[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 199 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7007-S7008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Appropriations
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor this morning to
address what has been an alarming and inaccurate information campaign
that is being spread about the international family planning amendment
included in this year's State and Foreign Operations appropriations
bill.
I would note that while this amendment is referred to as the
``Shaheen amendment'' in alarmist and inaccurate blog posts, it is
actually bipartisan language that was agreed to by both the
subcommittee and full committee chairs of the Appropriations Committee
and ultimately approved unanimously by Republicans and Democrats in the
committee. Yet articles and op-eds online have condemned the amendment
as pro-abortion. I was surprised to hear this given that, despite my
objections, the amendment does not address the Mexico City policy--or
the global gag rule, as it is known--abortion services, or information.
In fact, this is the first time in 18 years--I am going to say that
again. It is the first time in 18 years that members of the
Appropriations Committee were prevented from offering a bipartisan
amendment that would strip the bill of the Mexico City provision.
Instead of allowing the established committee process to amend the
SFOPs bill with this provision, the entire bill was pulled from
consideration. In response to that, in an effort to ensure the bill
wasn't endangered, I worked with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine
and Senator Murkowski of Alaska and with Republican leadership to limit
the scope of the amendment so we could allow the appropriations bill to
go forward.
It is false--absolutely, positively false--to say this amendment
funds abortions abroad. In fact, it is wrong to say, and inaccurate to
say, that any U.S. assistance goes to funding abortions at home or
abroad. In compliance with U.S. law, family planning funding does not
and never has gone to abortion services. I hope everyone is clear about
that. Under our law, family planning funding does not go to support
abortion services.
Now that I have outlined what this amendment does not do, let me
discuss what it does do. It provides an increase of $57.5 million for a
total of $632.5 million for existing international family planning
accounts. This money funds programs and services that provide modern
contraceptives, which 214 million women around the world who want to
avoid pregnancy are not able to access.
Again, I don't know when the debate around abortion came to include
contraceptives and family planning. It also would allow for the healthy
timing and spacing of births, which is very important to the health of
infants and it is important to the health of women to be able to space
the births of their children to recover between births. It provides
education information and counseling about family planning issues. It
ensures access to antenatal and postnatal care for a healthy mother and
baby. It provides for HPV vaccination and prevention, something very
important to the health of children.
These are a few of the critical services the assistance provides. The
impact of these services is very real.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, with each additional $10
million the U.S. dedicates to family planning and reproductive health
programs, 400,000 more women and couples receive contraceptives
services and supplies. With the $57.5 million increase provided for in
this amendment, more than 2.2 million women and couples
[[Page S7008]]
will have that access. That will result in 654,500 fewer unintended
pregnancies, 291,500 fewer unplanned births, 280,500 fewer induced
abortions. If you care about abortion and you don't believe that is the
right alternative, then you should support family planning because that
gives families and couples an option to ensure they can have the
children they want, and it would provide for 1,320 fewer deaths of
women.
While these numbers are stark, the transformative effect of simply
having access to family planning information and services on the lives
of women and their families should not be underestimated.
The most vulnerable women who are reached by family planning programs
report that learning about family planning options, receiving services
to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and ensuring that wanted pregnancies
are healthy and happy so the babies they want to have are healthy and
happy gives them some control over their lives. Many women are making
healthcare choices for themselves and their families for the very first
time with help from these programs.
These critical programs change lives, and our partners who implement
these programs are indispensable. In October, USAID Administrator Mark
Green said he could not ``imagine an effective development Agency that
doesn't partner with the community of faith.'' Luckily, he doesn't have
to. For those people who were worried that family planning programs are
not going to be implemented by our faith community, that is just wrong.
The family planning account goes to a range of program implementers,
including healthcare providers, international NGOs, and faith-based
organizations alike. All of these organizations have the goal of saving
women's lives and saving the lives of their children. They need more
resources, not fewer, to do this work.
What else does the international family planning amendment do? It
includes an additional $33 million to USAID's family planning account
for money that is rerouted away from the U.N. Population Fund.
Again, unlike what the blogs are mistakenly saying, this is not money
that currently goes to UNFPA's lifesaving operations. Instead, it will
be redirected back into the family planning account and contribute to
the programs I just outlined.
Third, the amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to
produce a report that evaluates the efficacy of family planning
programs and their structure. Again, this was another bipartisan effort
with my Republican colleagues to ensure that our U.S. dollars are most
effective and they contribute to programs and services that are most
effective. Again, if you have a concern about how family planning
dollars are being spent, then you should support this amendment because
it is going to give us data and information to show what is effective
and what isn't.
Finally, the amendment includes language to reaffirm an existing
nondiscrimination policy within USAID. This is an existing
nondiscrimination policy. This is not a new policy. That policy within
USAID ensures the services funded by these accounts reach all segments
of the population.
As I said, this is not a new policy. The anti-discrimination policy
has existed for several years, and it is not targeted toward faith-
based organizations, despite what some of the blogs mistakenly are
putting out there. In fact, the complaints I have heard in my office
about single women being rejected for services didn't touch on work
that faith-based organizations are doing.
I hope all of our colleagues in the Senate will not allow
misinformation about the family planning dollars that are in the State
and Foreign Operations bill to dismantle what has been a very important
bipartisan achievement. Its impact is too great and its programs are
too important to let them be killed by a campaign to try and mislead
people about what is in the amendment.
I yield the floor.