[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 23, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3048-S3049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 4872

  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, if you open a history book in any middle 
school classroom in America, you are going to find a very familiar 
pattern. Throughout history, societies have repeatedly decided that 
certain groups of people were exceptions to the promise of human 
dignity.
  When we look back on those injustices, it seems almost impossible to 
understand how people could have accepted such profound disregard for 
human life. Yet history shows that these tragedies rarely begin with 
hatred alone; they begin with a more subtle idea that some human beings 
somehow fall outside the circle of protection owed to everyone else.
  Every generation faces its own unique question about human dignity, 
which brings me to a question, and I would like my colleagues and the 
American people and especially the next generation of leaders--some of 
them in this room today--the question is, Who deserves human dignity?
  In the land of freedom and opportunity, we are constantly talking 
about equality, inclusion, and defending the most vulnerable, and we 
should ask those questions. I mean, those are fundamentally American 
values. But those ideas only mean something if they are applied 
consistently.
  For 250 years, Americans have prided ourselves on being the voice of 
the voiceless, but for some reason, far too many fall silent when the 
dignity of the smallest and the most vulnerable members of our human 
race is questioned, and that is the unborn.
  But human dignity is not conditional. It does not depend on age or 
size or ability or circumstance. Human dignity is inherent. It can't be 
earned. It can't be granted. It can't be taken away. And the most 
fundamental dignity we all possess is the right to life.
  So if we aspire to be a nation that defends the equal dignity of 
every person, then our actions both at home and abroad must reflect the 
values we profess. The United States cannot credibly champion human 
rights while pursuing policies that deny the unborn the most basic 
right of all, and that is the right to life.
  So as we approach the fourth anniversary of the ruling in Dobbs, 
there is more that we must do to defend the right to life. So I applaud 
the Trump administration for uncovering loopholes that previous 
administrations exploited to use U.S. foreign aid programs to fund and 
promote abortion abroad.
  One of the greatest measures of American leadership is not merely the 
power that we profess, but it is the principles that we project. And it 
is the values we champion abroad that should reflect the values we 
share at home.
  If human dignity is truly universal, then the foreign aid funded by 
American taxpayers must be consistent with our Nation's most 
fundamental truth, and that is that every human life possesses inherent 
dignity and that the first human right is the right to life.
  That is why I have introduced the Protecting Human Flourishing in 
Foreign Assistance Act, so that we don't repeat history.
  My bill would codify the Trump administration's efforts to once again 
put American values first in U.S. foreign assistance programs, 
preventing any future administration from using such programs as 
loopholes to deny life to the unborn.
  One day, history will render its verdict on whether we choose to 
defend human dignity. It is my hope that future generations find that 
we remain faithful to America's first principle: that we are all 
created equal.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 4873 and that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be 
considered read a

[[Page S3049]]

third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
say a couple of words about this bill that I strongly oppose.
  This bill would expand the already draconian global gag rule to apply 
to more types of foreign aid, more services, and more organizations by 
codifying the Trump administration's so-called human flourishing 
policy. So this would basically be a gag rule not just on global health 
programs, which is bad enough, but on all nonmilitary foreign 
assistance.
  What it would do is it would say that any organization anywhere in 
the world that provides, refers, or even mentions abortion or support 
of LGBTQ+ people or any diversity and inclusion initiative would be 
banned from getting U.S. foreign assistance. This gag order would put--
basically, it would put a gag order on the world's most vulnerable 
people by the world's most wealthy Nation.
  What is ironic about this is that this is not just a cruel policy but 
an incoherent policy because it would not in any way reduce abortion, 
which is what my colleagues say their goal is.
  There was a previous narrower gag rule earlier imposed by the Trump 
administration, and in that case, abortion rates actually went up in 
those countries. Why is that? Well, because of this gag rule. It 
resulted in less access to contraceptives, to birth control, and more 
unintended pregnancies.
  This is about forcing foreign governments and forcing multilateral 
institutions and NGOs to accept an ideological agenda or risk being cut 
off entirely from U.S. assistance.
  I think everybody should have the ability to make their own decisions 
about their own bodies and their own lives and their own futures. 
Certainly, they should be able to make those decisions without somebody 
in Washington, DC, who knows nothing about their lives telling them 
what to do.
  We should be joined together in our belief that U.S. foreign 
assistance should be helping people, lift them out of poverty, support 
them in getting the services they need, and not trying to impose an 
ideological gag rule on their activities.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, my colleague, whom I very much respect, has 
chosen to support the loophole through this objection. It allows 
taxpayer dollars to be used in a manner contrary to the values we 
cherish at home, allowing no voice to the voiceless.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________