While the president and his administration define U.S. government policy, Congress, with its control of the budget and funding for programs, has a strong impact on U.S. actions. The view of Congress must be taken into account in any understanding of U.S. policy. Many in Congress hold strong views on population issues. The following article illustrates one perspective.

Pro-life laws and policies of almost 100 countries that restrict abortion are under siege and the engine driving this global pro-abortion push are the nongovernmental organizations funded by the U.S. government. [The Mexico City policy] permits the flow of funds only to those organizations that pledge to provide only family planning, not abortion. The innocent children are not put at a risk.

Many groups use family planning as the Trojan horse to conceal their real agenda - abortion on demand.

Planned Parenthood is leaving no stone unturned in its misguided, obsessive campaign to legalize abortion on demand around the world. If they succeed, millions of babies will die from the violence of abortion on demand. Abortion is violence against children. It rips their fragile bodies to shreds and poisons them with toxic chemicals. Abortion is child abuse.

The use of family planning is cover - the use of family planning as a Trojan horse for abortion law liberalization - is now commonplace and must be stopped. We should have no part in empowering the abortion industry to succeed in its war on the unborn. Press release September 4, 1997

During the last three years, the House has voted 10 separate times for the pro-life Mexico City policy, which prohibits U.S. population assistance to foreign organizations that perform abortions, violate the abortion laws of foreign countries, or engage in activities that change these laws. The Mexico City policy was enforced throughout the Reagan and Bush administrations. It did not reduce family planning money by one dime. Rather, it protected genuine family planning programs by erecting a wall of separation between family planning and abortion. President Clinton repealed that policy. We in the House, thankfully, again and again have gone on record saying that wall of separation needs to be reerected.

We believe it will protect some unborn children by prohibiting a particularly ugly form of cultural imperialism in which U.S. taxpayers support entities that are actively engaged in bullying smaller nations into rejecting the traditions and moral values of their people.

Some of the biggest international population control grantees are actively engaged in efforts to overturn pro-life laws in countries around the world. This is because existing laws require only that the organization keep a set of books that shows that it did not use our money to pay for the actual abortions or for pro-abortion lobbying. This bookkeeping trick ignores the fact that money is fungible. When we subsidize an organization, we unavoidably enrich and empower all activities of that organization.

The Mexico City policy recognizes that money is fungible. Every million U.S. tax dollars that go to an abortion provider frees up another million dollars to pay for abortions and more pro-abortion lobbying.

...for 30 years we have been the leaders in family planning. That was no less true during the Reagan and Bush years when the Mexico City policy was in effect. We provided 40 percent -- 40 percent of all the population control aid during the Reagan and Bush years. That is a fact, that is not an opinion, with the Mexico City policy in full effect.

It is a red herring when Members... say that we are holding hostage family planning. Monies flowed; people were given the opportunity to take that money and give out condoms and do all kinds of family planning, but a wall was erected between performing child abuse, killing unborn children, the promotion of violence against children and preventive means.

The administration says that the purpose of our family planning program is to prevent abortions. If we want to prevent alcoholism, would we hire the liquor industry to do it for us? If we wanted to stop gambling, would we do it by giving grants to casino owners? If we wanted to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an international anti-drug campaign, would we give the money to organizations that use their own money to lobby for the legalization of drugs? Of course not. If Congress stands behind the position that there must be a wall of separation between abortion lobbying and U.S. family planning programs, we can save innocent lives. That is what this is all about. Nothing could be more important.

I think we have a moral obligation to say, if we are going to pour hundreds of millions into groups that advertise as family planners, let us have a truth in advertising. Let us separate abortion out of it, because abortion takes a life, a life of a child -- it is not family planning. Comments from House debate March 26, 1998

Congressman Smith, Republican from New Jersey, is chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the House Committee on International Relations