To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007--
Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, very shortly there will be a unanimous
consent request on how to proceed on the Boxer amendment, which has not
been introduced yet but will be spoken to shortly. I would like, with
the permission of my friend from California, to make a brief opening
statement relative to the overall bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator also then make the unanimous consent
request for the 40/20 so I know that is in line?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, we are just clearing it
with the leadership. We are working that out. I am sure we will be able
to move the amendment immediately after my statement which I don't
think will take more than a few minutes.
Mr. President, under the leadership of Chairman Lugar, we tried very
hard to move this bill in the last couple of years. I hope the third
time is a charm. As I believe the chairman has explained, the bill
contains the basic authorization for all the major foreign affairs
agencies and programs at the Department of State, foreign assistance
programs, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the Peace Corps.
The bill contains several initiatives I would like to briefly
highlight.
I am glad the bill includes the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act,
which we have been trying to enact over 3 years. In recent years, the
SARS epidemic and the avian flu epidemic have made us acutely aware of
how vulnerable the world is to a rapid spread of infectious diseases.
We face that same vulnerability for diseases that might be used as
weapons of bioterrorism.
The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will combat the bioterrorism
threat by improving other countries' capabilities to detect and limit
disease outbreaks and by improving international investigation of
disease outbreaks. Because these diseases--whether they are natural
occurrences or man-made--have no respect for borders, we are only as
safe as the weakest link in the chain is strong. This bill will go a
long way to help other countries at an early stage detect the existence
of these diseases, these potential biodiseases that can be spread via
what we call bioterrorism.
The majority leader, who cosponsored the original version of the act
in 2001, is once again pressing for action on this bill. He added a
very useful provision to the act, which Chairman Lugar and I have
happily endorsed, calling for the executive branch to develop a real-
time data collection and analysis capability to serve as a warning sign
for a possible bioterrorism event. With the majority leader's support,
I hope and believe this year we will finally enact this important
measure.
I am also proud of the work the committee has done, with the
chairman's leadership, to help the U.S. Government strengthen its
capacity to handle postconflict reconstruction.

[[Page S3177]]

In the last decade, the United States has taken on stabilization
missions in countries such as Bosnia, East Timor, Haiti, Somalia,
Afghanistan, and Iraq. In the decade to come, whether we like it or
not, nation-building and postconflict resolution and reconstruction
will remain important to our security. As the Presiding Officer knows
because of all the work he has done in the Balkans, this is not
something that gets done in a day and we are able to leave behind in a
year. We should not attempt to reinvent the wheel every time we are
faced with a stabilization crisis, such as the one we faced in the last
decade. It is inefficient and ineffective. Rather than address crises
by cobbling together plans and personnel each time they occur as we
have been doing, we need to be better prepared.
This bill establishes a special office in the State Department for
reconstruction and stabilization. It establishes a special corps of
civilian reconstruction experts who would be ready to be deployed on
short notice. The bill also creates a special emergency fund to deal
with such crises.
Finally, I am pleased the chairman and I are able to agree on the
inclusion of a provision to protect vulnerable persons during
humanitarian emergencies--an undated version of a bill I first
introduced in 2003 called the Women and Children in Conflict Protection
Act.

I have been concerned about the vulnerability of women and children
affected by conflict and humanitarian emergencies for some time now.
Since the accusations were made about sexual exploitation of refugees
by humanitarian workers in west Africa nearly 3 years ago, that concern
has been heightened.
Most recently, we have been confronted with cases of rape used as a
weapon of war in Darfur, sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N.
peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and concerns that the
children affected by the tsunami in Asia could be vulnerable to human
trafficking.
This provision in the bill establishes a coordinator at the
Department of State or AID specifically charged with ensuring that our
assistance programs not only provide food and shelter, but also support
programs to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse of those living in
refugee and internally displaced persons camps. It prohibits U.S.
funding of humanitarian organizations that do not sign a code of
conduct prohibiting improper relations between aid workers and
beneficiaries. Finally, the provision authorizes the President to
provide aid specifically for things such as security for refugee camps
or something as simple and inexpensive as buying firewood so women will
not have to leave these camps, which they have to do now, in order to
find material with which they can make a fire to cook and find
themselves subject to rape and exploitation outside the confines of
these camps.
We have a very good bill that was passed out of our committee 18 to
0. I urge my colleagues, as Senator Boxer is about to do, to come
forward with their amendments because I, like the chairman, would very
much like to move this bill forward. It is within the budget. It is
right on the button of the President's budget number. It has, as I
said, unanimous support out of our committee. I believe it is a solid
bill, and I hope we can move it forward this year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in a short while, we hope to have a
unanimous consent agreement so that Members will have a roadmap for the
remainder of the afternoon. That is not at hand for the moment;
therefore, I hope the Chair might recognize the distinguished Senator
from California, who will offer an amendment. Informally, we have
talked in terms of an hour of debate being the limit, 40 minutes for
the Senator from California, 20 minutes for me or others I may
designate. We will encapsulate, hopefully, a unanimous consent
agreement in due course during the course of this debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask my chairman, for whom
I have great respect and admiration, am I then to send the amendment to
the desk at this time?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I prefer the Senator send it to the desk
and our debate commence.

Amendment No. 278

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Ms.
Snowe, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 278.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the application of certain restrictive
eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with
respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961)

On page 172, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 2227. GLOBAL DEMOCRACY PROMOTION.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or
policy, in determining eligibility for assistance authorized
under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental organizations--
(1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on
the basis of health or medical services including counseling
and referral services, provided by such organizations with
non-United States Government funds if such services do not
violate the laws of the country in which they are being
provided and would not violate United States Federal law if
provided in the United States; and
(2) shall not be subject to requirements relating to the
use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and
lobbying activities other than those that apply to United
States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance
under part I of such Act.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to
overturn the so-called Mexico City policy which undermines some of our
country's most important values and goals. The Mexico City policy is
also known as the global gag rule, and I will explain what it does in a
moment.
Most of my colleagues know the history of this policy. It was named
the Mexico City policy because that is where it was announced in 1984.
But it is also known, as I said, as the global gag rule because that is
exactly what it does--it gags international organizations that receive
USAID family planning funds.
What does that mean? It means, for example, that a family planning
clinic in Nepal that receives USAID funding is prohibited from using
its own funds--the clinic's own funds--to provide, advocate for, or
even talk about abortion to the women they serve, even talk to a woman
about her options.
Let's be clear what we are talking about one more time. We are not
talking about spending one slim dime or one penny of U.S. money to pay
for abortions abroad because that has been illegal under the Helms Act
since 1973. So since 1973, U.S. funds abroad cannot be used in any way
to advocate for abortion, to allow women to have an abortion, or to
refer her for an abortion. U.S. funds since 1973 can never be used for
any of those purposes.
We can debate that, but I am not going to debate that. What I am
going to debate is why the greatest, freest country in the world, the
United States of America, would put a global gag rule, put a tape over
the mouths of organizations that are trying to help the women in their
country if they use their own funds--not U.S. funds but their own
funds--for those purposes.
I cannot understand for the life of me how we can in good faith, as
the leading democracy in the world, sending our troops abroad--and they
are dying every day for freedom of speech and for the kind of
constitution we hope others will have--how we could put a global gag
rule on those organizations when in this country we could not even
consider it for 2 seconds because it would be completely
unconstitutional.
This is a free country. We are proud of the fact that it is free. We
are proud of the fact that we do not tell our citizens what they can
think, what they can say, if it is on their own dime. Yet abroad, in
some of the poorest countries in the world, we are saying if they

[[Page S3178]]

want to get a penny of Federal funds, USAID or the like, they cannot
use their own funds in any way they would like. We are telling family
planning clinics that are in the toughest of circumstances, treating
women in the direst poverty, that they are gagged if they want to
receive any U.S. funds.
Again, these restrictions we are placing on these nonprofit agencies
would be unconstitutional and unacceptable in the United States of
America.
Ironically, what is very interesting is the global gag rule is even
stricter than the requirements put on by the Helms amendment. So this
is an unbelievable move by this administration, after these
restrictions were removed in 1993, to place these restrictions back.
It is true that the White House, depending on who is in the White
House, has shifted back and forth on the advisability of the global gag
rule, but the Senate has always said it has no place as part of
American law. The Senate has stood proud, Democrats and enough
Republicans, yes, to make sure that we do not have a double standard,
that we do not say with the one hand to these countries we want
democracy for them, we want freedom for them, we want freedom of speech
for them, and then on the other hand say, but if they exercise it they
are going to be punished.
Tell me how that makes sense for America. Tell me how that makes any
sense for our credibility in the world.
The last time we debated this global gag rule and the Mexico City
policy in this Chamber was about 2 years ago. I introduced this exact
amendment, and it passed with bipartisan support. We hope we will
achieve that same outcome today. It will be a close vote--we have had
some changes in this body--but we still think and hope we have the
votes. We will find that out.
What is at stake is do we want to have an America that lives what it
says, that not only says to the world freedom is good and freedom of
expression is good, and if groups work hard and raise their own funds,
as long as they spend them consistent with their own laws in their own
countries, we will say it is their right. But, oh, no, that is not what
this administration has done. One of the first things the President did
when he got elected the first time was to put back in place this global
gag rule.
This global gag rule is not fair. We are a country that believes in
fundamental fairness. Yet this global gag rule tells foreign
nongovernmental organizations--these are people working in the toughest
of circumstances--how they should spend their own money.
For example, it tells clinics they cannot use their own money to help
a woman in deep despair who comes in with a serious problem, an
unintended pregnancy that perhaps was even forced on her. It tells the
NGOs, the nongovernmental organizations, they cannot use their own
funds even to advocate for less restrictive laws.
For example, let's say there is a law on the books in one of these
poor countries that says if a person is raped or a victim of incest
they cannot have an abortion, and in this country we changed that. If
one is a victim of rape or incest we say Federal funds can be used to
help her. Let us say there is a country that has a total restriction,
even if someone is raped or there is incest involved, and the
nongovernmental entity is trying to change that law in their country.
Under the global gag rule we say they will lose all of their Federal
American dollars if they advocate to change what I would call ignorant
laws.
This global gag rule tells clinics that they cannot use their own
funds to even tell a woman who comes before them what her options could
be. Even if the woman asks what she can do, they cannot tell her. In
our country, that would be illegal, unconstitutional. But, no, we put
this on the poorest nations of the world. That is not Uncle Sam, that
is Imperial Sam, and none of us wants to be imperial. At least that is
my impression. We want to be democratic. But we are not acting in a
democratic fashion when we have this double standard around the world.

We believe in freedom of speech and yet the global gag rule tells
foreign nongovernmental organizations they cannot in any way express an
opinion on this subject without losing their funds. We do not tell
organizations of the United States of America what they can say and
what they cannot say in this country, even if we find it offensive.
There are a lot of organizations that I find we would be better off
without. I do not think their advocacy is right, but I have no right as
a Senator to tell any organization in America I am tired of hearing
what they are saying, do not say it anymore, because if I tried to stop
them I would be ruled out of order, unconstitutional, and that would be
the right thing.
Yet we do it to foreign nongovernmental organizations.
Some Senators just came back from Iraq. I was one of those people. We
saw the unimaginable challenges facing our soldiers, government
officials, and the Iraqis themselves as they struggle to deal with a
very dangerous insurgency in that country. Our soldiers are putting
their lives on the line so that the Iraqis have a chance to live in
freedom. One of the foremost freedoms in our country that we wish for
other people is freedom of speech. Government will not interfere with a
person no matter what they say. As long as they are not hurting anybody
or inciting anybody, they can hold an opinion. That is why our soldiers
are over there fighting so that the Iraqi people can write a
constitution that gives them the same freedoms we have.
We heard the Iraqis tell us, the up and coming leaders: We read your
constitution, we read your history, we know about your filibuster, and
how it protects minority rights. These are the Iraqis. We heard our
soldiers say they are willing to risk their lives so the Iraqis can
have freedom. Well, that includes freedom of speech. Yet we take away
the freedom of nongovernmental organizations to tell the truth to the
women who may come before them seeking help with their reproductive
freedom.
Our policy should be a model for the world, but the gag rule instead
sends a bad signal. It enforces a dangerous code of silence. It tells
people if the government in power does not agree with them, then they
should put a gag over their mouth and just suck it up and not tell the
truth about how they feel and keep vital information from the women
they are serving. Whether one is pro-choice or anti-choice, this has
nothing to do with it. It is a question of freedom of speech. I hope
that regardless of how we come down on the issue of choice, we would
agree that it is fair to debate it. I may not like to hear your opinion
if I do not agree with you, it may be hard for me to handle, but that
is part of this great country. We have to listen to each other. We have
to debate and we have to respect each other's views. But I am not
showing respect if I walk up to a Senator on the floor and say, you
know what, I am tired of hearing your point of view and I am going to
put a gag over your mouth. How ridiculous. If they did that to me? How
ridiculous. It is freedom of speech we are talking about, and the
global gag rule takes a hammer to our Constitution, to our credibility,
and I think just knocks us down in the eyes of the world. And it makes
hypocritical what we are asking our soldiers to do across this globe.

I want to give some examples. In Peru, for example, family planning
NGOs funded by the U.S. were barred from advocating against a
constitutional clause banning abortion. It was not the Peruvian
Government gagging their own people, it was our Government. And it was
not all Peruvian NGOs who were barred from participating in that
debate, it was only those who opposed the abortion ban. The other
people were free to talk about it.
What is that about? America comes in and says if you want our money
you can only advocate for the position that the Government in power
wants. You cannot have another opinion. I think that is beyond
outrageous.
Just listen to what one nongovernmental organization leader in Peru
said, and I am quoting this individual:

We used to hold debates, invite medical doctors, produce
research publications. We cannot speak as freely now. No one
knows at what point it becomes prohibited speech. USAID told
us we couldn't lobby for abortion liberalization or
decriminalization. If we attend a general conference and the
issue of abortion comes up, we can speak. But we don't know
how much we can talk about it before it crosses over to not
being permitted anymore. We, for example, can do research on
unsafe abortions, but if we draw any conclusions someone can
say, ``that's lobbying,'' [and we will lose all of our
money.]

[[Page S3179]]

This is a terrible thing, this global gag rule. I am so proud of the
Senate. Every time we have brought it up we overturned it. I hope that
will be the case today.
I want to tell you a story about a real case in Nepal. In 2001, this
issue came to my attention. There was a nongovernmental organization
that had to make a Hobson's choice: Do we take USAID money which we
desperately need to help our people if it will force us to remain
silent on the issue of reproductive freedom? What should we do? Should
we give up the money and retain our freedom?
Let me tell you what this organization did. It gave back the USAID
money, even though it put them in a very precarious financial position.
They did it because of a 13-year-old girl named Min Min. I brought her
picture with me to the Senate floor 2 years ago because I wanted my
colleagues to see the face of what we are talking about here today.
This is not just about freedom of speech. This is about real, live
people and what happens to them if they cannot get reproductive health
care.
Min Min was raped by a relative. She was raped by an uncle. She
became pregnant, and it was a shame upon the family and the family said
you must have an illegal abortion. As a result of that illegal abortion
of a girl 13 years old who was raped by her uncle, someone was
sentenced to 20 years in prison. Who was it? Was it the rapist? No. Was
it the parents who said you have to end the pregnancy? No. It was this
tiny girl, 13 years old, who was sent to jail for 20 years for the
crime of being raped by a relative and being forced by her family to
have an abortion.
The nongovernmental organization wanted to go to bat for this child,
so they turned back American money. Can you believe it? We punished an
organization that wanted to go to bat for a 13-year-old rape victim--
incest victim, really. We took the side of the rapist. That is what we
did. We said to the NGO: If you want to help this child, give back the
money because you cannot advocate for changing the law in your land.

So this clinic in Nepal turned back their money--our money--and
fought for Min Min. She had her 14th birthday in prison. She had her
15th birthday in prison. But then, because they did not take American
money and they were free to lobby in behalf of Min Min, they succeeded
in changing the laws of Nepal, and they helped set that little girl
free.
For their valor and their courage and their success in freeing a
child from prison who was put there after she was raped by her uncle,
this is what they had to do. They had to give up $100,000 in USAID
funding, and they had to let 60 staff members go. They couldn't help
more than 50,000 other people who desperately needed them.
These are the real stories behind this Presidential edict of the
President, when he steps up to the plate and says I am putting in place
a gag rule.
I am ashamed. I am ashamed that we were on the side of the rapist and
against the side of a little girl who was a victim of incest. How can
this Senate look at that story and say, yes, that's right, we want to
be on the side of the rapist? Why should the rapist suffer? We don't
want to change the laws in Nepal. To me, this example alone is enough
reason to do away with this global gag rule.
Here is another point. We should always look at our policies and ask
the question: Are our policies decreasing the number of abortions that
take place worldwide because all of us want to decrease the number of
abortions taking place worldwide. Frankly, the Mexico City global gag
rule makes it far tougher to reduce the number of abortions. We support
family planning counseling and care. We support family planning, I
thought, because we want to prevent abortions. Between 1988 and 2001,
modern contraceptive use in Russia increased by 74 percent, and the
abortion rate went down 60 percent. So there is a direct correlation
between contraception and education on how to use contraception and the
abortion rate. I say this, even though I believe this should be a known
fact, but sometimes we seem to forget it. So what happens when we
punish a nongovernmental organization that is involved with family
planning, such as that clinic in Nepal I talked to you about, that had
to give back $100,000 and lay off 60 people? They could no longer serve
the women who so desperately needed their help.
Is this President saying he wants to keep contraception away from
women who are asking for it? Because if that is what he wants to do,
this global gag rule is doing just that. This is a radical thing we are
dealing with because when you tell agencies they have to make a deal
with the devil, take money and then be gagged, many of them will say: I
don't want your money. I would rather be able to advocate.
And if they do not take the money, then they are in a terrible
circumstance because they have to lay off people who would otherwise go
out and counsel young women about family planning. Then, when those
young women, in the poorest of the poor nations, are desperate,
unfortunately they may seek what we called here, when abortion was
illegal, back-ally abortions--and women died. Many women have died,
thousands every year across this globe, because of illegal, unsafe
abortions.
I believe very much that family planning is the answer. It can bring
us all together, whether we believe in a woman's right to chose or we
believe the Government should be involved in it, we should not tell a
woman, tell a family how to live their lives regardless of what side
you are on. My goodness. Family planning ought to bring us together.

For those of us who believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare,
the way to get to that place is to have adequate family planning. For
those of us who believe the Government should prohibit the jailing of
women and doctors who have or give abortions, they should want to have
family planning services so we have fewer abortions.
Why don't we hold hands on this vote as we have in the past and walk
down the aisle together across those divides and say family planning is
the way to make abortion rare? That is the key. But the global gag rule
has the opposite impact. The global gag rule is causing more abortions
because the nongovernmental organizations will not take the funding,
they won't be gagged, and they won't have the staff to go out and give
those women the advice and the contraceptions that they are asking for.
There is another issue that comes into play here, and that is the
issue of HIV/AIDS. Preventing AIDS is very important. The use of modern
family planning methods will help us prevent AIDS.
This global gag rule is dangerous. It is dangerous directly, and it
is dangerous indirectly. It goes against our Constitution and freedom
of speech. If this President tried to put this kind of gag rule on in
America, he would be laughed out of the courts. Of course, they do not
do that because we have something called the Constitution and freedom
of speech. We don't go around putting a gag on doctors who have their
own practices. We let them do what they think is right--to do no harm
and to help people.
I want to talk about a school in Uganda where three of its students
died from unsafe abortions. The same man impregnated the three girls.
It was a horrible tragedy. But the local clinic still didn't know what
to do since it received USAID funding. They had a situation where three
girls were impregnated by the same man, and they didn't want to give
back the money they had gotten from the United States of America. This
is what they said.
What should the school do? Refer the girls to the clinic? It is a
very difficult situation for the nurses. What can they counsel about?
It is a problem if the provider is a member of that community. A person
cannot even speak as a community member or a parent. Because how can
you differentiate between an individual and the fact that they are an
employee of a nongovernmental organization?
The point here is that if someone in the clinic in the area where one
man impregnated three girls in the school feels that he or she can't
speak out in their capacity as an individual citizen because they work
for a nongovernmental organization that could be forced to give up its
funding--this is a very bad policy. We are saying to clinics throughout
the world that are supposedly trying to help that you must choose
between limiting your services

[[Page S3180]]

to a woman who comes to you in desperate need or shut down your doors
because you have to give back the funding from the United States of
America. It is really a stunning and unfair policy.
One of the Planned Parenthood chapters in my State is in Ethiopia
right now. They are seeing firsthand the impact of the global gag rule
on women's lives. Think about what it means to try to get health care
in Ethiopia. If you are lucky, you might have only a 3-day or 4-day
walk to a clinic--a 3-day or 4-day walk to a clinic in Ethiopia.
Less than 8 percent of the population has access to contraception.
Only 20 percent get prenatal care. One in seven women die from
pregnancies or unsafe abortions. In fact, backyard abortions are the
second leading cause of death among women only, behind tuberculosis.
Because of the global gag rule that this administration has put in
place, supplies to the largest planning provider in Ethiopia have been
cut. They have been cut because they refuse to be gagged. The people in
Ethiopia are looking to America with our Constitution and our freedom
and our freedom of speech, and they are saying: We are not going to
allow the President of the United States of America and this Congress
to gag us. We will have to give back the money.

That is the most counterproductive thing we can do. Why? Because they
are running out of the contraceptives because they don't have the
money. They are less able to serve rural areas, only 7 percent of which
have access to basic sanitation. They are less able to curb the rising
tide of HIV which is sweeping over the population, leaving shattered
lives and families in its wake.
Why would we want to be responsible for that? We don't have to be
today. We are going to have a chance to do what the Senate has done
year after year after year. We have stood up for women's health. We
have stood up for freedom of speech. We have stood up for the right of
people--even the poorest of the poor--to get access to health care, to
find out what their options are, to know what the possibilities are, to
fight for changes in the law.
The Senate has stood on the right side of this issue--on the correct
side of this issue--for years. I am so proud of the Senate. We did it
with almost all Democrats and many Republicans standing with us. I hope
that happens today. If it doesn't, a message will be sent throughout
the world--yes, to our troops in Iraq who are fighting to bring freedom
of speech around the world, that here in the U.S. Senate, we have just
stood with a global gag rule. I hope that is not the message we send.
I don't want to see us continue this global gag rule. It is hurting
the very people we say we care about--the poorest of the poor, the
women, the girls, the victims of rape, the victims of incest.
The amendment I plan to offer and which we have actually set aside is
identical to the one we passed 2 years ago. It is very simple. It
simply says that nongovernmental organizations cannot be denied funding
solely because the medical services they provide with their own funds
include counsel and referrals. They cannot be denied funding solely
because they use their own funds to advocate for new laws. That is all
we say.
In this amendment we admit very straightforwardly that no NGO can
violate its own country's law. If abortion is illegal and you cannot
refer people in your country, if they say that is the law of the land,
of course, we support people paying attention to the laws of their
country. But we do not say, and we shouldn't say and we wouldn't say it
here, that these NGOs shouldn't be able to lobby for new laws. This is
very important.
In Nepal they sent a 13-year-old girl away for 20 years. She was a
victim of an uncle's incest. They let the rapist go free and there were
no penalties for the parents who forced her to have an abortion. That
NGO, that clinic that turned back USAID funding, said we are not
selling out our people. We are not selling out a child for some
dollars.
I cannot believe the side that we were on. The global gag rule put us
on the side of a rapist. That is what the global gag rule did. That is
not a side anyone in this Chamber wants to be on. I hope everyone in
this Chamber will vote to be on the side of the women who were the
victims. They need us to be by their side.
Basically, what we are saying in our amendment is we believe in human
rights. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe other countries
should have the same freedoms we have in this country. And if we cannot
gag people in this country, let's not do it abroad just because we can.
Almost 60 years ago in the dark shadows of World War II, it was our
country that championed the universal declaration of human rights,
setting a standard for human rights all over the world. This is what
that declaration said:

[T]he advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want
has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
people.

That is America after World War II. Can someone explain to me how
America feels it is on the side of the good when we will punish a
nongovernmental organization that goes to bat for a rape victim who is
13 years old? We are not on the side of human rights. We are on the
side of people who are doing evil. That is wrong. That is not what our
Government ought to be doing.
The aspirations of our country and of our people should be reflected
in our policies. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to do what they have done over and over again: Stand up and be
counted on the side of freedom and justice and the American way. It is
the American way to foster freedom and justice, to allow people, even
when we do not agree with them, to take their complaints and their
points of view to their governments. That is what our soldiers are
fighting for and dying for in Iraq, yet with this policy we stand on
the side of tyranny.
I urge my colleagues to stand with us again. This is a bipartisan
Boxer-Snowe amendment. I urge Members when the time comes--and I hope
the chairman will let us know at what point we will be voting--I urge
Members to stand with Senators Boxer and Snowe in this bipartisan
amendment to end the global gag rule.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, once again the distinguished Senator from
California has presented her case, as always, with conviction and with
eloquence. She is an able and a remarkable advocate for her position on
this very important and controversial issue.
When President Bush restored the so-called Mexico City policy upon
coming into office in 2001, he stated his conviction that United States
taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or for those who
actively promote abortions as a means of family planning.
It should be made clear this does not lessen our country's commitment
to strong international family planning programs. Indeed, President
Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget requests $425 million for population
assistance, the same funding level appropriated during fiscal year
2001, President Clinton's final year in office.
President Bush has confirmed his commitment to maintaining these
funding levels for population assistance because he knows that one of
the best ways to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies
through voluntary family planning services. This is the policy of our
Government today and it is one that President Bush advocates in the
future.
I expect we will continue to have debates in the Senate on the Mexico
City policy. As the distinguished Senator from California has pointed
out, that has been the case for several years. Over the years there
have been numerous attempts to reach compromise language that would
satisfy all sides on this important issue, but no acceptable
accommodation has thus far been found. This is why President Bush has
advised us he will veto any legislation that seeks to override the
Mexico City policy.
USAID can and does provide the family planning information services
in developing countries through many foreign NGOs. The President has
determined that such family planning assistance will be provided only
to those foreign grantees whose family planning programs are consistent
with the policies of this administration. Every

[[Page S3181]]

President since 1984 has exercised that right.
As manager of the President's bill, I, along with every other
Senator, must take seriously the President's statements that he would
veto the legislation if it were presented to him without the Mexico
City policy intact. I believe it is highly unlikely that he will change
his mind at this point. The President has been very clear and the
directives with regard to administration policy on this legislation are
also clear.
I will oppose this amendment. I ask other Senators to do so for the
reasons I have given.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators
Corzine and Mikulski to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, women around the world should have access
to safe health care, especially those who are struggling in some of our
world's poorest nations. That is why I am in the Senate this afternoon
to support the Boxer amendment. I thank Senator Boxer for standing up
on an issue that affects women around the globe. I am very proud to be
a cosponsor and supporter of this amendment.
This amendment is about ensuring that women around the world have
access to health care that they need, especially reproductive health
care. It does not get much attention, but in the developing world,
complication from pregnancy is one of the leading causes of death for
women. It ranks right up there with tuberculosis. According to the
World Health Organization, more than half a million women die every
year of causes related to pregnancy or childbirth. That is more than
one woman dying every minute of every day. That is what we are talking
about with this amendment. That is a crisis.
Now, you know when there is a medical crisis, something that kills
hundreds of thousands of people every year, we do not just stand by. We
work to make things better. In poor countries around the world, medical
professionals and nongovernmental organizations are simply trying to
make things better. They have set up clinics. They have done an
excellent job. They are reaching out to poor communities. And they are
opening the doors of access to women and families who desperately need
health care. They are doing great work. But today their hands are tied,
and even worse their hands are tied because the Bush administration has
imposed a political ideology on the world. We cannot allow this
undemocratic policy to deny women and their children health care and
ultimately sentence them to die.
As my colleague, Senator Boxer, has talked about, when President Bush
took office in 2001, he signed an Executive order known as the global
gag rule. It denies U.S. funds to any overseas health clinic unless it
agrees not to use its own--its own--private, non-U.S. funds for
anything related to abortion. If you are a medical professional living
in an impoverished country trying to help people, save lives, you are
gagged from even talking about certain reproductive health services.
We would not stand for that in the United States. We know how
important the doctor-patient relationship is. When we go to a doctor,
we want to know that the doctor is giving us all the advice we need--
not holding something back because of a gag rule imposed on him by
someone else. But that is exactly what the global gag rule does. It is
forced on women in poor countries around the world, and that is just
simply wrong.
I am not going to take the time to go into detail on why I believe
this gag rule is so wrong, but I just want to mention a few things.
Simply put, the gag rule undermines reproductive health care, it hurts
our efforts to prevent HIV and AIDS, and it limits access to
contraceptives. The gag rule places limits on women and doctors that we
would never accept here in the United States.
But here is the bottom line and something all of our colleagues
should remember as we go to vote on this amendment: This is about
protecting women's lives. Today, the women around the world are being
denied the care they need because of an ideological policy, and they
are dying as a result. We cannot tolerate that as Americans, and that
is why I have come to the floor this afternoon, to urge my colleagues
to support the Boxer amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank young very much, Mr. President. I thank my
colleagues for discussing this important issue and I appreciate Senator
Boxer's concern. This is well-plowed ground that we have traveled over
several times. We have been over this issue a number of years. The
Mexico City Policy was first introduced by Ronald Reagan. It is a
commonsense policy that President Reagan first put forward in 1984,
based in part on his belief that U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to
subsidize or support organizations that perform or promote abortions
through international family planning programs, period.
President Reagan, as was typical in his way, looked at the root of
the issue and said: I understand we have an enormous debate in America
and around the world about the issues surrounding the questions ``when
does life begin? Does it begin in the womb or not?'' There is an
enormous debate about these important questions--and I am going to set
that debate aside, President Reagan said, but I am going to say as
well, the American public has very clearly defined itself on the issue
of taxpayer funding of abortion. The people are saying: We may debate
back and forth about the life issue, but we do not want taxpayer
funding to provide for abortions, particularly overseas. That is just a
bridge way too far for me to cross, too far from the very fundamentals
of the debate, for now the country is a pro-life country and generally
people are opposed to abortion taking place.
That was the 1984 decision put in place by Ronald Reagan, later
overturned by President Clinton, later put back into place by President
Bush. One of George W. Bush's first acts in office was to reinstate the
Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy simply prohibits provision
of Federal taxpayer funds to organizations that ``perform or actively
promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.'' It
is a very simple issue. It is a very direct, straightforward issue. I
want to say as well, that when individuals try to frame this debate by
saying this is about women's rights and issues, and a lack of our
support of them on the international level, I want to step aside for
just a minute and point out the record of the Bush administration on
women's rights, on issues in Afghanistan where women are now voting and
actively participating in politics and society, is just tremendous.
Senator Boxer and I both put forward a bill about women's rights in
Afghanistan, and, in addition, the Bush administration is implementing
and remedying concerns for women in Iraq who are now voting and are now
proudly waving their fingers with the ink stain upon them. Brave women
are demonstrating their rights and standing up to defend their rights
around the world. This administration, on a very practical level, is
putting forth and implementing programs in great strides to assure
women's rights around the world, and they should be congratulated for
that and thanked for all their efforts.
Now, you can try to tie this question of taxpayer funding for
abortions oversees back into that issue, but I do not think that is a
fair point of the debate. The fair point of the debate is, it is
taxpayer dollars. It involves the very difficult, sensitive issue of
``when does human life begin?''--a question which we have failed to
resolve in this country as of this moment.
Should American taxpayers be funding abortions in many countries all
around the world? People say: Well, there is more family planning now.
The dollars do not go directly for abortion. The money is fungible. It
can go into an organization and be used to replace dollars that can
then be used for abortion. Why should we put that sort of ideology
forward on another country when we have not resolved it ourselves?
I think the Bush doctrine, formerly the Reagan doctrine, the Mexico
City Policy, should stand for good reason. It stands with the American
public. We

[[Page S3182]]

should not be using Federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions
overseas. That is the view of 75 to 80 percent of Americans.
Many Americans do not like the way we handle foreign assistance now
anyway. I personally think we should be generous in our foreign
assistance and in some cases do substantially more to alleviate
poverty. But if you frame the debate into these sorts of issues alone,
you start to drive away people's support for foreign aid and for
supporting the good that is taking place in other countries. That is
not a good thing to do, particularly when we have been given so much as
a nation. I would hope we could help more overseas, but it has to be in
a sensible way that the American public agrees with.
So while I appreciate being able to work with my colleague from
California on many issues, this is one where we will have to part
company. I really think President Reagan got this principle right, and
the continuation of the Mexico City Policy by President Bush is right
as well. Respectfully, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I so appreciate my colleague coming to the
floor and taking time to express his views, but I think it is very
important to straighten out the record.
What my colleague is talking about is putting strings on U.S.
taxpayer funds. That is the Helms amendment, and that has been the law
since 1973. What the global gag rule does is different. It tells
nongovernmental organizations abroad that they will lose U.S. funding
if they use their own funds not ours, but theirs--to lobby to change
egregious laws in their country.
In order for a nongovernmental organization to fight to change an
egregious law, like the one that used to exist in Napal--which I know
my friend would not agree with--that nongovernmental organization, I
tell my friend, had to give back their USAID money because they were
using their own funds to change the laws of Nepal. So we gagged this
nongovernmental organization from helping a child who was raped. The
rapist did not go to prison. The rapist--the uncle--was free. The
parents did not go to prison even though they forced her to have an
illegal abortion. The child went to prison.
The only way the nongovernmental organization was able to work to
change the law in that country, which punished a child who was a victim
of incest, was to give back the USAID money. Otherwise, they could not
lobby for law changes in their own country.
Now, I use that example because it shows why this law is so
egregious. And again, to make the point to my friend, the Helms
amendment, which has been in place since 1973, already precludes U.S.
Federal funds from being used by nongovernmental organizations in any
aspect having to do with abortion. They already cannot use our funds to
perform abortion. They already cannot use our funds to refer.
They already can't use funds to advocate. That is taken care of. The
global gag rule is different from that. It is putting a gag around the
very people who are trying to help prevent pregnancies, who are trying
to help girls such as Min Min in Nepal who was the victim of incest.
That is plain wrong. I don't mind my friend disagreeing with me. And we
do agree on many issues and have worked together and will continue to.
But I would hope we would not confuse the Helms amendment, which has
been in place since 1973 and does not allow a penny of taxpayer funds
to go in any way to the provision of abortion services. Don't confuse
that with the gag rule, which keeps nongovernmental organizations from
being able to use their own funds as they see fit to help women and
girls in tragic circumstances such as the one I described by changing
the repressive laws in some of their countries.
I urge my friend to please be clear that these are different issues.
We already deny the use of Federal funds for anything having to do with
overseas abortion or its lobbying. But the gag rule takes it a step
further and says these organizations that work so hard in the toughest
environments cannot use their own funds in the way they see fit to
advocate for changes in the law, to help women understand what their
options are. And it is antithetical to the United States of America, to
freedom of speech. My friend knows we couldn't do that here. We
couldn't tell people here that they can't talk to their patients. That
would be unconstitutional.
I urge my colleagues to please vote on what this issue is, not on
what this issue is not. We live with the Helms rule. We are not
changing that. We simply want to get rid of this global gag rule today.
I hope Members will vote aye on the Boxer-Snowe amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we are looking forward to conclusion of
this debate and another debate prior to getting into the voting
sequence at about 4:30. May I ask the participants, the distinguished
Senator from California and the distinguished Senator from Kansas,
could there be agreement that the amendment would come to conclusion in
20 minutes of time and that this be apportioned 10 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from California and 10 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Kansas? There would be no other speakers and
that would conclude the debate. Then we would be able to proceed with
an amendment by Senators Craig and Baucus.
Mrs. BOXER. If I may respond to the chairman, I have no problem. I
would like to close the debate. That will be fine with us as long as I
may conclude.
Mr. BROWNBACK. No objection from myself.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask that debate be of 20 minutes
duration, that the time be under control of the Senator from California
and the Senator from Kansas, and that the Senator from California be
able to conclude the debate.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, 10 minutes each and no
second-degree amendments; is that part of it?
Mr. LUGAR. That would be correct, no second-degree amendments.
Mrs. BOXER. Then I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair and the Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, responding to a couple of the comments
of my colleague from California, I would like to cite and include in
the Record a Congressional Research Service report on international
family planning, the Mexico City policy. This report is dated April 2,
2001. And then another one, an updated one on population assistance and
family planning programs, issued for Congress, May 19, 2003.
In the 2003 report, I want to cite this briefly because we are
getting involved in a discussion about what the wording of the Boxer
amendment does and what it does not do. I contend that clearly what
could take place with the passage of the Boxer amendment, is that money
could go to a foreign organization that performs abortions. These
organizations can't use the money directly for abortions, but they can
move private money to do abortions while using the government money for
advocacy. That is what I am saying. My colleague is giving the
illustration of this tragic situation that has occurred where there has
been a rape in Nepal and this is a heart-rending example of these types
of cases right before us now.
Regardless of how you view life, and when human life begins, we are
going to set that issue aside but I hope we get to debate that issue
one of these days. In this CRS report dated 2003, USAID issued
additional guidelines on the implementation of the Mexico City Policy
and stated that organizations could not ``perform abortions in a
foreign country except where the life of the mother would be endangered
or in cases of forcible rape or incest.'' So where my colleague is
talking about a case of forcible rape taking place and a choice of an
organization having to choose between performing an abortion or losing
their funding, the USAID policy says that performing such an abortion
is a specific exemption from this Mexico City policy that is squarely
on point in this CRS report.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record selections from the
two CRS reports that I have mentioned.

[[Page S3183]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

At Mexico City, Reagan Administration officials emphasized
the need for developing countries to adopt sound economic
policies that stressed open markets and an active private
sector.
Again nearly a decade later, the Clinton Administration
changed the U.S. position on family planning programs by
lifting restrictive provisions adopted at the Mexico City
Conference. At the 1994 Cairo Conference, U.S. officials
emphasized support for family planning and reproductive
health services, improving the status of women, and providing
access to safe abortion. Eight years later, President Bush
revoked the Clinton Administration position on family
planning issues and abortion, reimposing in full the Mexico
City restrictions in force during the 1980s and early 1990s.
Throughout this debate, which at times has been the most
contentious foreign aid policy issue considered by Congress,
the cornerstone of U.S. policy has remained to be a
commitment to international family planning programs based on
principles of voluntarism and informed choice that give
participants access to information on all major methods of
birth control.
Nevertheless, the controversy spilled over into U.S.
foreign aid policy almost immediately when Congress approved
in late 1973 an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (Section 104(f)) prohibiting the use of foreign
development assistance to pay for the performance of
abortions or involuntary sterilizations, to motivate or
coerce any person to practice abortions, or to coerce or
provide persons with any financial incentive to undergo
sterilizations. Since 1981, Congress has enacted nearly
identical restrictions in annual Foreign Operations
appropriation bills.
For the past 25 years, both congressional actions and
administrative directives have restricted U.S. population
assistance in various ways, including those set out in the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and more recent executive
regulations and appropriation riders prohibiting indirect
support for coercive family planning (specifically in China)
and abortion activities related to the work of international
and foreign nongovernmental organizations. Two issues in
particular which were initiated in 1984--the ``Mexico City''
policy involving funding for non-governmental-organizations
(NGOs), and restrictions on funding for the U.N. Population
Fund (UNFPA) because of its activities in China--have
remained controversial and continue as prominent features in
the population assistance debate.
During the Bush Administration, efforts were made in
Congress to overturn the Mexico City policy and rely on
existing congressional restrictions in the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 banning direct U.S. funding of abortions and
coerced sterilizations. Provisions adopted by the House and/
or Senate that would have reversed the policy, however, were
removed from legislation under threat of a presidential veto.
Efforts to Legislate the Mexico City Policy. Beginning in
1993, abortion opponents in Congress attempted to legislate
modified terms of the Mexico City policy. Under the threat of
a Presidential veto and resistance from the Senate, Mexico
City restrictions had not been enacted into law until passage
in November 1999 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
FY2000 (P.L. 106-113).
In USAID-issued certification forms, organizations had to
state that they would not engage in three types of activities
with either USAID or non-USAID funds from the date they
signed an agreement to receive FY2000 USAID population funds
through September 30, 2001: perform abortions in a foreign
country, except where the life of the mother would be
endangered, or in cases of forcible rape or incest; violate
the laws of a foreign country concerning the circumstances
under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or restricted;
or attempt to alter the laws or governmental policies
concerning circumstances under which abortion is permitted,
regulated, or restricted.
If an organization declined to certify or did not return
the certification form, it was ineligible to receive FY2000
USAID population funds unless it was granted a waiver under
the $15 million exemption cap.
The regulations also contain exceptions: abortions may be
performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if
the fetus were carried to term or abortions performed
following rape or incest; health care facilities may treat
injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions
(post-abortion care).
The new Administration Mexico City guidelines state that
U.S. cannot furnish assistance to foreign NGOs which perform
or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning
in USAID-recipient countries, or that furnish assistance to
other foreign NGOs that conduct such activities.
Examples of what constitutes the promotion of abortion
include: operating a family planning counseling service that
includes information regarding the benefits and availability
of abortion; providing advice that abortion is an available
option or encouraging women to consider abortion; lobbying a
foreign government to legalize or to continue the legality of
abortion as a method of family planning . . .
The regulations also contain exceptions to these policies:
abortions may be performed if the life to the mother would
be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or abortions
performed following rape or incest.
health care facilities may treat injuries or illnesses
caused by legal or illegal abortions (post-abortion care).
``passive'' responses by family planning counselors to
questions about abortion from pregnant women who have already
decided to have a legal abortion is not considered an act of
promoting abortion.
referrals for abortion as a result of rape, incest, or
where the mother's life would be endangered, or for post-
abortion care are permitted.
Recipients of USAID grants, however, could use their own
funds to engage in abortion-related activities, but were
required to maintain segregated accounts for U.S. money in
order to show evidence they were in compliance with the
abortion restrictions.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Furthermore, I want to back up to an earlier point
that I engaged on with my colleague. We live in a wonderful nation.
This is a beautiful land. I have traveled to many of the developing
countries around the world. They look up to America. They seek help and
support from America. They seek our ideals. When we go there and we
push issues such as abortion or are associated with groups that push
issues such as abortion, we are reduced as a nation. Actions like this
says to developing countries: We have issues such as malaria, we have
issues such as HIV/AIDS, feeding our poor people, and you are out here
pushing this ideology. Why are you doing that?
I go home to my constituents in Kansas. They think the foreign aid
budget is about 25 percent of the budget, which it is not. It is about
1 percent. But then if a case such as this comes up, tax payer funding
of abortions in developing countries--and they don't say it as much
now--they say: We are funding abortions overseas, and we don't like it.
I remember in 1994 hearing many people saying things such as that.
If we pursue this sort of policy, it diminishes our possibility to go
to the public and say: We want to do whatever we possibly can to end
poverty, hunger, and alleviate suffering in the world. We can do more
and we want to do more. We are out there pushing to do more. If we
force policies such as this, it cuts the knees out from underneath all
our other efforts because then a number of people say: How are you
doing alleviating poverty by funding a group that funds and works for
abortion? How is this work alleviating suffering and poverty? It seems
as though you are going against the very message you ought to be
driving and pushing forward.
My colleague and I have come together to discuss and work on many
important issues, but we disagree sometimes. We have different views on
the point of life. But, from my work, I know that there are great
groups of people in this country and a pretty strong majority that says
we need to help more overseas. But it has to be sensible help. There
have to be ways we can feed more people and ways we can take care of
sickness, where we can end the fighting in places such as Darfur, where
we can move forward in economic development, in ways such as the
Millennium Challenge Account Program is structured to do.
Amendments such as this have a harmful overall impact on the body
politic of this country, disrupting a chance to do something that is
very noble and good. I understand my colleague is putting it forward as
a noble cause. I don't think it is being received or can be viewed in
that way.
With all due respect to my colleague and her heart for her goodness
to do the right thing, this amendment is not helpful on many levels. I
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my colleague misses the entire point. The
reason this child was sent to prison in Nepal after incest by an uncle
and being forced by her parents to have an abortion is because of the
former law in Nepal. And the policy my friend is supporting, the global
gag rule he extolls, prohibited that clinic from going to bat for this
child and using its own funds to change the laws. To do that, they had
to turn back their U.S. funding. Are you proud of that? They decided,
this nongovernmental organization, to give back the money because they
felt it was that important to fight for that child who was the victim
of incest and get that law changed.
It took them several years. That child had a 14th birthday in prison,
and

[[Page S3184]]

she had a 15th birthday in prison. But they succeeded. One would think
we would be on their side. One would think the United States of America
would be on the side of a child who was raped and against a man who
performed that act. One would think that is the side we would be on,
the side of this child. But, oh, no, the global gag rule told that
clinic: You cannot change the law because if you do that, you are
violating the global gag rule.
That is the point. It is true there is an exception for rape and
incest in the rule, but it does not apply if the country does not make
an exception for rape and incest. So what we should say in those
cases--at least work with me on this--is allow them to keep their money
if they are working to change the law on rape and incest in their
country. But my friend is not doing that. He wants the status quo.
Then we have the case in Uganda where three underage girls died from
botched abortions. The same man impregnated them, and the clinic was
afraid to help because they could lose all their American money. The
girls died.
Is that what we are celebrating today, a policy that allows a child
to rot in prison if she is raped, a policy that allows a rapist to be
free, a policy that says three girls impregnated by the same man should
die in a back alley? I hope not. This is very serious. This is not only
about words. This is not a debate about when life begins. We can have
that debate any day of the week.
I will tell my friend right now, I would die for his right to believe
what he believes on that issue, and I hope he would die for my right to
believe what I believe on that issue because that is a question between
us and our God. That is not on the table today.
What is on the table is a real-life question: With whom do we stand?
I hope when we come to this vote, which we are going to have shortly
today, we are going to stand with the women and girls of the world who
need our protection, not our vengeance, who need to know we are not
going to gag the people who are there to help them, but, in fact, allow
the people who are there to help them, to use their own funds to tell
the truth about their life and their options and their health. This is
a very serious matter.
Mr. President, if the other side will yield back its time, I will be
glad to yield back mine; otherwise, I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could have 1 minute. How much time
remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will address directly one point, if
the Senator does not object. I read from the CRS document May 19, 2003,
on this topic:

In USAID-issued certification forms, organizations had to
state that they would not engage in three types of activities
with either USAID or non-USAID funds from the date they
signed an agreement to receive FY2000 USAID population funds
. . . :
Perform abortions in a foreign country, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered, or in cases of
forcible rape or incest;
Violate the laws of a foreign country concerning the
circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated,
or restricted; or
Attempt to alter laws or governmental policies concerning
circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated,
or restricted.

As I understand it, USAID is required by the Mexico City language,
that in horrific difficulties and circumstances, such as the case the
Senator discussed, individuals may work with organizations who provide
abortions. But it is on a narrow set of circumstances because the
American public does not agree with taxpayer funding of abortions
overseas.

I submit the report for the Record, and I yield the floor. If my
colleague is prepared to yield back time, I am prepared to yield back
time, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to respond.
Again, my colleague has made my point. He read into the Record
exactly what I said. Under the gag rule, you cannot perform abortions
except for rape, incest, or life of the mother. That is right. But here
is the second point: You cannot attempt to alter the laws, and that is
the exact reason I cited for why the nongovernmental organization that
is prohibited from altering the laws of their country had to give back
their funding. That is exactly the point.
My friend made my argument for me by reading what I have been saying.
This nongovernmental organization wanted to change the laws in Nepal so
that a child who was raped or a victim of incest would not rot in
prison. They were precluded from using their own money to alter the
laws of their country. My friend read it right into the Record, and I
thank him for that. He made my point.
So, yes, at the end of the day, we stand with the rapist in this case
against the child, and that is wrong, and that is the reason I hope my
colleagues will join with me.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in an effort not to belabor this too
much, there is a set of semantics being argued back and forth. I invite
my colleague to submit suggestions on regulatory changes to the USAID
to try to address this narrow point, if that is, indeed, the case. I
hope we do not, in focusing on a particular very narrow tragic issue
and circumstance--and nobody is celebrating that tragedy--I hope we do
not lose focus of the broader issue of taxpayer funding of abortions
overseas.
We can focus in on this very narrow point of view--and it is a tragic
circumstance, I will concede that to my colleague. Maybe we can
negotiate a regulatory change to address these important concerns if
these words do not do it. I think we are arguing semantics here. Let's
not lose sight of the fact, which is that this amendment would send
taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is as if we are talking past each
other. My friend made the case for me. He read the restriction which is
that no organization can attempt to alter the laws of their country.
And so we are standing against people having their rights at self-
determination. Can you imagine if we sent out a notice to our people,
let's say on both sides of the gun debate, and said to both sides: You
cannot discuss this matter with your representatives. We could not do
that for 3 seconds. First, we would be run out of office on a rail. But
we are willing to be an imperial power and tell others in other
countries they cannot advocate on behalf of the people of their
country.
The last point I will make is my friend keeps repeating the phrase
``U.S. taxpayer funds.'' He is confusing the debate. There was an
outright ban written in 1973 by Jesse Helms which has been upheld in
the Congress ever since that not a dime of U.S. taxpayer money could be
used in any way, shape, or form to provide abortion. And there is
another law that says you cannot use U.S. taxpayer funds to lobby. So
those things are already set.
What we are talking about is an additional law put into place by the
Bush administration after it was off the books for 8 years which says
forget about U.S. taxpayer money, we are telling nongovernmental
organizations that to get that money, they cannot use their own funds
in any way to provide abortion, to counsel women, to tell women their
options, or--and this is the case in point--even to lobby their
legislature to change laws, such as the one that put this child in
prison who is the victim of incest. I do not understand how we can
stand on that side of this issue.
I can give you 100 examples. I do not want to take the Senate's time
to do that. The other case was in Uganda where the clinic was gagged
and could not tell these girls where they could go to get a safe
abortion to end a pregnancy forced on them by a gentleman--I should not
call him a gentleman--a man who impregnated three of his students, and
the clinic was scared to say anything, and these girls got illegal,
what they call backyard abortions in that country and died.
Now, why do we want to stand on the side of the law that is resulting
in girls going to jail when they are raped by a

[[Page S3185]]

relative and girls dying from botched abortions because we put a gag on
the clinic? I hope this Senate will pass the Boxer-Snowe bipartisan
amendment that will send a signal to the world that we believe very
strongly in their rights to aggressively approach their government and
talk about laws that may need changing, their rights to look a woman or
a girl in the eye and say, look, regardless of what your religion is or
what your feeling is, these are the options you have.
I do not think keeping women ignorant is a very liked policy, and
anyone who votes for this global gag rule votes to keep the women of
the world ignorant. I hope my colleagues will vote for the Boxer-Snowe
amendment. I look forward to a successful vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators for this
debate. A vote will occur on it at a time in the future, probably in
sequence with the 4:30 vote.
At this point, I have two points of important business. These are
amendments that have been agreed upon.

Amendment No. 279

Mr. LUGAR. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] proposes an amendment
numbered 279.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike section 207)

On page 24, strike lines 1 through 5.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this amendment strikes section 207. It was
scored by the Congressional Budget Office as containing direct spending
that needed an offset. While there is some disagreement between the
executive branch and Congressional Budget Office on the scoring, if
section 207 were not stricken, the legislation would be subject to a
budget point of order. I understand the staff of the Budget Committee
and the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have come to an
agreement, and this amendment removes the threat to the legislation. We
know the State Department considers section 207 important. We will do
our best to provide these authorities, but we must do so in a way that
is budget neutral.
For this reason, until a way can be found to resolve the scoring
difficulties, we ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 279) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 280

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator
Schumer, I send an amendment to the desk. This is an amendment that
requires that foreign assistance be withheld from foreign countries
that owe parking fines in Washington, DC, or New York City. The amount
withheld would be 110 percent of the fines.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for Mr. Schumer,
proposes an amendment numbered 280.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To impose an economic sanction on foreign countries that owe
parking fines and penalties or property taxes to Washington, D.C. or
New York City)

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC.   . WITHHOLDING OF ASSISTANCE FOR PARKING FINES AND REAL
PROPERTY TAXES OWED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

Sec.   . (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), of the
funds made available by this Act for assistance for a foreign
country, an amount equal to 110 percent of the total amount
of the unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines and penalties
and unpaid property taxes owed by the central government of
such country shall be withheld from obligation for assistance
for the central government of such country.
(b) Payment. Funds withheld from obligation for a country
under subsection (a) shall be paid to the jurisdiction to
which the unpaid fully adjudicated parking fines or penalties
or unpaid property taxes are owed.
(c) Amounts Withheld To Be Additional Funds.--Subsection
(a) shall not include amounts that have been withheld under
any other provision of law.
(d) Waiver.--
(1) The Secretary of State may waive the requirements set
forth in subsection (a) with respect to parking fines and
penalties no sooner than 60 days from the date of enactment
of this Act, or at any time with respect to a particular
country, if the Secretary determines that it is in the
national interests of the United States to do so.
(2) The Secretary of State may waive the requirements set
forth in subsection (a) with respect to the unpaid property
taxes if the Secretary of State determines that it is in the
national interests of the United States to do so.
(e) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the initial
exercise of the waiver authority in subsection (d), the
Secretary of State, after consultations with the City of New
York, shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees describing a strategy, including a timetable and
steps currently being taken, to collect the parking fines and
penalties and unpaid property taxes and interest owed by
nations receiving foreign assistance under this Act.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives.
(2) The term ``fully adjudicated'' includes circumstances
in which the person or government to whom the vehicle is
registered--
(A)(i) has not responded to the parking violation summons;
or
(ii) has not followed the appropriate adjudication
procedure to challenge the summons; and
(B) the period of time for payment of or challenge to the
summons has lapsed.
(3) The term ``parking fines and penalties'' means parking
fines and penalties--
(A) owed to--
(i) the District of Columbia; or
(ii) New York, New York; and
(B) incurred during the period April 1, 1997 through
September 30, 2005.
(4) The term ``unpaid property taxes'' means the amount of
unpaid taxes and interest determined by a court or other
tribunal to be owed by a foreign country on real property in
the District of Columbia or New York, New York.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 280) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 274, Withdrawn

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that adoption of
amendment No. 274 be vitiated and the amendment then be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. At this juncture, I ask the Chair to recognize the
distinguished Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee. I ask that the pending amendments be temporarily
set aside so I might offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to raise a question with the
distinguished Senator from Montana. Would the Senator and his
colleague, Senator Craig, be prepared to enter into an agreement that
the amendment should have 36 minutes of consideration; namely, between
now and 4:30, with the time equally divided between opponents and
proponents, no second-degree amendments?
Mr. BAUCUS. I might tell the chairman that is certainly fine with
this Senator.
Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. What was the Senator's conditioning on the second degree?
Mr. LUGAR. The request is 36 minutes total for the amendment, 18
minutes per side, that concluding at the time of our voting sequence
starting at 4:30.
Mr. CRAIG. Including all amendments?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes, with no second degree.
Mr. CRAIG. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, the minority leader staff
tells me we have to check with other Senators on this side who may want
to speak to this amendment, but why do

[[Page S3186]]

we not proceed. I would object for the moment, but hopefully I can
resolve this very quickly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Montana.

Amendment No. 281

(Purpose: To facilitate the sale of United States agricultural products
to Cuba, as authorized by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000)

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment
numbered 281.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Amendment No. 282 To Amendment No. 281

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk on behalf of myself and Senator Roberts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself, and Mr.
Roberts, proposes an amendment numbered 282 to amendment No.
281.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the payment terms under the Trade Sanctions Reform
and Export Enhancement Act of 2000)

In the matter proposed to be added, strike section 2905 and
insert the following:

SEC. 2905. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS UNDER TRADE
SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF
2000.

(a) In General.--Section 908(b)(1) of the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C.
7207(b)(1)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (B)
the following:
``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term
`payment of cash in advance' means the payment by the
purchaser of an agricultural commodity or product and the
receipt of such payment by the seller prior to--
``(i) the transfer of title of such commodity or product to
the purchaser; and
``(ii) the release of control of such commodity or product
to the purchaser.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on February 22, 2005.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a second degree of
time certainty to the most important legislation of the Senator from
Montana, S. 328, that was produced in bill form and now we hope can
become an amendment to the State Department's authorization bill that
deals with agricultural export facilitation. I speak to that most
importantly because of the tremendously positive work that has been
going on in agricultural exports between this country, our agricultural
producers, and the Nation of Cuba.
I am in complete agreement with the President when he said:

Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a
moral imperative. When we negotiate for open markets, we are
providing new hope for the world's poor. And when we promote
open trade, we are promoting political freedom. Societies
that open to commerce across their borders will open to
democracy within their borders, not always immediately, and
not always smoothly, but in good time.

That was a quote in 2001. It is most appropriate today. Senator
Baucus, myself, Senator Roberts, Senator Hagel, Senator Lugar, and 25
other Members of this Senate have grown increasingly frustrated with
the bureaucratic effort at the Department of Treasury literally to shut
down the intent of very important legislation that became law in 2000.
The Trade Sanctions Reform Act recognized a need and an opportunity to
sell agricultural products to Cuba for cash, that we would not ask the
taxpayers of this country to facilitate. In fact, we would be very
strict and very narrow in those relationships with the nation of Cuba
because of overwhelming interests in a variety of other areas at that
time, and it passed the Congress.
That became law. That law began to work. In the course of its
workings, Cuba grew from a trading partner that was the 226th largest
against all of our trading partners to the 21st largest this past year.
We have produced and sold nearly $1 billion worth of agricultural
products to Cuba since that law became operative in 2000. It has become
one part of a total of valuable tools that the agricultural community
of this Nation uses in trade.
Nearly 34 States have sold products to Cuba and that clearly speaks
about the broad base of support that this legislation has.
Somehow and for some apparently very biased reason--let me be blunt--
Cold War bureaucrats in the Department of Treasury at OFAC decided, no,
we are going to change the law by regulation.
We are going to squeeze and push and deny, and as a result we will
collapse the ongoing trade with Cuba that is clearly within the law and
within the Trade Sanctions Reform Act of 2000.
What we do with this amendment offered to the State Department
authorization bill, and my second-degree amendment, is very clear. We
simply restate the law, the intent of the law. We want OFAC to
understand what Congress's intent was. We define what a cash payment in
advance is. We authorize the issuance of a general license for U.S.
agricultural producers to travel to Cuba for the purpose of
agricultural trade. We authorize direct cash payments to U.S. banks,
cash payments. It is very important we understand that. We repeal
section 211 as it relates to the 1999 Omnibus Act, and trademarks, and
we clarify a variety of other issues.
What is most important, and for our colleagues who support us in this
effort and support the agricultural community in our country's ability
to sell to Cuba for cash, we say we are for all intents and purposes
reinstating the intent of Congress as expressed in the 2000 law. That
is what is important here. We do not believe it is the right or
responsibility of Treasury to change the rules or the name of the game
or the intent of the law. That is why the Senator from Montana and I
have come to the floor, for that purpose. The Senator remains on the
floor and I know wants to express his concern.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Montana is
recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first I thank the chairman of the
committee, second my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, and other
Senators who have cosponsored this amendment. There are at the present
moment about 30 cosponsors of this amendment. It is bipartisan. I might
say there is tremendous interest in this legislation also in the other
body.
To review where we are, back in the year 2000, not too many years
ago, we in the Congress approved legislation called the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act, otherwise known as TSREEA. What was
the point of that legislation? It was legislation which authorized
cash-in-advance food and medicine sales to Cuba. That is, the Congress
carved out a substantive area of food and agricultural sales to Cuba.
It did not provide a broad-brush authorization for trade with Cuba;
rather, it narrowed it to food and to medicine for humanitarian
reasons. It just made sense for the United States to be able to send
its medicine and its food products, its agriculture, to Cuba. Clearly
this made a lot of sense. Food should never be used as a weapon, and
surely no dictator has ever missed a meal.
Second, big government has no business telling the U.S. farmers and
ranchers to whom they could sell their products, for a lot of reasons.
One is agriculture is facing such dire straits in many parts of our
country. In addition, U.S. agriculture is facing a shrinking trade
surplus. It used to be agriculture products exported overseas were the
one big bright spot in the trade imbalance. That is no longer true.
Agricultural programs are under tremendous pressure from budget cuts--
more so now than has been the case in the past.

We should be looking around for new markets for American products,
not

[[Page S3187]]

cutting out export markets for American agricultural products. Cuba
certainly presents a promising market for Montana and for American
agriculture. Yet, unbelievably, the Treasury Department has recently
issued a new rule. That rule makes it harder, it makes it much more
difficult, for U.S. farmers and ranchers to sell agricultural products
to Cuba. It makes it much more difficult in spite of the intent of the
law we passed in 2000.
This rule by Treasury requires Cuba to pay for goods before shipment
instead of before delivery, as was the case in the last 3 years after
the act was passed. For some reason, here in 2005, a few years after
the act has been in operation and working, the Treasury Department
passes new regulations, just out of the blue, which make it much more
difficult for American farmers to sell their products to Cuba. If Cuba
pays for the goods while they are still on U.S. soil, these goods,
under this new rule, become Cuban assets, which make them vulnerable to
seizure to satisfy unrelated claims.
What is the effect of that? That has a very chilling effect. Treasury
says it issued this rule as a ``clarification'' of the intent of
Congress in the bill we passed in the year 2000. Let me be clear. My
colleagues and I did not vote for a bill to enhance exports to Cuba
that contained payment restrictions so severe as to render U.S. exports
uncompetitive or worse. Clearly we did not pass a bill, we did not vote
for a bill which makes it more difficult to sell agricultural products
to Cuba rather than less difficult, and this regulation makes it more
difficult. That was not the intent of Congress. We pass the laws. We
decide what the laws of the Nation should be. It was our intent that
agricultural sales should proceed unimpeded on a cash basis to Cuba.
When Treasury proposed this rule, I and colleagues on both sides of
the aisle in both Chambers made our point very clear that we did not
intend this. It was not our intent to have this interpretation.
Why is this so important? Cuba, the largest island in the Caribbean,
was worth $400 million to U.S. agriculture exporters in the year 2004.
Since 2001, Cuba has purchased more than $800 million in agricultural
products from 35 States in our Nation, making that island the 25th
largest export market for agricultural products.
A year and a half ago, I led a trade mission to Cuba, and I walked
away with what I think is a pretty good deal for my State of Montana:
$10 billion in agricultural products on a cash basis; and the fact is
they bought $10.4 million of agricultural products from my State of
Montana. I went back last December and signed a new agreement, this
time worth $15 million for Montana agricultural products.
Unfortunately, that agreement is now in jeopardy because of the new
rule.
In the interim, Treasury passed this new rule. It also applied this
new rule even to sales completed months earlier on a retroactive basis,
which is totally unfair. The rule is wrong in the first place. It makes
it doubly wrong when it is retroactive. We have $3 million worth of
wheat and pea shipments lined up, and now they have to be renegotiated
or abandoned because of this Treasury rule. That is wrong, just dead
wrong. I, in this body, have worked hard to sell agricultural products
to Cuba and will not stand idly by while Government bureaucrats try to
undo all that hard work.

First, this reverses that Treasury rule and clarifies the intent of
Congress for Cuba to pay cash for delivery of U.S. goods before
delivery, not before shipment. This will ensure that cash sales
continue as they have without interruption.
Second, the amendment gives general license to producers and port
authorities to travel to Cuba whenever they have agreements to
negotiate. This is a big point. Very often, the United States makes it
very difficult with a huge amount of bureaucracy and paperwork to go
through when the American agricultural exporter wants to go to Cuba to
negotiate an agreement. It makes it difficult to do so if we can't go
to Cuba to put the deal together.
Third, it requires greater transparency in visa processing for the
Cuban buyers and inspectors who have legitimate itineraries in the
United States related to the sale or inspection of TSREEA-authorized
products.
Again, if a State has sales to Cuba, it only makes sense if the State
Department can allow a representative for the Government of Cuba or the
representative of agriculture, the purchaser, to come visit that State
to see what products that State has in mind. So far the Government is
making it very difficult for that to happen.
Fourth, this authorizes direct banking relations for authorized
agricultural sales only. We are not talking about any other product. We
are talking just about authorized agriculture sales--direct banking
relations which would have the effect that U.S. banks can deal directly
on this matter rather than as currently is the case where they would
have to go through a third party, where European banks are making money
off the U.S. agricultural sales.
Finally, this amendment repeals an obscure trademark law that
benefits no U.S. company, but puts at risk thousands of U.S.
trademarks, including those branded food products sold to Cuba in the
past 3 years. Section 211's supporters say it protects confiscated
trademarks but in fact makes very clear no government--not even Fidel
Castro's--can expropriate legally registered trademark rights. It is
impossible to do. That is why this provision must be enacted.
The truth is, section 211 was enacted to interfere in an ongoing rum
label dispute. The fight is not my concern. But what concerns me is
unless we fully repeal section 211, Cuba has the right, under
international trademark law, to deny U.S. trademarks reciprocal
recognition. That does not make any sense.
In conclusion, I am here to urge us to pass this amendment. It allows
American farmers and ranchers a break. More importantly, let them do
what we intended them to do when we passed that law in the year 2000.
Let us send a message to Treasury that when we pass laws, we mean it.
It is not for Treasury. They are the executive branch, and they are
supposed to implement the laws, not make new laws, which in effect
Treasury is doing by changing its regulations. They are being totally
irresponsible. There comes a time when, frankly, it is up to us to put
a stop to it and say this is not right and we are going to change it.
I see many of my friends on the floor. I thank my good friend from
North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who cosponsored this amendment.
I say also that I support the trade amendment offered by Senator
Craig, a perfecting amendment which will help implement the major
underlying amendment which I described.
I yield the floor but reserve the time we have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we under a time agreement at this
point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments about
this, and first credit my colleagues Senator Craig, Senator Baucus, and
many other colleagues who have worked so hard on this. Their leadership
is especially appreciated.
Go back 5 years to the year 2000 when I, then-Senator John Ashcroft,
and my colleagues Senators Craig, Baucus, and others passed an
amendment here in the Senate that became law. The amendment we offered
which became law said that American farmers could sell food into the
country of Cuba as long as Cuba paid cash for that food. Since that
time, we have sold over $1 billion worth of agricultural commodities
into Cuba. When we debated that 5 years ago, I was on the floor of the
Senate saying I think it is almost immoral for any country to use food
as a weapon. Food ought not be a weapon in foreign policy.
Does anybody here think that for 40 years when we prevented the sale
of food to Cuba we injured Fidel Castro? Does anybody believe Fidel
Castro missed breakfast, or lunch, or supper, or dinner, because of our
embargo on food, because we decided to use food as a weapon? It didn't
hurt Fidel Castro. When we use food as a weapon, it hurts hungry, sick,
and poor people. That is what happens.
One day not too long ago--a couple of years ago--22 train carloads of
dried feeds left the State of North Dakota, my home State, to go from
our farms

[[Page S3188]]

to Cuba to be fed to the Cuban people. Cuba paid cash for it. It was
the first shipment in 42 years.

We have people who never liked that law; didn't like the fact that
Congress passed that law; still want to use food as a weapon. What has
happened is the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control
has decided to illegally, in my judgment, redetermine how they
interpret that force of law that requires cash payment for food.
Normally, when you buy something, when they give you the product, you
pay cash and they give you the product. That is the way it is. You pay
the money, they give you the product.
What the Department of Treasury has decided in OFAC is that the
Cubans would have to pay for this. By the way, they paid cash through a
European bank because they can't use a U.S. banking institution. They
have to pay for it before that shipment even leaves the local country
elevator. It dramatically changes the circumstances of being able to
sell and be competitive. They are doing it for one reason, because
those who did this don't want American farmers to sell food into the
Cuban marketplace. The Canadians sell into the Cuban marketplace. The
Europeans do. But they want to go back to the good old days when the
American farmers were paying the cost of an embargo. They are dead
wrong.
It is interesting. We are told repeatedly and have been told for
years that the way to move Communist countries into the mainstream
toward democratic reform is through trade and travel. I have been to
the country of China; I have been to Vietnam--both Communist countries.
We encourage trade and travel with Communist countries, China and
Vietnam. But when it comes to Cuba, a Communist country headed by Fidel
Castro, who admittedly keeps sticking his finger into our country's
eye--I understand that. It is not about Fidel Castro. It is about our
farmers being able to sell food into the Cuban marketplace. When it
comes to Cuba and Castro, he has lived through 10 Presidents and over
40 years of an embargo.
The fact is this amendment is necessary in order to stop the Treasury
from doing something that the Congressional Research Service says they
do not think is legal.
Let me make another couple of comments that relate more generally to
a related issue. The Office of Foreign Asset Control is an agency down
in Treasury that is supposed to be tracking money supporting terrorism.
That money supporting terrorism is to be intercepted by OFAC in their
investigations, trying to figure out who is supporting Osama bin Laden,
and how do we shut down their funding. Guess what. This little agency,
which has 21 people, triple the number of people who are working on
Osama bin Laden's funding supply, is trying to figure out how they shut
down trade and travel to Cuba. They are investigating American citizens
who are under suspicion of having taken a vacation in Cuba without a
license.
I have a picture of a young woman I have shown on the floor of the
Senate many times. Her transgression was she went to Cuba to pass out
free Bibles on the streets of Cuba and OFAC tracked her down and fined
her $10,000.
Trade and travel are two related issues that I believe would work
with Cuba, as they work with China and Vietnam. I believe the Communist
countries I have described, China and Vietnam as examples, have moved
toward more democratic reforms, not completely, but as a result of our
policy called engagement, travel, and trade.
With respect to Cuba, we have had this some 40-plus years embargo
that simply hasn't worked. But the piece of the embargo, the piece of
that issue my colleagues Senator Craig and Senator Baucus and I and
others now want to address is to correct something that is happening
down at the Treasury Department that we believe misinterprets current
law to correct something the Congressional Research Service says is
being done which they believe is not legal. We will find any way we can
to force this correction.
My colleagues have described--I shall not go into any greater
detail--the provisions. It allows generally visas for agricultural
sales to Cuba. If you are going to sell and have a trade relationship,
you have to go there and talk about what you have to sell. It would
express the sense of Congress that we should issue visas to Cubans who
want to buy U.S. agricultural goods, and want to come here. They have
systematically refused to give visas to some of these top food-buying
Cubans who would come to this country to purchase food. It also fixes
payment and advance issues and resolves those kinds of problems that
have arisen in recent months with the new ruling by OFAC.
One final point: The current Secretary of the Treasury knows, as did
the previous Secretary of the Treasury, that what is happening is
goofy; totally without good sense. They know that.
I had a hearing one day when I was chairing a subcommittee, and
Treasury Secretary O'Neill was there. I asked him about four or five
times. He didn't answer. I knew why he wouldn't answer; it was because
he would get in trouble if he did. But about the fifth or sixth time I
asked the question--I knew he would eventually answer--he finally
answered candidly. I said, Wouldn't you, if you had the choice, rather
than track people suspected of vacationing in Cuba, rather than trying
to shut down agricultural trade, if you had the choice, use your assets
in OFAC to track terrorist money and shut down terrorism?
He finally said, of course. The next day he was chastised publicly by
the White House for saying that. We do not get that kind of answer out
of anyone in the administration anymore.
This is very simple. It is not a partisan issue. It is the expression
of Congress, on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, that we
ought not use food as a weapon. It is immoral. Farmers should not the
pay the cost of this country's foreign policy. It makes no sense to
allow the Treasury Department to misinterpret law and to try to shut
down the ability of United States farmers to sell food to Cuba.
To close where I began, let me say again, these policies have never
hurt Fidel Castro. He has never missed a meal. It hurts poor people,
hungry people, and sick people in Cuba, and it hurts American farmers.
The policymakers who do this know that, they know both of those
circumstances and they do it, in my judgment, to perpetuate a political
advantage they think exists somewhere in about two States in our
country. I think they are wrong.
On behalf of this country's farmers and on behalf of the people in
Cuba who would buy and who would need that food, I believe we ought to
pass this amendment to the underlying bill.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 273, as Modified

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent an amendment
numbered 273, previously agreed to, be modified with language that is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 273), as modified, was agreed to as follows:

On page 12, strike lines 16 through 18, and insert the
following:
(2) Availability of funds.--
(A) Fiscal year 2006.--Fifteen percent of the funds
appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2006
are authorized to remain available until September 30, 2007.
(B) Fiscal year 2007.--Fifteen percent of the funds
appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2007
are authorized to remain available until September 30, 2008.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that following
the vote at 4:45 on the resolution regarding Pope John Paul II, the
Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment; provided
further that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the
votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.

[[Page S3189]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will take the time before the vote to
rise in support of the Craig-Baucus amendment. I am a cosponsor of S.
328, the bill on which the amendment is based. I appreciate the views
of the Senators on both sides of the Cuban embargo issue. In the
Committee on Foreign Relations, concerned Senators have offered
constructive ideas on how to approach Cuba with the goal of
transforming that island into a democracy, even as Senators disagree on
interim policy steps.
My view is within the defined limits of Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act of 2000, United States businesses and farmers
should be able to sell products to Cuba. In the interest of expanding
opportunities for U.S. agriculture, 5 years ago Congress enacted this
law. It exempts from the trade embargo on Cuba commercial sales of
agricultural and medical products and allows only for cash sales. No
credit or subsidies to the Cuban Government are allowed.
This law has provided a new market for our farmers and ranchers. The
American Farm Bureau has reported that since the passage of the bill,
United States farmers have sold approximately $800 million in
agricultural products to Cuba. Exports to Cuba have more than doubled
since 2002, reaching approximately $400 million in 2004. Growth in the
Cuban market has become especially important as the United States
agricultural trade surplus has narrowed over the last 2 years.
Recently, the Bush administration issued a clarification to our Cuban
export policy which changed the payment terms of cash sales to Cuba.
The Treasury Department rule will make it more difficult to sell
agricultural products to Cuba.
The amendment would reverse the Treasury rule by returning it to the
status quo payment terms. That has worked well since 2001. It also
would cut some of the redtape that makes United States producers less
competitive in the Cuban market.
Expanding international markets in our hemisphere and the world will
have a positive impact on the lives of Americans. All sectors,
especially American agricultural, benefit from the opportunity to sell
products to other nations that create jobs in the United States. My
home state of Indiana is a world leader in agricultural production and
manufacturing. If we hope to sustain our economic strength in the 21st
century, we must participate in an expanding global economy. We must
aggressively pursue opportunities in new markets and we must keep our
competitive advantage and sell our products worldwide.
As a Senator, I worked in the Congress to support trade and economic
policies that I believe are in the best long-term interests of our
Nation. Constricting agricultural sales to Cuba would have little or no
effect on the Cuban regime, particularly since the rest of the world
does not participate in our embargo. It would, however, limit the
ability of our farmers and our ranchers to sell their products abroad.
I urge my colleagues to support the Craig-Baucus amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________