Release of Funds for International Family Planning

Senate Roll Call Vote 13

1997 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

53

Votes Against

46

Not Voting

1

Issues

Rapid global population growth is one of the most serious threats to a healthy and sustainable environment, leading to depletion of natural resources and contributing to pollution. The current world population is estimated at 5.8 billion. At the current growth rate, the world population grows by approximately one billion every 11 years.

For more than 30 years, the United States has contributed funds to voluntary family planning programs worldwide in order to help stabilize human population growth. In recent years, family planning opponents have cut federal funding for these programs by arguing, in part, that the money funds abortions. In fact, current law prohibits U.S. foreign assistance monies from funding abortion, and there are no reports that any organization receiving U.S. funds has ever violated this prohibition. In addition, family planning supporters note that improving access to voluntary family planning not only protects the life and health of women and children, it is also one of the best ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

During the 104th Congress (1995-96), opponents of family planning attempted to prohibit U.S. foreign aid to organizations that use non-U.S. government funds to provide legal abortion services or to participate in public policy debates on the issue in their own countries, even though current law already prohibits U.S. foreign assistance from funding abortion. Although unsuccessful in writing this prohibition into law, family planning opponents continued to insist that severe restrictions be placed on the release of population assistance funds in Fiscal Year 1997. In order to break a political deadlock that nearly shut down the federal government in September 1996, Congress agreed to a complicated legislative procedure. Under the deal, release of the international family planning funds would be blocked for nine months, until July 1, 1997, unless the President made a finding that the delay in releasing funds was having a negative impact on overseas family planning programs, and unless this finding was approved by a vote of both houses of Congress. If the President’s finding was approved by Congress, funds could begin flowing on March 1.

President Clinton made the required finding on January 31, 1997. H.J. Res. 36 provides Congressional approval of that finding, allowing the blocked international family planning aid monies to be released on March 1, 1997. During debate on H.J. Res. 36, family planning opponents worked to overturn the President’s determination, again attempting to entangle the family planning funding decision in the politics of abortion.

On February 25, 1997, the Senate passed H.J. Res. 36, 53 – 46. YES is the pro-environment vote.

President Clinton signed the measure on February 29, 1997, releasing the money to be available on March 1.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

11%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

89%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

63%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

4%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

40%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

96%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

49%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%