Release of Funds for International Family Planning

House Roll Call Vote 22

1997 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

220

Votes Against

209

Not Voting

4

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, world human 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, the release of the international family planning funds would be blocked for nine months — until July 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 violated the procedure agreed to the previous year and worked to overturn the President’s determination, again attempting to entangle the family planning funding decision in the politics of abortion.

On February 13, 1997, the House passed H.J. Res. 36, 220 – 209. YES is the pro-environment vote.

The Senate passed H.J. Res. 36 on February 25, 1997, and President Clinton signed it 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
2024 State Scorecard Average

15%

Alaska
2024 State Scorecard Average

58%

Arizona
2024 State Scorecard Average

30%

Arkansas
2024 State Scorecard Average

4%

California
2024 State Scorecard Average

75%

Colorado
2024 State Scorecard Average

52%

Connecticut
2024 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2024 State Scorecard Average

30%

Georgia
2024 State Scorecard Average

35%

Hawaii
2024 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2024 State Scorecard Average

5%

Illinois
2024 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Iowa
2024 State Scorecard Average

5%

Kansas
2024 State Scorecard Average

25%

Kentucky
2024 State Scorecard Average

20%

Louisiana
2024 State Scorecard Average

21%

Maine
2024 State Scorecard Average

71%

Maryland
2024 State Scorecard Average

83%

Massachusetts
2024 State Scorecard Average

96%

Michigan
2024 State Scorecard Average

54%

Minnesota
2024 State Scorecard Average

47%

Mississippi
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Missouri
2024 State Scorecard Average

21%

Montana
2024 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2024 State Scorecard Average

4%

Nevada
2024 State Scorecard Average

72%

New Hampshire
2024 State Scorecard Average

88%

New Jersey
2024 State Scorecard Average

78%

New Mexico
2024 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2024 State Scorecard Average

63%

North Carolina
2024 State Scorecard Average

47%

North Dakota
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2024 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2024 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oregon
2024 State Scorecard Average

68%

Pennsylvania
2024 State Scorecard Average

56%

Rhode Island
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

South Carolina
2024 State Scorecard Average

17%

South Dakota
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2024 State Scorecard Average

13%

Texas
2024 State Scorecard Average

33%

Utah
2024 State Scorecard Average

6%

Vermont
2024 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2024 State Scorecard Average

55%

Washington
2024 State Scorecard Average

72%

West Virginia
2024 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2024 State Scorecard Average

24%

Wyoming
2024 State Scorecard Average

3%