy, but at the same time we have a certain level of responsibility 

to the international community. And as Mr. Smith just stated, we 

can use our own funds and direct them in a way toward the essenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:30 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\100511M\70662 HFA PsN: SHIRL
145

tial and important goal of helping the victims of this fistula difficulty as well as other programs out there that will again be targeted to the poorest and marginalized, particularly women who are 

hurting and in need. But to simply say that the conduit has to be 

the United Nations Population Fund I think is a point of disagreement here. There are many people who would be deeply troubled 

after learning about this hearing as to what’s been said and I think 

it’s appropriate to remove taxpayer dollars from that organization, 

but continue to look for creative ways, as Mr. Smith has done 

through his extraordinary leadership to help the world’s most vulnerable. With that, I’ll yield. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Payne is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Oh, I’m sorry, thank you. Do any of the members seek recognition on the Connolly amendment? And if not, the Chair withdraws 

the point of order and, hearing no further requests for recognition, 

the question occurs on the Connolly amendment that is before you. 

All those in favor say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

All opposed, no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Respectfully, I would ask for a recorded vote on 

that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. A recorded vote has been requested 

and the clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. Mr. Gallegly. Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Royce. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Paul. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence votes no. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. McCaul votes no. Mr. Poe. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. Bilirakis. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

146

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. Mr. Griffin. Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes no. Mr. Duncan. Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. Mr. Ackerman. Mr. 

Faleomavaega. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne votes aye. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. Mr. Cardoza. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms. 

Schwartz. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. I haven’t finished the roll yet. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. If we will allow the clerk to finish the 

roll and then we will ask if all members have been recorded. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Murphy. Ms. Wilson. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo, you are not recorded. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Royce, you are recorded as voting no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

147

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 12 ayes 

and 21 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it and the question is 

not agreed to. Are there further amendments on this bill? Ms. Bass 

has an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Ms. Bass. In 

section 1 insert ‘‘and accept as provided in section 2’’ before ‘‘the 

Secretary of State’’. Add at the end of the following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in the case of contributions to 

UNFPA to carry out activities to reestablish reproductive and maternal health services in areas where medical infrastructure and 

such services have been destroyed by natural disasters. 

[The amendment offered by Ms. Bass follows:]

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Ms. Bass is recognized to explain her 

amendment. 

Ms. BASS. Madam Chair, this amendment will allow the United 

States to continue working with the Population Fund in disaster 

areas to help reestablish maternal health services. The amendment 

would continue funding again for critical health services after a 

natural disaster. For example, after the tsumani in ’05, the Population Fund moved rapidly to protect maternal and reproductive 

health and to ensure the security, hygiene and dignity of women 

and girls throughout Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. In IndoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:30 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\100511M\70662 HFA PsN: SHIRL

70662i.eps
148

nesia, for example, the Fund continues to provide hygiene kits, 

medicines, and medical equipment. 

In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake in 2010, the Fund 

worked closely with clinics on the ground to assist pregnant women 

who were struggling to stay alive and deliver healthy babies. 

My amendment aims to protect women’s reproductive health 

after a natural disaster strikes. I urge my colleagues to support my 

amendment. I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much for your brevity, 

Ms. Bass. It is so greatly appreciated. Do other members seek recognition on this amendment? Mr. Chabot is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the 

gentlelady, first of all, from North Carolina, Ms. Ellmers for offering her excellent legislation. I can’t think of a better way to save 

$50 million in American taxpayer dollars than by prohibiting funding the United Nations Population Fund. As my colleagues know, 

the U.S. for quite some time withheld funding the UNFPA, a leading proponent of China’s unconscionable one-child policy. That 

changed in 2009 when President Obama reinstated funding to the 

UNFPA. Since then, the taxpayers of the United States, a majority 

of whom oppose taxpayer-funded abortion have unwillingly allocated $145 million for this abusive policy. 

I would like to again thank my colleague from North Carolina, 

Ms. Ellmers, for offering her thoughtful legislation. We talk a lot 

about human rights around here. This legislation is all about 

human rights. The fundamental right to life, I wholeheartedly support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same. And I would ask the 

gentlelady from North Carolina, would she like to speak to this 

amendment or her amendment specifically? 

Ms. ELLMERS. Yes. And thank you, Mr. Chabot. There again, 

wonderful intention to continue funding especially in those countries that are faced with those natural disasters as our own country 

has been faced with, but there again, we are faced with a situation 

where all too often, the taxpayer dollars are not being spent wisely 

because we don’t know what is being—what is taking place. And 

although again, as the chairman has pointed out, there are many 

situations which I think we all support on a humanitarian level. 

The fact that there is such lack of transparency in this program 

that why should the American people continue to pay for it, especially when there are other sources of funding that are available. 

And as the chairman has pointed out, $500 million of surplus that 

can be used for these actually needed efforts. 

I agree. There are many—it tugs at our heartstrings whenever 

we hear these issues, but the overall riding issue is the abuses that 

are taking place. And this is what the American people are calling 

out to us as elected officials to take care of and to recognize. And 

to stop the continued funding of their taxpayer funds. So thank 

you. 

Again, to the gentlelady, I am in disagreement with your amendment, although I know your intentions are more than honorable. I 

yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time. And having had the opportunity to interact with the gentlelady from California, the former 

149

Speaker of the House, I would agree that her intentions are honorable. Nonetheless, I have to oppose the amendment and I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chabot. I 

would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Berman who will speak in 

favor of the amendment and then I will recognize him for unanimous consent request to make it easier for our members in terms 

of voting. 

Mr. Berman is recognized. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And I 

support this amendment very strongly. But I’d like to engage Ms. 

Ellmers, the sponsor of the legislation. And here, I’m quite serious 

in trying to understand particularly given your last comments, 

what our differences are. 

I think there’s a general consensus that China and areas of 

China forced abortion, coercive population control, one-child policy 

are going on and are odious to us and constitute violations of fundamental human rights. 

You’ve acknowledged that UNFPA does many good things that 

have nothing to do with that. But there’s been a general allegation 

that the UNFPA supports those practices as opposed to the services 

we think of. I’ve not heard—I’ve heard vivid descriptions of the outrage of China’s practices, but I haven’t heard UNFPA. But you just 

referenced that part of this problem isn’t so much we have specific 

evidence of what UNFPA has done as there is a lack of transparency, so if they’re operating in a country where these odious 

things are going on, we should cut off the funding. 

I’m wondering if you could share with us what is the information 

that you seek that you’re not able to get. What is the—give me 

some detail the problem with the transparency. I say this honestly 

because I think——

Mr. ENGEL. Would my friend yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. I asked Ms. Ellmers, but whoever. 

Ms. ELLMERS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. Yes. 

Ms. ELLMERS. Yes, well, you have pointed out some fine points. 

In fact, you’ve outlined in your opening comments the lack of information, the misinformation that is out there and this is exactly the 

point. And I would reiterate to you again that this was the winning 

you cut proposal that the American people—please, if I could just 

maintain my——

Mr. BERMAN. No, let me just reclaim my time, it is my time. I 

want to understand what is the information. No one has told me 

about something UNFPA has done that constitutes a coercive family planning practice, a forced abortion or one child—no one has 

made such an assertion. What they have said is they’re operating 

in a country where that is going on and then you have added and 

we don’t know what they’re doing there. There’s a lack of transparency. And I’m trying to find out what is it that you’re—what 

have you tried to get that you haven’t been able to get? 

Ms. ELLMERS. Well, let me outline to you, John Negroponte, then 

Deputy Secretary of State, June 26, 2008, State Department determination denying U.S. funds to the UNFPA that—and I quote—‘‘all 

UNFPA programming related to contraceptive and reproductive 

150

health incorporates and defers to Chinese law and regulation.’’ This 

is the Chinese law that is in place for the one-child policy and the 

UNFPA adheres to that. The national law and the provincial regulations are a framework for Chinese coercive birth policy. 

Mr. BERMAN. What is UNFPA—reclaiming my time—what do 

they do? My guess is American companies, American tourists, comply with all kinds of Chinese laws. What does the agency and its 

people do in China that holds them culpable for the odious and outrageous practices of the Chinese Government? That’s what I’m trying to get my hands on. 

Ms. ELLMERS. I will once again point out, one, the lack of transparency, but I would like to further that with a statement from 

Sven Burmenester in 1999, a UNFPA representative talking about 

the Chinese population control programs. His quote was, ‘‘China 

has had the most successful family planning policy in the history 

of mankind in terms of quantity and with that China has done 

mankind a favor.’’

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I 

just want to say we were going to entertain unanimous consent to 

roll the votes because it seemed to be easier for our members, but 

apparently we want to keep on voting so I will continue to recognize members who wish to speak on the amendment that is before 

us. And then we still have Mr. Payne’s two amendments. We have 

a Cicilline amendment, and we have a Keating amendment, and a 

Murphy amendment. 

Mr. Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. First of all, let me say to the sponsor, I deeply respect her and thank her for her good work. The other day when 

we were at the White House, I thought it was excellent that she 

was working on foster care. But let me just say as well, that I was 

in Banda Aceh. I was in Sri Lanka. And also visited Phuket after 

the horrific tsunami in 2005 as you pointed out. 

UNFPA is not the only player in town. There are large numbers 

of NGOs, large numbers of private volunteer organizations, government health departments and the like, all who have capacity, who 

provide much needed and often compete for very scarce dollars for 

virtually every program that we provide. 

We always have more people asking for money than those that 

we are able to fund. UNFPA, we argue, disqualifies itself pursuant 

to the Kemp-Kasten law that says very simply that any organization that support or co-manages a coercive population control program is precluded funding. It is to say that all family planning absolutely bright lined in the sand must be voluntary and also we 

would hope would be not abortive because abortion is not family 

planning. It takes the life of a baby, as Planned Parenthood itself 

admitted in the ’60s after that child’s life has begun. 

So money that doesn’t go to the UNFPA is reprogrammed for maternal healthcare or some other program somewhere else. It’s not 

like the money is lost somehow in the system. And in the past, we 

have had amendments that suggested that it ought to go to this 

program or that program in order to ensure that vital programs 

like fistula repair are funded. 

UNFPA, though, as Sven Burmenester, as Ms. Ellmers has just 

mentioned a moment ago, they have been saying China is the 

151

model. They’re not saying don’t coerce, don’t exploit women. 

They’re saying China is the model. 

I have met about 100 women, both in China and at all of those 

hearings that I’ve held including the one just a couple of weeks 

ago, three of whom were forcibly aborted and you hear them tell 

how the government so aggressively coerces. It starts with economic disincentives, fines and penalties, and if the woman persists, 

she is literally dragged in. 

There has been no record of UNFPA saying publicly or privately, 

they don’t tell us what they do privately, that they have tried to 

stop this. Instead, they say to all-comers, they whitewash these 

crimes, frankly. They say to everybody who is a critic that this is 

the program that needs to be emulated. 

God forbid that we have a one-child-per-couple policy, and I will 

yield, all over the world, because—and you look at what just recently at a summit in Cancun. Ted Turner said we need a world, 

including the United States, with a one-child-per-couple policy. 

That means brothers and sisters are illegal. In dictatorships, it will 

be very easy, obviously, it would be a lot harder to get that implemented in a democracy like the United States or many of European 

friends. 

We’ve asked—the administration previously—PRM asked does 

UNFPA training include explicit prohibitions against using coercive 

measures? No answer. They were asked exactly what is Marie 

Stopes International, the health implementing partner doing? They 

were told in this Q&A that that is confidential. We can’t tell you. 

So we see all of this support for the Chinese family planning program. We see awards going to the executive director of the UNFPA 

from the China State Family Planning Organization. It’s not rocket 

science to say they are complicit. They are supporting it. And as 

I said before, the woman who ran it, Pong Peyun. I got a rare 

meeting with her when I was in Beijing. She kept telling me how 

the UNFPA is here, on the ground, and sees no evidence of coercion. 

Please, if you believe that, I’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. It 

is horrific. Take the time to know what’s going on on the ground. 

It’s all about defending women. They can’t fight against—look at 

Chen Guangcheng, the blind activist lawyer who is under house arrest along with his wife, has been beaten to a pulp repeatedly by 

Chinese secret police, went to prison and what was his crime? Defending women in Liaoning province who were being forcibly aborted. And they absolutely threw the book at this man. 

And then we want to give money to an organization that is also 

on the ground like Chen Guangcheng who are saying this is what 

not only what China should continue doing, but also what the rest 

of the world needs to emulate. And believe me, in Africa and elsewhere, the lessons learned, negative lessons at that, are being promoted all over Africa. Child limitation is the means to an end and 

of course in dicatorships it absolutely includes coercion just like in 

China. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Do other members seek 

recognition on the amendment? 

If not, the question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, 

say aye. 

152

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All those opposed, no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair the noes 

have it. And the amendment is not agreed to. 

Ms. Bass requests a roll call vote and the clerk will call the roll. 

This is on the Bass amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. Mr. Paul. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence votes no. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson votes no. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. McCall. 

Mr. Poe. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. Bilirakis. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

153

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. 

Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne votes aye. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. Mr. Cardoza. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms. 

Schwartz. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. Ms. Wilson. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. Ms. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe votes no. Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. If the clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chairman on that vote there are 13 ayes, 

and 21 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it and the question is 

not agreed to. Mr. Payne is recognized to explain his two amendments to offer. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Madam Chair, Amendment 647, it’s at 

the desk and while they are distributing it, I’ll move on for the benefit of the time, Madam Chair. This amendment that I introduce 

with Mr. Keating grants the President authorization to support 

UNFPA in their work to promote the access of woman, unaccompanied minors, and other vulnerable people to vital services including access to water, sanitation facilities, food and healthcare as 

well as support services to prevent and respond to gender-based violence and emergency in conflict situations. 

As you know, UNFPA is a critical player in emergencies whether 

it’s armed conflict, famine or natural disaster. Some 60 million people are currently internally displaced and lack basic human necessities. Most vulnerable in this population, of course, are women and 

children and they account for over 75 percent of this displaced people in conflict zones. More women die from childbirth complications, preventable diseases and malnutrition than from the actual 

violence that is occurring on the field. 

154

Failing to target and treat these women as consequences beyond 

the individual often threatens the child. More than 15 of all pregnancies have complications requiring emergency obstetric care during delivery. However, in times of crisis, obstetric care is often 

overlooked, increasing child mortality and vulnerability to HIV. 

The last two decades, the number of natural disasters has quadrupled and the number of people affected by these disasters has increased by 76 million. Over the last decade an additional 100 people per hour have become displaced through the conflicts. Now is 

not the time to reduce the support we provide to the most vulnerable among us. In emergency situations UNFPA is on the front line 

saving lives of men, women, and children, newborns, and that is 

why I urge you support this amendment, and Madam Chair, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Payne and Mr. Keating follows:]

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Hearing no 

other members requesting recognition, the question occurs on the 

amendment. All those in favor say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed, no. 


70662j.eps
155

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. PAYNE. Madam Chair, may I have a recorded vote? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And the clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. Paul. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence votes no. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson votes no. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. Poe. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. Bilirakis. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. Mr. Turner. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. 

Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne votes aye. Mr. Sherman. 

156

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. Mr. Meeks. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. Mr. Sires. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. Mr. Deutch. Mr. Cardoza. 

Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes aye. Mr. Higgins. Ms. 

Schwartz. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. Ms. Wilson. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. Ms. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Deutch? 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? The 

clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote, there are 13 ayes and 

23 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it. The question is not 

agreed to. Mr. Payne is recognized for his next amendment. 

Mr. PAYNE. I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment 658. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Payne. In 

section 1, insert ‘‘and except as provided in section 2’’ before ‘‘the 

Secretary of State’’. Add at the end of the following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in the case of contributions to 

UNFPA to carry out activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Payne follows:]

157

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. We will wait 1 second until the members have the amendment, and then I will recognize Mr. Payne. 

Mr. Payne is recognized. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My amendment, as has been indicated, grants the President authorization to 

support UNFPA’s activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

The infant mortality rate in the DRC is 78.43 deaths per 1,000 live 

births, which of course makes the DRC one of the highest 

incidences of infant mortality in the world. 

The UNFPA is on the ground in the DRC, combating this in a 

number of ways, and working to make motherhood safer. Ensuring 

there is a skilled birth attendant and access to emergency obstetric 

care are some of the simple solutions UNFPA employs to prevent 

the complications from becoming debilitating and life-threatening. 

In the DRC, half of all women will have a child by the age of 

19. A child bride faces greater health risks and experiences real 

physical violations and trauma as her young body is forced to deal 

with early sexual activity and the strain of pregnancy and childbirth. 

The UNFPA is working across the DRC to educate people about 

how delaying childbirth for even 5 years would have immense 

health benefits to women. In this war-torn country, rape and sexual violence plague the population. The U.N. has declared DRC to 

be the rape capital of the world. 

I recently returned, about a month or so ago, from three camps 

where rape victims live, in the hardship that they lived with, and 

their children. It was just heart-wrenching. UNFPA has been aidVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:30 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\100511M\70662 HFA PsN: SHIRL

70662k.eps
158

ing survivors of sexual violence throughout the country for many 

years, by providing everything from medical care to legal assistance. 

UNFPA has also trained thousands of troops in the armed forces, 

and from the U.N., on how to deal with and assist rape victims. 

UNFPA has entered refugee camps, including Camp Kibaki, to provide condoms, STD test kits, as well as treatment for STDs. It also 

provides kits for rape victims, and clean delivery kits. 

UNFPA is on the front lines fighting for human rights. I ask that 

you please support the UNFPA’s work in the DRC by voting yes 

for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Do any members seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing no requests for recognition, 

the question occurs—yes. Mr. Ackerman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would just like to ask Mr. Payne a question. 

Does any of this money go to abortions? 

Mr. PAYNE. Absolutely not. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Could somebody explain, if none of this money 

is going for abortions, and it is going for only those good purposes 

that Mr. Payne outlined, why would somebody object to this 

amendment? 

Ms. ELLMERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be delighted. 

Ms. ELLMERS. And again, a very good question, and one that I 

think has been reiterated over, and over, and over again today. You 

know, good things in one part of the world do not offset human 

rights abuses in another. If the UNFPA truly does care——

Mr. ACKERMAN. But this is only for that part of the world, as 

I——

Ms. ELLMERS. Again, and this goes to Mr. Payne’s actual amendment, about human rights and the UNFPA supporting human 

rights efforts. If they truly do believe this, and they truly do believe 

in the rights of women and families, children, then they will start 

by pulling their assistance to the Chinese population control agencies——

Mr. ACKERMAN. But I can’t——

Ms. ELLMERS [continuing]. And stop the strong——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I take it your argument goes to fungibility? 

Ms. ELLMERS. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my good friend yield? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I have a hard time reconciling how we apply 

standards here, and I understand all of the sensitivities of the 

issue. But if there were—let me first just state that I am a very 

strong believer in separation of church and state. Nonetheless, like 

a lot of us, I support providing funds for certain religious institutions, so that they can use it for transportation or general education, within church schools or church supported schools, despite 

the fact that money might be fungible, so that we can provide general services for the good things they do. 

Nobody makes the case that because a particular church or religion may have some people running amok and abusing children, 

that until that policy stops we shouldn’t be doing the good things 

159

that that church, or institution, or religion might be doing, because 

that money is fungible. How do we reconcile that? 

I know that it is not an official policy of the church, but certainly 

cover-ups some people consider an official policy. And we know that 

everybody on both sides decries those abuses, if indeed they do take 

place, but why do we not cut off those funds until that organization, I think you said ‘‘cleans up its act’’ internationally. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my good friend yield for a question? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Ackerman, over here. Following your logic, 

Mr. Ackerman, I agree with what you are getting at. If we are 

going to buy into guilt by association—no proof that the party that 

is the subject of the legislation has done anything wrong, but just 

the fact that it operates in another country where we think some 

things have been done wrong—we believe they have been—that is 

good enough. 

And this issue of fungibility. Wouldn’t it logically follow, Mr. Ackerman, that we ought to be actually marking up legislation to require the disinvestment of all U.S. companies in China? Because 

money is fungible, and guilt by association: The fact that they are 

there automatically makes them complicit in a policy we abhor. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I think I get your point, and I think you get my 

point. I don’t think anybody else gets it. I think there is a lack of 

consistency here. And I understand the sensitivities, and I don’t 

think any of us want to cut off money for doing good things, and 

you don’t want to condemn everybody for everything when there 

are policies that were obviously—or seem obviously to be taking 

place, either in commission or in covering those up. 

And I don’t know how you punish good acts, that are done by 

good people, because of things that you might believe are bad 

things to do. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Ackerman, would you yield? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would. 

Mr. PAYNE. I would just ask—and I can appreciate the feelings 

of people who are very much pro-life, but I would implore some of 

you to visit a place like the DRC, where people live on volcanic 

rock, and women who have been raped, who stand up before you 

and tell you about their situations. I think you might have a little 

bit different——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has 

expired, Mr. Ackerman’s time. And the gentleman, Mr. Smith, is 

recognized, who knows a bit about this issue. 

Mr. SMITH. First of all, as my good friend and colleague from 

New Jersey knows, I have been to the DR Congo, not only chaired 

several hearings on it, the violence against women and the like, I 

went to Goma. And I visited several NGOs that were working and 

doing Herculean, outstanding efforts expended upon women who 

were subjected to violence, and women who experienced obstetric 

fistulas. And Heal Africa, for example, is doing magnificent things. 

They are not UNFPA. 

There are other organizations that, if the United Nations Population Fund insists on aiding and abetting coercion and violence 

against women in China, and then seeks to export that model elsewhere, including to Africa—as you may recall, 3 years ago, the 

160

health ministers of most of the sub-Saharan African countries were 

invited to Beijing, and under the auspices of the UNFPA and the 

coercive State Family Planning Council, were told, ‘‘If you want to 

have economic prosperity, the means to that end is to limit the 

number of children.’’

Paul Kagame from Rwanda came back, and he is talking now 

about a three child per couple policy, and you only get there 

through coercion. Women and families will always want to have 

children, and the government then steps in and says, ‘‘You can’t 

have that child.’’

Mr. Berman said earlier that there is no consensus for what 

China is doing. I would agree, but that doesn’t apply to the U.N. 

Population Fund. They like the program in China. They say it repeatedly, publicly. They tell me that. So after a while—they train 

family planning cadres. So their consensus is to support, enable, 

aid and abet this horrific crime against women. 

And again, for an NGO or some group that we don’t support, we 

provide that money to another group, like in the DR Congo where 

other organizations are there. And as I would also say, with fistula, 

I worked very hard to build capacity within USAID so we have 

complete transparency, accountability, so those monies are going 

where we can say, ‘‘How much did we spend? What did we do to 

try and mitigate the misery and pain suffered by fistula victims?’’

We have no such accountability whatsoever with UNFPA. They 

take our money, and then slam the door in our face. That is no way 

to run an NGO, a multilateral organization, or a U.N. organization. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The gentleman yields back. Hearing 

no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on the 

Payne amendment. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. PAYNE. Recorded vote. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Payne requests a recorded vote. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Burton. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

161

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. 

Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. 

Mr. Chabot. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson votes no. 

Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe votes no. 

Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. 

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. 

Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. 

Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes no. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. 

Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. 

162

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. 

Mr. Berman. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne votes aye. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. 

Mr. Meeks. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. 

Mr. Sires. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes aye. 

Mr. Higgins. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schwartz. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. 

163

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. BURTON. Have I been recorded? 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton, you are not recorded. 

Mr. BURTON. I vote no. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. 

Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes aye. 

Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 14 ayes 

and 23 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it, and the question is 

not agreed to. We have a Cicilline amendment, and a possible two 

amendments from Mr. Keating. Mr. Cicilline, would you like to——

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I actually 

have two amendments at the desk. I would like to begin with 

Amendment 649, which is co-sponsored by Congresswoman Allison 

Schwartz. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the CicillineSchwartz amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Cicilline 

of Rhode Island and Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania. 

In section 1 insert ‘‘and except as provided in section 2,’’ before 

‘‘the Secretary of State’’. Add at the end of the following: Section 

2——

[The amendment offered by Mr. Cicilline and Ms. Schwartz follows:]

164

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. The Chair reserves a point 

of order, and in the interests of time I would like to recognize the 

author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment, while the amendment copies are being given out. Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am strongly opposed to this underlying bill, but hope that passage of this amendment will mitigate the detrimental impact of this legislation on 

women’s reproductive health all around the globe. 

UNFPA is the organization that provided safe delivery kits to 

women in the days after the 2004 tsunami in Asia, so that thousands of women could give birth safely in the aftermath of this disaster. UNFPA leads efforts to eliminate obstetric fistula, distribute 

effective contraceptives, prevent HIV and AIDS, and deliver 

healthy newborns. United States funds are essential to the continued provision of these types of services. 

In addition, some of the benefits of U.S. international family 

planning assistance include 37.4 million women and couples receiving contraceptive services, 11.7 million unintended pregnancies are 

prevented. There are 5.1 million fewer abortions, and 32,000 maternal deaths averted. If the United States stops funding these crucial life-saving initiatives, we can expect more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, and more maternal deaths. 

For these reasons, I am offering an amendment that would allow 

the U.S. to continue to contribute to UNFPA’s work in post-conflict 

and disaster situations by providing and distributing equipment, 


70662l.eps
165

medicine, supplies, and expertise, including safe delivery kits and 

hygiene kits to ensure safe childbirth and emergency obstetric care. 

UNFPA provides safe delivery and hygiene kits to ensure safe 

childbirth and emergency care to those most vulnerable to complications of pregnancy and childbirth which are a leading cause of 

disease and death among refugee women of childbearing age. 

UNFPA responds to emergencies in a broad range of situations 

and settings. The conditions may be hostile or hospitable, politically charged or on the path to peace. But they are never easy. In 

the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010, the 

needs of 63,000 pregnant women were met through dissemination 

of safe delivery kits that were provided with UNFPA’s support. 

After unrest in East Timor damaged or destroyed almost every 

medical facility, UNFPA worked with NGOs to distribute equipment for clinics and basic supplies, such as soap, plastic sheeting, 

and even a razor blade for cutting the umbilical cord of a newborn. 

Whether the emergency is due to violence, as in Timor, or earthquakes, as in Haiti, or a hurricane, as in Guatemala, UNFPA 

stands ready to assist pregnant women in this time of compounded 

vulnerability, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 

amendment and to oppose the underlying bill. But this amendment 

will ensure that in those circumstances, emergencies, that the 

UNFPA can continue to carry out activities that provide and distribute medicine, supplies, expertise, equipment—that will include 

safe delivery kits and hygiene kits—to ensure safe childbirth and 

emergency obstetric care. 

And I hope that everyone can support this amendment. This is 

an opportunity to be certain that, in those instances where we have 

an opportunity to really help in the safe birth of a child, that the 

UNFPA will continue to be able to devote resources to those activities. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Ackerman is recognized. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, I have a question for the author of the 

amendment, Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Does your amendment promote abortion? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Absolutely not. In fact, it specifically refers to ensuring the safe childbirth and emergency obstetric care, so it is——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Does it pay for abortions? 

Mr. CICILLINE. It does not. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Does it encourage abortions? 

Mr. CICILLINE. It does not. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Does it help provide for safe deliveries and live 

births? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. So this is a pro-life amendment? 

Mr. CICILLINE. It is absolutely a pro-child amendment. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Does anybody think that this is anything—this 

specific amendment is anything but a pro-child, pro-child-beingborn-live-and-safely amendment? If not, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Hearing—yes, Mr. Berman? 

166

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, again I rise in support of the 

amendment. The only thing specific that I have heard regarding 

UNFPA and support for Chinese coercive birth control, forced abortion, one-child policies is a statement from a UNFPA employee in 

1999. That employee was let go. 

The current executive director and the past three executive directors have come out publicly and forcefully against the practices in 

China for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that this policy—

these policies are used to indicate sex preference in terms of who 

is going to be born or not. 

Again, the horrible consequences of a horrible policy. It sounds 

to me like a gross distortion to make the contention that somehow, 

because they are operating in China, they are complicit in the practices that we, I think by strong consensus, share here. If—the logical extension of what you are suggesting with this amendment is, 

‘‘Let us repeal MFN status for China. Let us go to the leadership 

of the Republican Party to schedule the markup of a vote on a bill 

to deal with Chinese manipulation of currency fluctuations. Let us 

stop export subsidies to China. Let us’’—if the notion that, because 

we do things in the normal way with this country, even though 

they have these policies is the logic here, you have got a lot more 

to do than cut off the funding of UNFPA. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Since the ranking member first asked the question 

earlier in this hearing, or earlier in this markup, we have also 

heard—and I am not sure the ranking member was here for all of 

these statements—we have heard that the UNFPA supports the 

one-child policy, that it co-manages the one-child policy, that it 

says the one-child policy should be emulated. 

We have heard that it repeatedly speaks in favor of the one-child 

policy. And I would join with the ranking member for some support 

that actually is consistent with these statements, and is inconsistent with the State Department’s own conclusion that the 

UNFPA never supported the policy of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. And I yield back to the ranking member. 

Mr. BERMAN. I yield back to you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Just to remind members, the finding by the U.S. Department of State in 2008, after an extensive review—and I would 

invite members to avail themselves of reading that—said that ‘‘all,’’ 

repeat, ‘‘all UNFPA programming incorporates and defers to Chinese law and regulation.’’

Mr. BERMAN. What does that mean? 

Mr. SMITH. In this, if you would take the time—with respect to 

my friend—and read it, the regulations are all laid out—not all of 

them, but many of them—the Federal regulations, and some of 

the——

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. In a minute. And some of the county regulations 

make it very clear that one-child is the norm. There are very, very 

few exceptions. And UNFPA, in order to operate, to train family 

planning cadres, for example, is there any evidence that they have 

167

said coercion has no place? Marie Stopes International actually has 

the health program for the UNFPA. 

Mr. BERMAN. Where are you——

Mr. SMITH. Our State Department asked repeatedly, ‘‘Exactly 

what are they doing?’’

And they said, UNFPA, ‘‘We won’t tell you.’’

When we asked for the family planning programs—we trained 

tens of thousands of cadres on how to implement this policy. When 

that was done, we said, ‘‘Where are the training manuals? What 

did they do?’’

They said, ‘‘Call Beijing and get it from them.’’ Not UNFPA Beijing, but the State Family Planning. And that never was forthcoming. So that is the problem. No transparency. They have aided 

and abetted this. They are——

Mr. BERMAN. How have they aided and abetted it? 

Mr. SMITH. By supporting it. They are on the ground, supporting——

Mr. BERMAN. Where? Why do you say that? Give me the facts? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, the facts are—I have said it several times. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. If you could go through the Chair? 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I have said it several times. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I yield. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And I don’t think that this is repetitive. It is one 

thing to suggest that the abhorrent China one-child policy is in 

place in a country where the UNFPA offers services to help maternal health. It is——

Mr. SMITH. Reclaiming my time. They can’t operate outside of 

the regulations of the government. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. It is Mr. Smith’s time. 

Mr. SMITH. Their laws. They are in tune with them, in sync with 

those regulations. That makes them a part of it. We have asked 

them repeatedly, ‘‘Leave China.’’

Mr. DEUTCH. Would the——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. Mr. Smith will be glad to yield to 

you, if he so chooses. 

Mr. DEUTCH. If I could——

Mr. SMITH. I yield. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. There is a difference between that argument and stating that the UNFPA co-manages the one-child policy, says repeatedly around the world that the one-child policy 

should be emulated. There is simply no evidence for that. 

Mr. SMITH. UNFPA executive directors have gotten awards. They 

have said it is a totally voluntary program. I mean, that is denial 

of——

Mr. MARINO. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. MARINO. According to Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2008 

report, UNFPA supplied cars and computers to China to carry out 

their population control policies. Look it up. I’ll give you the cite. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Will——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Deutch, no. Mr. Smith has the 

time. 

168

Mr. SMITH. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. We are getting——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The gentleman yielded back the balance of his time. Do any other members seek recognition to speak 

on the first Cicilline amendment? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Ms. Schmidt is—oh, someone over 

here? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Oh, Mr. Connolly is recognized, and 

then Ms. Schmidt. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. First, I would yield to Mr. Ackerman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Ackerman? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I have a question of our colleague, Mr. Smith. 

Does the U.N. abide by the laws in every member country? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Ackerman, you are not allowed to 

ask Mr. Smith. Mr. Connolly may give time to Mr. Smith. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. It is my——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. It is Mr. Connolly’s time. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Connolly, may I ask Mr. Smith a question? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Certainly, Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Smith, isn’t it the rules of the U.N. to abide 

by every country’s laws? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would yield to Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. My hope would be that any U.N. personnel, any 

member agency, voluntary agency—UNFPA, for example—if there 

is a country that is practicing torture, for example, the U.N. police, 

peacekeepers, should in no way be complicit in that. That is the 

issue here. And if a country were to say——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, Mr. Ackerman? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Could I ask Mr. Smith if we should boycott 

Google because they have to obey the laws in China? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would yield to Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. I am glad you brought that up, because I am the one 

who asked Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Cisco here to testify, and 

introduced legislation to hold them to account, because they had no 

transparency either in their enabling of censorship in the People’s 

Republic of China. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. So we should not be supporting Google? 

Mr. SMITH. Wait a minute. Let me finish. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. We are talking about the massive abuse of 

women——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, as it is my time——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Connolly has the time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It is my time. Thank you very much, Madam 

Chairman. I would ask the ranking member—I hear Mr. Smith and 

Mr. Marino quoting from a 2008 Bush administration report. I 

would ask the ranking member, is it not the case that there was 

169

a 2009 report that, in fact, found there was no violation of KempKasten? 

Mr. BERMAN. That is, in fact, correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So it is convenient to cite a 2008 report, but not 

convenient to cite a 2009 report. Is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. I would. 

Mr. SMITH. I would love to see that report, because again——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Excuse me. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. The President of the United States said 

3 days——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Excuse me. So Mr. Berman, you have 

answered the question to Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly, would you 

like to yield to Mr. Smith? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, that was the point I was 

going to make. We are being awfully selective in the reporting we 

want to cite. And I think the point has been made by Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Berman, and others, that essentially this is nothing 

but insinuation. 

The fact that UNFPA is in China, the fact that China has a policy in place we don’t like—correctly so—makes UNFPA guilty, even 

though there are other U.N. agencies, I might add, in China, and 

at least I give Mr. Smith credit, he is being consistent. Based on 

his logic, and that of the author of the underlying legislation, this 

committee ought to be considering legislation to force U.S. companies to disinvest in China, because all money is fungible, and apparently guilt by association is the order of the day. And that is 

what this legislation represents. 

With that, I would—do my colleagues seek? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I am not sure——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I will yield to Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I just want to say, I am not sure who was Edgar 

Bergen and who was Charlie McCarthy, but I just wanted to thank 

you for all that. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield 

back his time? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I do, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Do any——

Mr. SMITH. Madam Chairman? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes, Mr. Connolly——

Mr. SMITH. Can I just say, Madam Chair, that it is absolutely——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Yields back, and Mr. 

Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. It is absolutely consistent to condition funding 

for——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Smith. I do apologize. I had said that I was going to recognize Ms. Schmidt first, 

and Ms. Schmidt is recognized at this time for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I apologize. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. And I really appreciate all the dialogue that is 

going on with this issue. There, I think, is an overriding concern 

here, and that is, ‘‘How do we best spend the hard-working AmerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:30 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\100511M\70662 HFA PsN: SHIRL
170

ican taxpayer dollars in this country and abroad?’’ There was a report in July 2011 on Fox News regarding unspent money in various 

U.N. agencies. Over $12.2 billion in unspent money. One of those 

agencies was this one, with $500 million in unspent money, which 

is about what their annual budget is. 

Now, no matter where you are on this issue, apparently they 

have got the money to run themselves for another year without our 

help. There are also other member organizations that can pick up 

the slack. My concern is, how do we help our hard-working taxpayer Americans understand that we are being prudent and wise 

with their money? This is their money. This is not our money. 

And if you see an agency that is flush with cash, maybe you just 

don’t give that agency money this year. You know, the Super Committee is charged with doing massive cuts, and if they don’t do 

their job, we might see massive cuts for men and women on the 

battlefield, and our men and women that are in nursing homes. 

The elderly, the Medicare population. Nobody wants to see either, so we have to find dollars. And $500 

million is a lot of money, at least where I come from, where I grew 

up. And I think that is a lot of money to the American public as 

well. And so, when we are looking at, how do we fund the agencies 

in the U.N.?, maybe we pick agencies that actually need the money, 

that don’t have money in the cash reserves. 

That is where I am coming from, Madam Chair, on this. I want 

to make sure that our hard-working Americans are having the dollars that they send to the Federal Government being spent prudently, and wisely, and efficiently, and not going to agencies that 

already have the cash to operate. I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Ms. Schmidt. And 

hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on 

the Cicilline-Schwartz amendment. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All those say no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Roll call. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Cicilline requests a roll call vote, 

and the clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

171

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. 

Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON OF SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson votes no. 

Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. 

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. 

Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. 

Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes no. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. 

172

Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne votes aye. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. 

Mr. Meeks. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. 

Mr. Sires. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes aye. 

Ms. Schwartz. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. 

Mr. Keating. 

173

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? The 

clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 13 ayes and 

22 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it, and the question is 

not agreed to. Mr. Cicilline is recognized to offer his second amendment. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. My second amendment 

is Amendment 650. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Cicilline 

of Rhode Island. In section 1, insert ‘‘and except as provided in section 2,’’ before ‘‘the Secretary of State’’. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The Chair reserves a point of order 

and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment 

while the copies are given out. Mr. Cicilline? 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Cicilline follows:]

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My amendment 

would allow the United States to continue supporting UNFPA in 

their critical efforts to end the practice of female genital cutting, 


70662o.eps
174

and I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague, Congressman 

Deutch, for his eloquent words earlier on this important issue. 

Every year, approximately 3 million women and girls in Africa 

alone face the prospect of female genital mutilation, while 100–140 

million worldwide have already undergone this hideous practice. 

UNFPA and UNICEF are working together and making real 

progress to end this horrific practice. Three years ago, through a 

joint program, more than 6,000 communities in Ethiopia, Egypt, 

Kenya, Senegal, Burkina Faso, the Gambia, Guinea, and Somalia 

have already abandoned this practice. 

Success has come from UNFPA and UNICEF’s work in educating 

communities and changing social norms and cultural practices, 

leading women and men in communities to unite to protect the 

rights and health of girls. My amendment would allow UNFPA and 

UNICEF to continue their important and often life-saving work in 

combating female genital mutilation. I strongly urge my colleagues 

to support my amendment, and to, again, oppose the underlying 

bill. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The gentleman yields back. Do any 

members seek recognition? 

[No response.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Seeing no recognition request, hearing 

no further requests for recognition, the Chair withdraws her reservation and the question occurs on the Cicilline amendment. All 

those in favor, say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed, no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Roll call. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Cicilline requests a roll call vote. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. 

Mr. Royce. 

[No response.] 

175

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. 

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. 

Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. 

Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes no. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. 

Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

176

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. 

Mr. Meeks. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. 

Mr. Sires. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes aye. 

Ms. Schwartz. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. 

177

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sires votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 13 ayes and 

21 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it, and the question is 

not agreed to. Who has amendments at the desk? Mr. Keating is 

recognized. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Keating. 

In section 1, insert ‘‘and except as provided in section 2’’ before——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The Chair reserves a point of order, 

and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Keating follows:]

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment will 

allow the United States to continue working with the United Nations Population Fund to end the practice of early and forced marriages worldwide. If we agree on one thing, let it be this: That child 

marriages only contribute to the devastating cycle of poverty, keeping young girls and women from receiving the proper education, 

and harming them both physically and mentally. 

These young women then have young children of their own, and 

they are brought into another dangerous environment themselves. 

It is estimated that at the decade ending in 2014, more than 100 

million girls in the developing world will be married before the age 

of 18. That means 10 million children each year are jeopardizing 

their future, their health, and their well-being. 


70662p.eps
178

The majority of child brides are exposed to frequent sexual relations, leading to repeated pregnancies and childbirth before they 

are really ready, physically or mentally, for this. And pregnancyrelated deaths are also among the leading causes of mortality in 

15- to 19-year-old girls, and those aged under 15 are five times—

five times—more likely to die than those averaged over 20. Infant 

mortalities are also twice as high in babies born to young mothers. 

Respectfully, I urge you to support this amendment. It is one 

area that we have cut out of this that I think should have universal agreement. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Sir, the Chair withdraws her reservation of a point of order. Are there any requests for recognition? 

[No response.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Seeing no requests for recognition, the 

question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All those opposed say no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. KEATING. Madam Chair, I would request a roll call. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Keating requests a roll call vote, 

and the clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. 

Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. 

Mr. Chabot. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

179

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. 

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. 

Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. 

Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes no. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. 

Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman. 

180

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Meeks votes aye. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sires votes aye. 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes aye. 

Ms. Schwartz. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? The 

clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 14 ayes 

and——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Sorry. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the vote now. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chairman, on that vote there are 15 ayes 

and 20 noes. 

181

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it, and the question is 

not agreed to. Are there further amendments to this bill? Mr. Murphy is recognized. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have an 

amendment at the desk. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Murphy 

of Connecticut. In section 1, insert ‘‘and except as provided in section 2’’ before——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The Chair reserves a point of order, 

and recognizes the author, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes to explain 

the amendment. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Murphy follows:]

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This amendment 

would allow for UNFPA to carry out activities dedicated to familycentered family planning throughout the world. And I think it underscores the surrealness of some of the debate that we have been 

having here today. There is not a single person on this panel that 

doesn’t abhor and oppose the forced abortion policies that have 

been outlined over, and over, and over again over the course of this 

debate. What we are talking about is the best way for the United 

States to intervene and stop those policies. 


70662q.eps
182

Now, I will certainly sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge if they believe that, by withdrawing funds from UNFPA, that China is all of 

a sudden going to stop this policy. The question is, what can we 

do to build a social resistance movement within China toward responsible family planning? 

And so this amendment is pretty simple. It would allow UNFPA 

to conduct family-centered family planning as part of their activities. The fact is, is that this country has a long history of combating irresponsible and reprehensible policies around the globe by 

funding responsible and humane policies, to give people in those 

countries a vision as to what life would be like if they threw off 

the yoke of that inhumanity. 

Now, we have heard rumor and innuendo about what UNFPA 

does, and little to no evidence—certainly within the most recent report from the Department of State—that they are actually funding 

and supporting these activities on the ground in China. And so I 

would put forward this amendment, frankly, as a way to get at the 

problem that I think we all agree on. 

I would also note that we have spent a lot of time talking about 

China here today, and there was the ability for the majority to 

offer an amendment here that was specific to China. But they 

didn’t. They put forward an amendment that bans UNFPA from 

operating with American funds anywhere in the globe. 

And it strikes me, frankly, that this amendment is part of an assault that we have seen in this Congress on family planning and 

contraception, both abroad and in the United States. And because 

there was a much more targeted response that could have been offered here, it makes more sense to me that the amendments that 

we are looking at fits within this much broader attempt to defund 

contraception and birth control services, whether here in this country or across the globe. 

And I have heard several of the proponents of this legislation 

sort of champion the fact that it came out of this YouCut proposal, 

it came out of this YouCut movement. And it, I think, saddens me 

to know that we have now sort of devolved into a government that 

legislates by Internet voting. 

It is bad enough that the media covers this place like a soap 

opera or a reality TV show. We now are proud of the fact that we 

are having proposals before this committee and this Congress that 

come from Internet votes. And I think what happens is that you 

get extreme proposals like this that could have been much more 

targeted. 

We could have been having a conversation about how we specifically take on the issue of forced abortion in China, and instead we 

are denying funding to family planning services across the world, 

family planning services that have, over time, linked 56 million 

women across the world with access, that have driven down the 

rate of unintended pregnancies by the millions, that have saved 

thousands upon thousands of women’s lives from the consequences 

of unintended pregnancies that go wrong in the delivery room. 

And so I would offer this amendment, I think, as a way to properly fund the kind of responsible family planning that ultimately 

convinces people in countries like China that they should no longer 

accept the type of practices that we all abhor. And I think it is 

183

probably a good idea for all of us to step back and wonder whether 

we should be crowing about the fact that an Internet vote leads us 

to this debate today, or whether we should be having a little bit 

more thoughtful discussion with our constituents and with our colleagues about how we go about foreign aid. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. And seeing no 

further requests for recognition, the Chair withdraws her reservation and the question occurs on the Murphy amendment. All those 

in favor, say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed, no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. MURPHY. I request a roll call vote. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Murphy requests a roll call vote, 

and the clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. 

Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence votes no. 

Mr. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

184

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. 

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. 

Mr. Griffin. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes no. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. 

Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. 

Mr. Meeks. 

185

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sires votes aye. 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes aye. 

Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes aye. 

Ms. Schwartz. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 14 ayes and 

22 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it, and the question is 

not agreed to. And for what I think is the last amendment, Mr. 

Murphy is recognized. I mean Mr. Keating. So sorry, sir. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Keating has an amendment at the 

desk. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Keating 

and Mr. Cicilline. A bill to prohibit funding to the United Nations 

Population Fund. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assemVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:30 Jul 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\100511M\70662 HFA PsN: SHIRL
186

bled, section 1. Prohibition on funding to United Nations Population Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of State may not make a contribution to the United Nations 

Population Fund (UNFPA), which would support coercive——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The Chair reserves a point of order, 

and recognizes the author for 5 minutes to explain the amendment. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Keating and Mr. Cicilline follows:]


70662r.eps
187

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Madam Chair. This really dovetails 

into the comments that my colleague who just preceded me talked 

about. One of the things that I had considered as a final amendment was not allowing funds at all to a country that had a policy 

of coercive abortion, and a policy like China’s one-child policy. I 

was concerned, however, Madam Chair, that there might be a point 

of order against that. 

And to try and be on point, and to have this survive a point of 

order, and make clear one thing—and that is this: That there have 

been a lot of arguments that have been made through the discussion of this, that the reason people opposed it was because of China’s one-child policy, its coercive abortion policy. 

Albeit, there have been other arguments that have been made in 

terms of financing and the use of funds, generally speaking whether or not we can afford that, from my standpoint I think that these 

are really cost-saving measures that are going to save our country 

in other respects so many times over that it is a good investment. 

However, I want to use—I put this amendment in to just clarify 

the fact that—and make, as part of this legislation, something that 

is there with the reauthorization of Kemp-Kasten that we do, and 

just make sure that we are clear, those of us that want to be, like 

myself, that we do not want any of the UNFPA funds used for coercive abortion and China’s one-child policy. 

So that is the intent of it. The intent of it is one of clarification, 

for those of us that want to be clear on something that, perhaps, 

through the course of the discussion today, wasn’t clear. So with 

that, I hope that this amendment is adopted. I do think that it 

serves as a very strong message from this committee. I think, for 

those of us that believe that the UNFPA funding serves some purpose, it also clarifies the fact that many of us want to make sure 

that those funds are not used that way. 

And I think this complements Kemp-Kasten in that respect, and 

for that matter I hope and urge all the members of the committee 

who have spoken so strongly on this issue to work together and 

find an amendment we can all agree on. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I yield my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. The gentleman 

yields back. Mr. Smith is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. I would just say that the first part of Ms. Ellmers’ 

proposed bill is, ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law.’’ We 

know that Kemp-Kasten has not—or we believe it has not been 

faithfully adhered to. The President of the United States, on January 23rd, 2009, a couple of days after he took office: ‘‘I look forward 

to restoring U.S. financial support to the U.N. Population Fund.’’

There had been no analysis done by the State Department. There 

had been no due diligence done. This would shift it back to the administration to suggest that they are going to take another look at 

it. They can do that right now. It is because we are frustrated by 

the lack of application of Kemp-Kasten in a faithful way that Ms. 

Ellmers is offering this very, very important human rights bill. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And the gentleman yields back. Hearing—oh, Mr. Cicilline is recognized. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am not sure I 

understood the argument that was just advanced. If, in fact, the 

188

concern is that resources would be devoted to supporting coercive 

abortion or supporting China’s one-child policy, Mr. Keating’s 

amendment makes it very clear that that cannot happen in this 

provision of the bill. 

And whether Kemp-Kasten clearly already does that, this reinforces that. And I think it would go a long way toward settling, 

once and for all, so that we won’t have to spend lots of time on this 

question, because it would be clearly stated in the bill. But I would 

also like to ask if a member of the committee knows the answer 

to this: I have been advised that not a single penny of U.S. taxpayer money is spent in China by UNFPA. Not one penny. 

If that is true——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. If the gentleman would like Mr. Smith 

to respond to that? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes, I would certainly yield to Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. First, on the latter point, money is absolutely fungible. And the money that we contribute—it all really comes down 

to, I say to my good friend, how barbaric do you regard forced abortion to be. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I am reclaiming——

Mr. SMITH. This organization is on the ground and we are——

Mr. CICILLINE. I am reclaiming my time. 

Mr. SMITH. No, I——

Mr. CICILLINE. I am reclaiming. I think there is no question it 

is barbaric. There is no disagreement about that. But if, in fact——

Mr. SMITH. And we are doing this with other programs. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I’ve reclaimed my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Cicilline has the time. 

Mr. CICILLINE. If, in fact—no, and I appreciate the gentleman’s 

passion on this, because I think we all have the same view: Of 

course it is barbaric. But if, in fact, it is true, and as it seems to 

be confirmed by your response to my question, that not a single 

penny of U.S. taxpayer money is spent in China by UNFPA, that 

is an important fact. 

And so I think it confirms that Kemp-Kasten is being applied. It 

will make the Keating amendment just a reinforcement of that. 

But in fact, taxpayer money is not currently being spent by this 

agency, U.S. taxpayer money, in China. Not a single penny. That 

is an important fact for the committee to know. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Smith wants to know if you would 

yield. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me say to my colleague that, again, this is grant 

money. There is no treaty obligation here. This is grant money. 

Who we donate to does matter. If the organization has a program 

that supports coercive population control, refuses any kind of transparency, I think we have a reason to say, ‘‘We will put the money 

somewhere else.’’

Let me also point out to my friend and colleague that, in the bill 

we just passed, the underlying law, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, makes it very clear that the Department will terminate 

any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement if the grantee or subgrantee engages in any severe form of human trafficking. ‘‘Severe 

189

form’’ is one instance. Here we are talking about massive imposition of human rights abuse upon women. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No, I agree. And reclaiming my time, it would 

seem to me that that would argue in favor of the amendment. And 

the key word you just said is, ‘‘If there is an agency that does that.’’ 

I think we have seen emphatically that they do not support this 

policy, that they do not support—in fact, they support voluntary decision-making in health care. 

So I agree with you. If that were the case, that would warrant 

looking at their funding. But that is not the fact, that we have 

heard repeatedly throughout this hearing and from the supporting 

materials we got prior to this hearing. So I don’t know if he wants 

to——

Mr. SMITH. Will you yield again, very briefly? 

Mr. CICILLINE. I yield. 

Mr. SMITH. Two weeks ago I held a hearing on the massive crime 

against women and children on the 32nd anniversary—I hate the 

word anniversary, but remembering that that is, almost to the day, 

when that program was initiated, with UNFPA having a hand-andglove relationship since 1979 with the hardliners in Beijing. 

With all due respect, not one Democratic Member showed up. 

And I hoped desperately for Members to be there, to hear the testimony from Chai Ling, two other women who were forcibly aborted. 

Because it is not until you really realize the desperation that these 

women have suffered, going through that forced abortion, the fact 

that in one case, the woman talked about how they held her husband. There is no doubt that they hold other family members, they 

being the State Family Planning Cadres, until the woman submits 

to a voluntary abortion. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Mr. Cicilline’s time has expired. Hearing no further requests for recognition—oh, yes. Sorry. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Carnahan 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I will not take 5 minutes, but I have been sitting 

here throughout this debate. And maybe this amendment should 

have been the first amendment that was brought up today. Because I don’t think there is a single member on this committee—

with respect to Mr. Smith and others—that supports any kind of 

coercive abortion policy. Not one member on this committee, I 

would venture to say. 

And if that is the case, then we should all support this amendment. This is clear, no matter what you think is going on, whether 

you think this is already in current law or not, or needs clarification, this seems very clear, that funds would not go to this. I think 

we all should be able to agree on that. Let us do that, instead of 

sending a mixed message about what we are doing with these 

funds. 

This amendment, I think, helps clear that up. And I would hope 

we can support this amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Before you yield back, I think Mr. Burton wanted to see if you would yield, instead of taking his own 

time. Mr. Burton? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I would yield to my friend from Indiana, yes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Dealing with the definition of support 

by the administration. Mr. Burton, he is yielding. 

190

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. By allowing the administration to define support, this would be a reversion to the status quo. And the other side is making our point: The administration currently claims that UNFPA funding does not support China’s coercive policy. There is obviously, obviously disagreement. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Burton yields back. And do you 

yield back your time? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I happily yield back, Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, sir. And Mr. 

Marino is recognized. 

Mr. MARINO. One minute. My colleague, on the other side at the 

end, we passionately argue. It is in our heritage. But I do want to 

clarify one statement. There is a report, according to Secretary of 

State Colin Powell, when he was Secretary of State. It stated that 

the UNFPA contributed vehicles and computers to the Chinese to 

carry out their population control policies. 

Now, I was not being selective in reports, as it was stated. I was 

only answering a question that has been repeatedly asked: ‘‘Give 

us some information, or a fact.’’ And I have to believe Colin Powell 

that funds have been used by the Chinese to carry that out. 

Granted, it was when the Secretary of State was in office, and 

there has been a subsequent report. So I just wanted to make that 

clear. According to Colin Powell, expenditures were made. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no 

further requests for recognition, the Chair withdraws her reservation and the question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, 

say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed, no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. KEATING. Madam Chair, I definitely ask for a recorded vote 

on this. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Keating asks for a recorded vote. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. 

Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

[No response.] 

191

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence votes no. 

Mr. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. 

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. 

Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. 

Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes no. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. 

Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. 

Mr. Turner. 

192

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Meeks votes aye. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sires votes aye. 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes aye. 

Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes aye. 

Ms. Schwartz. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. 

193

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Ms. Schwartz. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schwartz votes——

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL [continuing]. Aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk is good. She edits your votes. 

The clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 16 ayes and 

22 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it, and the question is 

not agreed to. And like a typical politician, I fibbed. I said it was 

the last amendment, but Mr. Meeks has the last amendment, I am 

sure. Mr. Meeks is recognized, and the clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. CARROLL. Amendment to H.R. 2059 offered by Mr. Meeks 

and Ms. Wilson. In section 1, insert ‘‘and except as provided in section 2’’ before ‘‘the Secretary of State.’’ Add at the end of the following: Section 2. Exception. Section 1 shall not apply in the case 

of contributions to UNFPA to carry out activities in Haiti. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Wilson of Florida 

follows:]

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And Mr. Meeks is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you to the 

ranking member, Mr. Berman. Now, this basically is a simple 

amendment that we have before us today, and it states that 2059 


70662s.eps
194

would not apply to activities in Haiti. Now, I, overall—this bill, I 

have problems with it, period. But when you look at what is taking 

place in Haiti, and to say that UNFPA should not provide the vital 

services that it is currently providing in Haiti—it provides critical 

health services to both mothers and children, especially in nations 

that are impoverished. 

To me, it becomes a matter of—we really need to examine our 

own consciences if we talk about cutting these tremendous services, 

these much-needed services, to a country like Haiti. Why are we 

going to hinder the kinds of aid that they need? Why would we 

have a problem with trying to help mothers, or to ensure that 

mothers are able to celebrate life with her child? 

What this bill is doing, what this bill talks about, it talks about 

because, as we sit here—this amendment—as we sit here, comfortably, there is an entire nation that is in ruins. There is an entire nation attempting to rebuild, and there is an entire nation that 

we have committed to assisting. 

So why are we undercutting the commitment to Haiti now? One 

in every 47 pregnancies in Haiti turns fatal during delivery. One 

in every 47 pregnancies in Haiti turns fatal during delivery. Why 

would we ever dream of cutting funding to a program that recruits 

senior midwives to dedicate a year in Haiti, to address the shortage 

of experienced maternity clinics? Why would we ever consider cutting funding to a program that provides blood transfusions to a nation such as this? 

This seems to me the very essence of what we want to do. And 

if we were honest with ourselves with this piece of legislation, we 

would target cutting funds to those areas of the UNFPA considered 

to be offensive, not just get rid of the whole program. A wholesale 

cutting of funding to an entire program is not a path forward, especially if I have not heard any alternatives proposed. 

So what it will do is, if we eliminate this funding, it is like amputating an arm to deal with an elbow scrape. And no one here would 

recommend that. And therefore, that is why I have got a problem 

with recommending passing this bill. Now, I understand the spirit 

in which things are done, but I would ask all my colleagues to seriously consider their votes in its entirety on this bill, and especially 

also their vote on this amendment, which I think is an amendment 

that is good, that is still tacked onto a bill that I have a problem 

with. 

But in the end, I ask people to please, remember Haiti. Please 

think about how all of us felt when that devastating earthquake 

took place. We should not—and we made a commitment that it 

shouldn’t have been just a 2-week effort to help those individuals 

in Haiti. It should have been a continuing struggle, a continuing 

fight and commitment on our part. Eliminating all funding to Haiti 

will show that we are going back on our word then, and turning 

our back on the neediest of the needy. 

And we talk about life, but this helps those women who are pregnant bring that life forward without that child dying in birth. And 

so, Madam Chair, I ask that we vote aye on this amendment. And 

I yield back. 

195

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, sir. Seeing and 

hearing no further requests for time, the question occurs on the 

Meeks amendment. All those in favor, say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed, no. 

[Noes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes 

have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. MEEKS. Recorded vote. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Meeks would like a recorded vote, 

and the clerk will call the roll, please. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Burton. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes no. 

Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes no. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes no. 

Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence votes no. 

Mr. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes no. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. 

196

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes no. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes no. 

Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes no. 

Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes no. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes no. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes no. 

Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes no. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes no. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes aye. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes aye. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes aye. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes aye. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Meeks votes aye. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Aye. 

197

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sires votes aye. 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes aye. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes aye. 

Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes aye. 

Ms. Schwartz. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schwartz votes aye. 

Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes aye. 

Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes aye. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes aye. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Mr. BURTON. Am I recorded? 

Ms. CARROLL. You are not recorded, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. I vote no. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 16 ayes and 

22 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The noes have it, and the question is 

not agreed to. 

Hearing no further amendments, the question occurs on agreeing 

to the bill H.R. 2059. The clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. The chairman votes aye. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Burton. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Aye. 

198

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Gallegly votes aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Manzullo. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Manzullo votes aye. 

Mr. Royce. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chabot votes aye. 

Mr. Paul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Pence votes aye. 

Mr. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. Yes. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Mack votes aye. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Fortenberry votes aye. 

Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Poe. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. 

Ms. Schmidt. 

Ms. SCHMIDT. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schmidt votes aye. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Johnson votes aye. 

Mr. Rivera. 

Mr. RIVERA. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Rivera votes aye. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Kelly votes aye. 

Mr. Griffin. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Marino votes aye. 

Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Duncan votes aye. 

Ms. Buerkle. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Aye. 

199

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Buerkle votes aye. 

Ms. Ellmers. 

Ms. ELLMERS. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Ellmers votes aye. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Turner votes aye. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Berman votes no. 

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Ackerman votes no. 

Mr. Faleomavaega. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sherman votes no. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Engel votes no. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Meeks votes no. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Carnahan votes no. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Sires votes no. 

Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Connolly votes no. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Deutch votes no. 

Mr. Cardoza. 

[No response.] 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Chandler votes no. 

Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Higgins votes no. 

Ms. Schwartz. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Schwartz votes no. 

Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Murphy votes no. 

Ms. Wilson. 

[No response.] 

200

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Ms. Bass votes no. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Keating votes no. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Cicilline votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? 

Mr. BURTON. Madam Chair? 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton, you are not recorded. 

Mr. BURTON. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Mr. BURTON. Oh, excuse me. Let me correct that, aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Burton off no, on aye. 

Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Royce votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Griffin votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. No. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. Payne votes no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. McCaul. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I vote aye. 

Ms. CARROLL. Mr. McCaul votes aye. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Have all members been recorded? The 

clerk will report the vote. 

Ms. CARROLL. Madam Chair, on that vote there are 23 ayes and 

17 noes. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The ayes have it, and the question is 

agreed to. The Chair moves that the bill be reported favorably to 

the House. All those in favor say aye. 

[Ayes.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. All opposed, no. 

[No response.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes 

have it and the motion is agreed to. I want to thank all the members and the staff for their work and cooperation that went into today’s markup. Having concluded our business, the committee 

stands adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, the committee was adjourned at 1:48 p.m.] 

(201)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

202

f


70662n.eps
203


70662m-1.eps
204

Æ


70662m-2.eps