[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7305-S7306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AN UNWARRANTED BLOW TO GLOBAL FAMILY PLANNING

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my very deep 
regret that the Bush administration has decided not to release the $34 
million allocated for the United Nations Fund for Population 
Activities, UNFPA. I would ask the White House to reconsider its 
decision.
  At stake here is vital assistance for needy individuals throughout 
the developing world, living under the threat of HIV infection and 
deteriorating health conditions.
  Indeed, it is a shame that such assistance--assistance that can save 
lives--is being held hostage by domestic politics, and the 
misconceptions of the anti-choice wing of the Republican Party.
  I would remind the administration that the $34 million was 
appropriated by Congress in a spirit of bipartisan consensus, after 2 
months of negotiations. During these talks there was never any question 
whether or not to allocate the funds, but simply how much.
  The White House's own budget proposal for fiscal year 2002 included 
$25 million for the fund, $3.5 million more than allocated by the 
Clinton administration.
  Within this context, the administration's decision is all the more 
perplexing. It stands as painful proof that the debate over U.S. 
support for international family planning has been distorted all out 
proportion.
  In particular, there remains a belief, in some quarters, that the 
United Nations Fund for Population Activities either condones or even 
assists in abortion and coercive sterilization.
  This is, at best, nothing but hearsay. And if such proof does exist, 
why haven't we seen or heard anything substantive about it?
  With respect to China, in May the State Department sent a mission to 
investigate such allegations, and it found no evidence at all of that 
the fund was involved, in any way, in abortion or coercive 
sterilization. A month before, a British delegation drew a similar 
conclusion.
  For the record, I would like to quote directly from the State 
Department's conclusions. ``We find no evidence that UNFPA has 
knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of 
coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in [China].''
  In light of this finding, the report recommends, and I quote, ``that 
not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be 
released to UNFPA.''
  I would also argue that it is precisely because of the questions 
raised about China's policies, that United Nations presence there 
becomes that much more important. The United Nations Fund for 
Population Activities remains the best way to do this.

  Only last year, Secretary of State Colin Powell praised the United 
Nations Fund for Population Activities, saying that it was engaged in 
``critical population and assistance to developing countries.''
  This explains why the Department of State provided $600,000 to the 
fund for sanity supplies, clean undergarments, and emergency infant 
delivery kits for Afghan refugees in Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and 
Tajikistan.
  The facts speak for themselves. The United Nations Fund for 
Population Activities does not subsidize abortion services in any 
country. Its executive director, Madame Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, has said 
that the fund would cease its family planning program in China, if any 
allegations of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization could be 
verified.
  I would also argue that we would be wise to focus on the wider role 
that the United Nations Fund for Population Activities plays, most 
notably in the critical area of HIV prevention. And I would remind my 
colleagues of just a few of the troubling facts revealed at the recent 
AIDS conference in Barcelona.
  In Botswana, for example--a country where 38 percent of the adult 
population is infected with HIV--20 percent of high-school-age students 
believe that you can tell whether a person has HIV/AIDS simply by 
looking at them.
  In Malawi, where 15 percent of all adults are HIV positive, 64 
percent of young men admit to not using a condom with their most recent 
sexual partner. The scourge of AIDS throughout sub-Saharan Africa is a 
human tragedy of terrifying proportions.
  How can we turn our backs on those not yet infected, especially when 
the reason for doing so is based on unfounded allegations and a 
misunderstanding of the term ``family planning.''
  There are no hidden meanings; there is no secret agenda. Family 
planning does not condone or promote abortion. Simply put, family 
planning means: women able to control their reproductive destinies; 
couples given the information necessary to make their own choices about 
family size and the timing of births; health care officials reaching 
out to adolescents and young adults, as a means to educate them, and in 
turn prevent HIV infection and unwanted pregnancies.
  Healthy families--the heart of any healthy society--depend upon women 
being able to make informed choices. The United Nations Fund for 
Population Activities helps women do just that--make a choice--which I 
hold to be a fundamental right of women everywhere, regardless of their 
economic circumstances.
  Women here in the United States take such information for granted, 
and we can not forget that this is all too often unavailable to poor 
women in the developing world.
  How to protect themselves from HIV or other sexually transmitted 
diseases, how to space pregnancies so that they can better manage the 
size of their families, and how to lower the risks of childbirth and 
increase their chances of delivering healthy babies--this is at the 
heart of the information the United Nations Fund for Population 
Activities provides. This strikes me as hardly immoral or illegal.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the 
world's population today stands at more than six billion--a figure that 
shows no signs of stabilizing. In fact, the United Nations estimates 
this number could double, to 12 billion, by the year 2050.
  The brunt of this growth will impact precisely those areas least able 
to absorb it--namely, the developing world. Overpopulation has already 
caused significant problems, like malnutrition, disease, environmental 
degradation, and political instability.
  If we in the United States bury our heads in the sand here, it will 
become increasing likely that overpopulation could overwhelm such 
fragile societies.
  Given such alarming facts, the purpose of the United Nations Fund for 
Population Activities--to reduce poverty, improve health and raise 
living standards around the world--will become only more important in 
the years to come. The United States, in my mind, has two options: one, 
either we help support international family planning efforts, in a way 
that is both responsible and accountable; or two, we relinquish our 
leadership role, and turn our backs on the developing world.
  The Bush Administration seems to have taken the latter course, and I 
can only hope that it reconsiders its decision and will do what is 
right.
  It should release the $34 million allocated to the United Nations 
Fund for

[[Page S7306]]

Population Activities. Failure to do so would set an unfortunate 
precedent.

                          ____________________