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.

Funding for international family planning is an important component of the United States foreign assistance program. The U.S. spends less than 1 percent of the federal budget on foreign aid. Family planning assistance is a very small portion of that 1 percent. The money spent on international family planning is a sound investment. Not only is it effective in and of itself, but it also leverages family planning investments by other countries both in the developed world and the developing world. Three-quarters of all international family planning funding comes from the developing countries themselves and their consumers.

Access to family planning builds healthier families, empowers women, and increases their economic opportunities and, through stabilizing population growth, improves the global environment. U.S. support for international family planning programs emphasizes voluntary family planning as a part of an integrated approach to population and development that includes complementary activities to promote health, the status of women, child survival, and strong families. More than 50 million couples in the developing world use family planning as a direct result of the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) population program. USAID's support for technical assistance, training, and research activities has facilitated the adoption of family planning measures.

There are now nearly 5,900 million people in the world. Every year, that number grows by an additional 80 million people. United Nations population projections for the middle of the next century range between 8,000 million and 12,000 million people. These growth levels raise serious questions about the ability of the world's resources to sustain such a large human population.

We know that family planning works. According to USAID, in countries which have received international family planning funds, the average family size has decreased from six to four children. For every dollar spent on family planning, governments gain as much as $16 for health care, education, and social services. Access to family planning allows individuals to make informed choices about childbearing, health, and economic well-being.

It is unfortunate that the majority in the 104th and 105th Congress has undertaken a concerted attack on U.S. support for international family planning by reducing needed funding and saddling the program with onerous restrictions. In the U.S. Congress, international family planning has misguidedly and mistakenly become a battleground over abortion. This trend is both ironic and harmful, given that access to family planning reduces unintended pregnancies and, therefore, reduces the number of abortions.

We all want to reduce the number of abortions. Evidence from all regions of the world shows that increased contraceptive use, by reducing unintended pregnancies, plays a major role in reducing abortions. This trend has been documented in countries such as Russia, the Central Asian Republics, Mexico, and Colombia. In Russia, an increase of only 5 percent in contraceptive use over four years led to a decrease of 30 percent in the annual abortion rate.

It is important to note that current U.S. law prohibits the use of any foreign aid funds for abortion or motivating anyone to seek an abortion. The U.S. Agency for International Development has followed this policy since 1973 and has strict procedures in place to ensure compliance. The United States only provides family planning support where it is wanted and needed and only within the laws of the country in which the program is based.

The most recent congressional battleground on international family planning has been the Republican majority's linkage between international family planning and totally unrelated issues -- U.S. funding for U.N. arrears and U.S. funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This strategy mandates an altered version of the so-called "Mexico City" restrictions on international family planning as a condition for the release of needed funds for these international organizations. I believe the proposal would impose a global "gag rule" on family planning organizations, dictating what materials they may distribute and prohibiting them from participating in public debates with their own private funds. I oppose these efforts. The "Mexico City" gag rule would be a violation of the First Amendment if it was implemented in this country and it would increase the number of abortions by reducing access to family planning services for people around the world.

While Congress debates international family planning funds, women, children, and families around the world are suffering the consequences of reduced and/or restricted access to family planning services. In 1997, three respected private development assistance organizations -- CARE, Save the Children, and World Vision -- wrote to all members of Congress to express concern about delays and restrictions on the delivery of comprehensive family health services in poor communities around the world. In their letter, they stated that "cuts to family planning programs undermine the rest of the U.S. efforts to promote child survival;" that "nearly 600,000 women die each year from pregnancy-related causes, leaving behind hundreds of thousands of motherless children...another 18 million women suffer long-term reproductive health complications that are excruciatingly painful and often result in life-long disabilities. Family planning is a cost-effective way to help women have healthier children;" and that, "In many countries, birth-spacing alone could prevent one in five infant deaths."

Cutting and/or restricting international family planning funds are short-sighted and misguided actions with devastating consequences on the health and well-being of the women and children in developing countries. According to UNICEF, if the existing demand for family planning services was met, the number of pregnancies in the developing world would be reduced by one-fifth and maternal deaths and injuries would be reduced by the same amount or more. Family planning can prevent 25 percent of all maternal deaths by allowing women to delay motherhood, avoid unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, and protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases. Infant deaths would be reduced by 25 percent in developing countries if all children were born two years apart. Children born less than two years apart are twice as likely to die as those born at least two years apart.

Overpopulation exacerbates poverty, malnutrition, urban overcrowding, environmental degradation, and the depletion of the world's resources. As the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds U.S. foreign aid programs, I will continue to fight for sufficient funding for international family planning -- and for the lives of women, children, and families around the world.

Representative Pelosi of California is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Export Financing.

Global Issues USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, September 1998