Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this conscience protection amendment. Faith-based organizations are often the most effective in preventing the spread of HIV; and despite their effectiveness in caring for millions with the disease and…
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this conscience protection amendment. Faith-based organizations are often the most effective in preventing the spread of HIV; and despite their effectiveness in caring for millions with the disease and working to prevent the spread of it, many relief organizations continue to disregard the right of faith- based organizations to object to condom distribution.
In the hearing we had, we cited the quotations from the U.N. representatives in this regard. This amendment will provide protection for faith-based groups, like the Catholic Church, who apply for Federal funds but who object to distributing condoms as a form of HIV prevention. It is meant to make sure that we do not arbitrarily disqualify any organization from one part of our strategy because they do not participate in another.
We should have the best organizations working within our overall plan on parts of the plan that they do best. We should not discriminate against organizations that are saving lives. I urge Members to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1298 endorses Uganda's ABC model that focuses on abstinence, but it does not ensure that money is actually directed to abstinence programs.
Abstinence works. In Uganda, which has been cited as the ABC model, ``A'' for abstinence first; ``B'' for being faithful to one partner; and ``C,'' condom use, and this focus on abstinence first lowered HIV infection rates from 21 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2000. The ABC model saves lives, and this amendment will ensure that these funds save more lives by moving taxpayer dollars to life-saving strategies that have been proven to work.
It mandates a percentage: 33 percent of the prevention funds disbursed under the bill for abstinence. Now that is not all of the bill, that is just prevention funds, and one-third of those.
Other countries have begun implementation of the ABC model and are already showing great success, as they did dramatically in Uganda. But countries like Kenya, which have stuck mainly to the social marketing of condoms, are experiencing huge increases in HIV prevalence rates, and this amendment takes that fact seriously.
It makes sense to guarantee that this money will fund what works. This amendment makes sure that there is sufficient flexibility for the AIDS coordinator. It only mandates 33 percent of the prevention funds to go to abstinence. It leaves the remaining 67 percent of prevention money to be disbursed as the coordinator sees fit.
Opponents claim that abstinence just is not possible. Dr. Edward Green, a researcher at Harvard University was an opponent of the ABC model, in particular abstinence, until he saw what happened in Uganda. He testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and he said, ``Many of us in the AIDS and public health communities did not believe that abstinence, or delay, and faithfulness, were realistic goals. It now seems we were wrong.''
In Uganda the proportion of young males age 15 to 24 reporting premarital sex decreased from 60 percent in 1989 to 23 percent in 1995. For females, the decline was 53 percent to 16 percent. The program actually changed the behavior in women and men, a fact I hope my colleagues take seriously.
This amendment will make sure that funds get to what works. It maintains
flexibility, makes the bill better. It will save lives. I urge Members to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the Uganda model was developed by Ugandans themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. Pence asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), the cosponsor of this amendment, to close.