[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.