Working Taxpayer Fairness Restoration Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the remainder of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the reason I was happy to have the clerk read the first three findings in this amendment is that I think these words really speak to what the United States is all about, which is free speech, the ability for people to be told the truth, and the ability of medical professionals not to be gagged from telling the truth.

Most unfortunately, what is happening right now, as a result of this administration's policy known as the Mexico City policy, foreign nongovernmental organizations--in other words, nonprofit organizations--that received USAID family planning funding are restricted in how they can help their patients.

Who are these patients? I will go into this later in detail. But they are the poorest of the poorest women in the world. What has happened, I would say because of politics in this country, is we have a very unfortunate worldwide policy now that says to the private, nonprofit organizations that are helping the poorest of the poor people--mostly women--they cannot use their own money to advocate for changes in the abortion laws of their own country.

So if they believe the abortion laws in their own country are, for example, killing women because they are saying there can be no abortion ever, even to save the life of a woman, they cannot use their own funds to advocate for change. Or if they believe the woman who comes before them has decided, of her own free will and her own conscience and with her own religious guidance and with her own family guidance, that she would like to have a legal abortion, these foreign, nonprofit organizations may not use their own money to help that woman. Not only that--this is, to me, the worst of it all--they may not use their own money to provide full and accurate medical information about what options a woman has.

It is hard for me to understand that in a country as free as ours, in a country as great as ours, we would have a policy which we dare not do in our own country because it would be clearly unconstitutional. A domestic gag rule is clearly unconstitutional. Why would we put such a policy forward and tell these little nonprofit organizations, that are struggling to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor, they would jeopardize their USAID funding if they absolutely do nothing more than even tell a patient what her legal options are, what her safe options are?

This is known as the Mexico City policy because it came out of a conference in Mexico City a very long time ago. This policy ended with President Clinton in 1992, when he said he would absolutely uphold the law that we had before this global gag rule which said you cannot use Federal money in any way to promote abortion--that was the law, and he didn't disturb that--but certainly a group could use its own money.

What happened is for 8 years we did not have this regressive policy that turns the clock back on women's rights, and yet when President Bush came in, it was one of the first things he did, to reinstate this Mexico City policy.

I am very proud that cosponsoring my amendment, which would overturn this policy, are Senator Chafee and Senator Snowe. I am very proud to have them as Republican lead cosponsors. I am also very proud to have Senator Mikulski and Senator Murray as cosponsors. I am very happy to say the ranking member of the committee has told me I may add his name and he will be speaking in behalf of this amendment.

Clearly, we have an opportunity to do the right thing today. We have done it before. We have overturned this before. We have taken a stand before. I hope we will do it again.

Again, I wish to say what we are talking about here because there is always confusion. This has nothing to do with Federal funds. Federal funds may not be used in any way related to abortion. This only has to do with the private funds of these little nonprofits that are trying to help women.

What has been the impact of this gag rule? You may say, Senator Boxer, that is very interesting, but what is really happening on the ground?

Here is what is happening on the ground. With the gag rule in place,

these organizations face two choices: They can either refuse U.S. assistance or they can limit their own services. You know how hard that must be for these struggling organizations in these very poor nations.

Madam President, you have seen the world in your capacity as head of the Red Cross. You know some of these places are struggling. You know very much of it is the women who struggle the most, who are the most poor, who have the most health needs. We are seeing organizations saying: OK, I can't take the money. I can't take USAID funding because I cannot limit my ability to help my patients.

I am going to show you a case later that is very emotional and very disturbing as one example of a group that turned back this funding, and I will tell you why.

Imagine the Hobson's choice they face. Here they are, struggling, yet if they take this money, they can literally not tell their patients the truth. They are literally barred from telling their patients what is the most safe procedure for you, what are your options. They may not tell the patient that.

What is happening on the ground--and we will prove it with cases before you--we say women and families are suffering increased misery and even death. They are suffering this because there are clinics that are shutting down because they cannot take the money, and there are clinics that are being gagged, they cannot tell the truth.

Why is family planning assistance important? This is not just about abortion. These are clinics that help women plan their families. We know family planning increases child survival rates. It improves maternal health. It prevents the spread of HIV/AIDS. We have the President of the United States--and it is wonderful that he has decided to visit Africa. I have to say, while he talks about how much he wants to help HIV/AIDS, and I believe he does, he needs to understand, and perhaps he doesn't get the fact, if these clinics close down, we are going to see the spread of HIV/AIDS, we are going to see the spread of other infectious diseases.

International family planning funding helps save lives. On the one hand, to say I am here in Africa to help and on the other hand to have imposed a gag rule on doctors and nurses and clinicians so they cannot tell poor women the truth about their options or they cannot work to change the regressive laws of their country--for example, to say if a child is raped, if a child is the victim of incest, that child ought to be able to get a safe, legal abortion--these clinics cannot even do this under this global gag rule.

As a result of USAID funding, more than 50 million couples in the developing world use family planning. In the last 30 years, the percentage of couples using family planning has risen fivefold. This is something to celebrate. We know fewer than 10 percent of couples used contraception in the 1960s. We are talking about foreign countries that we helped. Now 50 percent of the couples use contraception. So the word is getting through. But the need for family planning assistance continues because of the growth of population.

Why on Earth are we setting in place a vehicle, this global gag rule, which will deprive people of their health care, will deprive women of knowing what their options are? We don't know exactly how many organizations have refused funding because of this gag rule, and we cannot measure exactly how many abortions would have been prevented by family planning. But we know clearly whenever you cut back in family planning services, you see an increase in abortions. We know 78,000 women throughout the world die each year. I want us to think about what that means. Seventy-eight thousand women throughout the world die each year as a result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of those unsafe abortions in the world are girls age 15 to 19.

When we have a policy that results in clinics shutting down, we have a policy that results in illegal abortions because if they take the money, they can't tell a young girl the truth of what her options are. She may run to a back alley in desperation, and she may well die.

Seventy-eight thousand women throughout the world die each year from unsafe abortions. That is not a pro-life policy. I am sorry. That is an anti-life policy to put women at risk.

Seventy-eight thousand women die each year. That is a horrific statistic. That is happening because women cannot avail themselves of the family planning services they need.

What does our amendment do? What does the Boxer-Chafee-Snowe- Mikulski-Murray-Biden amendment do? First, it says foreign nongovernmental organizations cannot be denied funding based on the medical services they provide with their own funds, including counseling and referral services. Withholding medical information, as I have said before, to patients who need it is an intolerable situation. It would be intolerable in this country. We know, because it was tried in this country 20 years ago. There was absolutely an uproar. Doctors would say, excuse me, are you putting a gag over my mouth? Are you saying I cannot tell my patients what their legal options are? The answer came back: This cannot be sustained in a country that believes in freedom of speech. So what we couldn't do here we are doing there.

We say there shall be no gag rule. That is the first part of our amendment.

The second part says in addition to being able to tell the patients the truth about their options, an organization should be able to lobby in any way it wants as long as it doesn't use USAID funds.

We have a win-win situation in this amendment. Doctors and nurses and folks who work in these nongovernmental organizations and these small nonprofits are going to be able to tell the truth to their patients. Here are your options. Treat their patients like adults. I think it is essential to treat a woman like an adult. This is your predicament. These are the things you can do. You can have a child. You need to think about that. You could keep the child. You can give the child up for adoption. That is an option. You can end this pregnancy, if you end it early without complication. But it is your choice. I think women should be treated as adults.

Then if these organizations see that women are dying from illegal abortions because this country, let us say, outlawed legal abortions, they can lobby for this with their own funds. What we are doing is restoring democracy to the USAID program.

Frankly, I can't believe this regressive policy is even here in the 21st century. It is killing women. This is not something that is preventing abortions. Its impact is that women will seek illegal abortions. It is what happened in this country. Hundreds of women in this country died every year because they could not get access to safe, legal abortions until Roe v. Wade. Then we said to women, this is a legal option. It is your call. It is up to you at the early stages of the pregnancy. It is really a very straightforward and fair law.

What we are saying to women abroad now is if you go to a doctor, you should be able to hear your options. If your organization wants to be able to lobby on your behalf for better laws to protect your life, they ought to be able to do that--not with Federal funds, not with USAID funds, but with your own funds.

The global rule is undemocratic. It is a miserable impediment to poor women. It would be unconstitutional if imposed on our own citizens. It is bad foreign policy. I believe our bipartisan amendment ends it and does it in a very good way--in a way everybody can be proud of.

I want to tell you a story and give an example that occurred in Nepal.

I am so proud to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee at this time. I am the only woman, which is a lonely thing. Madam President, you ought to think about coming on with me. It is a great honor and privilege.

I want to say that our chairman, Chairman Lugar, could not be a more fair chairman, could not be a more hard-working chairman, and could not have more respect on both sides of the aisle. It is an honor to be on that committee in the Senate. It is an honor to be serving with the ranking member, Joe Biden. I think our colleagues are very bipartisan. It is a tough time now in our country for bipartisanship. We really work together on that committee.

At the time we were in the majority, we had a series of hearings on this

global gag rule to see what was happening on the ground.

In 2001, I chaired a subcommittee hearing where we had a small nonprofit, nongovernmental organization from Nepal. They were faced with this global gag rule. They had to make that Hobson's choice: Do they take the money and then give up their right to lobby in behalf of their patients or do they turn back the money? This little organization turned back the money. The reason they did it was not some abstract theory but a specific case. They cited how their organization was able to advocate on behalf of the 13-year-old girl whose name was Min Min.

This is a story I want to share with my colleagues. How can we turn our backs on this child and other children like her? How we can turn our backs on the organizations that are out there is beyond my comprehension to understand.

Min Min was raped by a relative. I want to show you her face. She was 13. Her family forced her to have an illegal abortion after the rape. As a result of illegal abortion, she was arrested and she was taken to a central jail in Nepal. In 2001, Nepal put the victim in jail--not the relative who raped her. Look at this child. The girl's relatives were not punished. But Min Min was sentenced to 20 years in jail, and she was abandoned by her family.

In your life, could you even imagine such a thing? A 13-year-old girl jailed for her life after she was raped. That was her crime.

This particular NGO in Nepal had refused to take USAID money because they wanted to advocate to change the laws in Nepal.

You would think we would be on their side. You would think we would be horrified that 13-year-old girls can go to jail for 20 years because they are the victims of rape by a relative. You would think we would say to this nongovernmental organization: We want to help you. But, no, under this global gag rule put into place by this administration this little girl was left that way, without the help of USAID, without the funding of USAID.

This NGO, which turned back the money, went to bat for her and to change the law. After 2 years in prison, this child--2 years in prison, from age 13 to age 15, when a child should be home with her family, getting the guidance and love of her family--after sitting in jail after 2 years, finally, the laws were changed. Because the NGO, the nongovernmental organization, refused to take the money--because they knew they must work to change laws--they were free to go and do it, and they got the law changed and she was released after 2 years in jail--2 years in jail for being a victim of a sexual assault by a relative.

Now, had this NGO taken the money of USAID, they would not have been able to advocate on behalf of this child. We had the leader of this organization come before the Foreign Relations Committee, and this is what he said: ``How can we turn our back on women who die or are injured daily due to unsafe abortion?'' How can we stop organizations from changing the laws?

The happy ending to this terrible tale is that the NGO worked with the government and last year the law was changed. There will no longer be lifetime jail sentences when these young girls are raped. That is the good news.

Let me give you the really terrible news. This NGO has been forced to close clinics in Nepal because of the loss of their USAID money. Now, can anyone stand up here--and I would ask someone. We have a Senator in the Chamber who I know opposes this and may get up and defend what we are doing. But it is pretty clear, my friends. You can put any fancy language and ideology on it. I am not ideological. I just do not want to kill women. I just do not want to have little girls age 13 sitting in prison because they are raped. I just do not want to tie the hands of organizations to rescue girls such as this, to change the laws of their country that wind up killing women, harming women, and making them sit in jail when they are raped.

If you can explain why that is a good law, that is your choice, and I respect that and all, but I cannot understand how we would, in this 21st century, tie the hands of small nonprofit groups that want to help girls and women such as this.

In Zambia, the Family Life Movement of Zambia, a faith-based, antiabortion organization, has been unable to expand programs because the global gag rule has disqualified Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia, a partner organization. The FLMZ promotes abstinence among young people in Zambia and it does not provide contraceptives but they are in partnership with Planned Parenthood. They are a faith-based antiabortion organization.

I told you, I am not ideological on this point. They are in a partnership with Planned Parenthood. This group that believes in abstinence, they cannot get the funding from USAID. Now, you explain to me how that works.

What this organization does is, if they would come across a young person or young people who are sexually active, they would be referred to this Planned Parenthood group or they could receive information about contraception. But the global gag rule has forced Planned Parenthood of Zambia to close three of its nine rural outreach programs and costs them more than $100,000 worth of contraceptives.

So here you see it. You see on the ground what is happening to organizations that are trying to help the most desperate women and girls.

The Family Planning Association of Kenya, which does not provide abortion, has had to cut its outreach staff in half, close three clinics that served 56,000 clients in traditionally underserved communities, and they have had to raise their fees at their remaining clinics because they would not take the money because they did not want to be gagged.

One of the clinics that closed housed a unique well-baby center that provided comprehensive infant and postpartum care, making it easier for women to receive critical followup care. The baby center is now closed.

What is going on? I think there is a misunderstanding in this administration because they are shutting down well-baby clinics. They are shutting down well-baby clinics. They are shutting down organizations that distribute contraception. They are shutting down organizations that are fighting for laws that will save women's lives.

This is a terrible, terrible regulation. It is terrible for the women. It is terrible for the doctors there. It is terrible for the nurses there. It is terrible for the babies there.

I think it is a terrible message from our country that we are so ideological over here that we will not let nongovernmental organizations that are trying to help women and families do their work because of some dispute over abortion in this country. I have some words about that: Get over that dispute. That dispute will be with us for a long time. We are going to have to resolve it in our way. But why make women in foreign countries pay the price, children in foreign countries pay the price, little girls such as Min Min pay the price because we have an argument over here over whether a woman should have the right to choose?

We are doing things to these organizations we cannot do in this country because it is a violation of the Constitution; it is a violation of freedom of speech. We are going around the world trying to bring democracy to countries.

We have soldiers dying for freedom of speech in Iraq right now--every single day. I have another 14 Californians who are dead since the war ``ended.'' Why are they there? They are fighting for freedom and democracy and freedom of speech for the Iraqi people.

But we have a policy that takes away freedom of speech from folks who want to help people get health care. It is a very bizarre twist in our country's history, and one that, believe me, is not lost on other nations.

Recently, the Health Minister of Kenya has suggested that abortion should be made legal as a way to confront the devastation that unsafe abortion has on the women in that country.

Well, congratulations to the Health Minister of Kenya for understanding something that our Supreme Court figured out a long time ago: that abortion should be legal and women should not be made into criminals, nor should doctors who help them as long as that abortion is performed in the early stages of the pregnancy. That is all that Roe says in this country.

The Health Minister in Kenya is looking at the devastation of illegal abortion. He is looking at the devastation of back-alley abortion, just as our

people looked at that in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and came to the conclusion that we ought to legalize this and keep the Government out of it and let the people decide such an intensely personal, private, difficult, moral, religious issue.

He has come to the conclusion that people know better, not the government, that there should not be a rule that you must be forced in any way on this issue--either to not have an abortion or to have an abortion--and that maybe his people should be trusted. The organizations that have the gag rule in Kenya cannot speak out, when they know what they see and they want to help reduce maternal mortality and morbidity.

I am giving you these examples of various countries because I want my colleagues to understand this is not about ideology. This is about practicality. This is about children like this. This is about women. This is about families. This is about babies. This is about people getting help.

The Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia, the largest reproductive provider in that country, operates 18 clinics, 24 youth service centers, 671 community-based reproductive health care sites, and hundreds of other sites for health care. Still fewer than 20 percent of Ethiopians live within a 2-hour walk of any health provider.

We are talking about countries where people can't jump in a car and drive an hour to get health care. They literally have to walk to their health care. So if even a few of the clinics have to close down because of lack of funding, women are consigned to trouble. They are going to have to go two blocks around the corner, down the street, behind a house and have an illegal abortion and maybe face death or infertility.

A half a million dollars has been turned away by this organization, the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia, because they will not abide by being gagged. They will not say to their doctors: You can't tell women the truth. They will not say to the nurses: You can't tell women the truth. They will not say to their people: You can't lobby your own government for changes in laws that will help women.

So what has happened? They have had to cut off the supply of contraception. It is a very sad day. Since abortion is illegal in Ethiopia, imagine what is going to happen if people can't have contraception?

You want the world to be perfect. I well remember this discussion when my children were younger. You want your children to listen to you. You want to make sure that every child is a wanted child. You want to make sure that there is abstinence, yes. But it might not happen. And if it doesn't happen that way, the way you want it to happen, to what are we consigning our young people?

In the case of these foreign governments, we are looking at a child in jail, and this one was raped by a family member. What is the policy of our country to be that we are going to tell these young women we are not on their side?

I cannot fathom it. A girl put in jail, served for 2 years because she was raped by a relative, and the nonprofit foreign organization that helped her was punished by America because they wanted to help her, because they wanted to get the laws changed, because they wanted to get her out of jail? What is wrong with us? How can we proudly stand by this gag rule? We should not. We should repeal it today.

As I say, we have bipartisan sponsorship on this bill and we have a chance to overturn it. The President has threatened to veto the bill if we overturn this global gag rule. Can you imagine, the President has said he will veto the bill if we reverse this rule, if we want to help children like Min Min. I want to ask the President: Do you think it is right to put a little girl in prison because she was raped by her family? I am sure he would say: Of course not. It is awful.

Then I would ask him: Do you think it is a good thing for people in that country to come to this little girl's rescue and help her? I am sure he would say: Of course.

My next question would be: Then why are you shutting off the funds to the nonprofit organizations that want to help her cause? He would probably say: Let me get back to you.

Frankly, I don't see how he could answer that without taking a long time to twist it around. This isn't about ideology. This is about real people. This is about the poorest children, the poorest women, the poorest families. This is about imposing a gag rule, which we are not allowed to do in this country because we have a Constitution, on other people. Why? I guess because we can. It is wrong.

It is wrong that the largest family planning organization in Ethiopia--God knows they have enough trouble there; they have droughts and everything else--loses $500,000 because they won't be gagged. And as a result, people cannot get contraception. And as a result, women are going to have to have illegal abortions because abortion is illegal in that country.

We know 78,000 women every year die across the world from illegal abortion. We are the United States of America. We are a good country. We are a kind country. We are a generous country. We are a great country. Why would we do this to the poorest of the poor?

In the case of Ethiopia, 229,000 men and 300,000 women in urban areas are not getting served by this organization because there is some ideological problem that we have here in this country that we should not export elsewhere.

I am coming to the end of my examples. I have one more about Peru. There is a program in Peru that is designed to engage local women from poor communities across the country in identifying the most pressing reproductive health needs. This organization, Manuela Ramos, convenes the discussions and then works with the Ministry of Health to develop specific responses to those needs. In many communities, women identify unsafe abortion as their most pressing problem. The gag rule prohibits this organization from even engaging in discussions about ways to reduce illegal, unsafe abortion.

I am mortified that a decision by this administration is gagging not only the people who receive USAID funds but even the people who go there are not allowed to discuss together how to make life better for the women of Peru, the women of the world.

I am taking a lot of time on this today because I am pleading with my colleagues to stand up and be counted. If it is true that you are not going to vote for this because the President said he will veto the bill, I say: Let's go for it. Maybe he will change his mind. I am happy to sit down and tell him about Min Min, this 13-year-old girl. I am happy to give him the statistics. I will be glad to talk to him about the 78,000 women dying every single year from illegal abortions. I believe I could maybe change his mind.

Maybe he will change his mind--let's give it a chance--if he sees a strong bipartisan vote.

I want to show you a couple of other charts and then I will be finished, until I hear the other side and I will come back to debate.

This is an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post when this global gag rule was put into place. It is headlined ``Divisive on Abortion.''

Making an organization censor its views as a condition of

receiving government money would be unconstitutional on free-

speech grounds in this country; it should have no place in

U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, requiring doctors to withhold

information from patients violates the common conception of

medical ethics. There will be . . . more circulation of the

AIDS virus, more poverty-entrenching high birthrates and more

unwanted pregnancies--meaning more abortions.

I will take a minute to talk about this because this really sums up what I have been saying in a very neat little package.

Making an organization censor its views as a condition of

receiving government money would be unconstitutional on free

speech grounds in this country.

Well, you know that is true. We don't do that. We don't tell every group in this country that receives Federal funds they cannot talk about anything, because this is America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Free speech is the basis of our country. It is what our soldiers are dying for in Iraq. So we don't tell people in this country that if you get Federal funds, if you get Social Security, you cannot talk about X, Y, or Z. If you get funds through Medicare, you cannot talk about A, B, or C. Try that on the elderly population in this country. You will be out

of office so fast you won't know what hit you. Face it, that is what we are doing here.

They say that kind of condition on receiving money should have no place in U.S. foreign policy. I agree with that. Here we are, a bastion of freedom and democracy and free speech, going around the world telling people about that on the one hand and our soldiers are putting their lives on the line. Yet in this program, we are telling little charitable, nonprofit health care centers they cannot tell their patients the truth. Not only that, if they see a law that is killing their patients, they cannot work to change it. What a shame on our country. They say it should have no place in foreign policy. That is exactly right. That should have no place in foreign policy.

Requiring doctors to withhold information from patients

violates the common conception of medical ethics.

How true is that? When our doctors take the Hippocratic oath, they say they will do no harm, they will do everything to save the life of their patients and give them the best of health care. Imagine going to your doctor and you have a terrible illness and the doctor knows four options for you and he cannot talk about two of them because the Government said he could not. So you hear about two options but not the other two. When you found out that you didn't get the whole story, and something happened to you, your family would be in the courthouse door--and rightly so--saying: How could my doctor not have told my dad that this particular type of surgery would have cured his cancer?

The fact is, we are gagging doctors and health care practitioners in foreign countries from telling patients the truth. Then this editorial says:

There will be . . . more circulation of the AIDS virus,

more poverty-entrenching high birthrates and more unwanted

pregnancies--meaning more abortions.

We have a policy in our country called the global gag rule which I, Senator Chafee, Senator Snowe, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, and Senator Biden are trying to overturn. We hope to get a lot of you with us. We are trying to overturn a policy that is causing illegal, unsafe abortions to take place because, clearly, if you tell a nonprofit organization they cannot tell you the truth, you are going to be desperate.

Seventy-eight thousand women a year die. So you are also going to see more circulation of the AIDS virus. Why? Because a lot of these clinics that are closing down--and it is not just about abortion; it is about family planning, contraception, and learning how to protect yourself from the AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases. And there are going to be ``poverty-entrenching high birthrates.''

Why would this be a policy of the United States of America? It is hurting people, not helping them. It is gagging people, not giving them free speech. It is hurting America's reputation in the world. It turns the clock back on progress.

Let me say very clearly as I close my opening statement that the Washington Post said:

Around the world, more than a half-million die from

pregnancy-related causes annually. A real pro-life policy

would focus on reducing that death toll by providing more

contraception and safer abortions.

That is it in a nutshell. It is not like we are dealing in mysteries. We know certain truths. We know that if women have access to good health advice, they will avoid unwanted pregnancies. We know that if they have access to good health advice, they will have healthy babies and they will be healthy. We know all those things. And we know for that to happen, women have to be educated on their options. We know that.

What else do we know? We know that some countries do terrible things. I want to show you again the picture of Min Min, who is 13 years old. She is in prison because a family member raped her. The organization that tried to help her, in order to do that, had to hand back their USAID funding because President Bush said they could not help her. He put the global gag rule in place. He said nobody can help her. That is what it says. If I talked to him one on one, I know he would be shocked at this story, but the fact is that this policy of a global gag rule made it impossible for the organization to help her until they gave back their USAID funding. What a shame on our country--to be associated with such an outcome.

I want to be proud. This is a country I love. I want to be seen as helping, as spreading democracy and freedom of speech and ideas.

So for all those reasons, I hope we will have a good vote that will get rid of this global gag rule. I don't care if there are veto threats. We have to stand up for something here. This is the Senate of the United States of America. This is the year 2003. Little girls such as this should not have to suffer because we have a policy that punishes folks who want to help her.

With that, I yield the floor and I hope we can continue this debate.

Mr. President, if my friend will yield, Senator Reid wants to be here, and I believe Senator Biden. I can get back to the Senator from Indiana in short order with how much time we will need.

I would think that will work, if I can just have a moment to get back to the Senator.

We have spoken with the Senator's staff, and we have made a suggestion. They apparently are working on finding out if it is acceptable. I will, once there is a quorum call in place, explain the details.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar for his outstanding leadership on this bill and on the issues of foreign affairs. He has done a fabulous job, as has Senator Biden, the ranking member.

I also thank Senator Biden for the tremendous eulogy he gave about Strom Thurmond at the funeral in South Carolina last week. The Senator really did us very proud with his representation of this body and his relationship with Strom Thurmond. It was a touching event. His eulogy of Strom Thurmond was beautiful. I heard a number of people comment about it. It was very nice of him to do that. It was very nicely done.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. I wish to spend a little bit of time talking about it, but it is quite straightforward, it is very important, and it is quite timely.

This amendment regards North Korean refugees and their seeking of refugee status in the United States. It is a one-paragraph amendment. Succinctly put, this will allow the United States to accept as refugees North Koreans who are fleeing North Korea and accept them as refugees into the United States. There currently is a legal dispute as to whether they can be accepted as refugees into the United States. The reason is because when you are born on the Korean peninsula, under the South Korea Constitution, they are automatically citizens of South Korea. Under our law, if you go to another country, you can go there and not seek refugee status here.

There are exits of massive proportions taking place out of North Korea today. We do not know how many. Some have guessed it is as low as 30,000 and as high as 300,000 North Koreans currently outside North Korea and in China living off the land. South Korea really cannot be expected to take all of these refugees who are fleeing China.

It would be an important statement, an important gesture of the United States to be willing to accept North Koreans who are fleeing as refugees into the United States. We can talk about how many at a later time. This seeks to clarify the legal dispute right now so they can be accepted.

The reason I say it is important right now is because currently, at a British consulate in China, there are four North Korean refugees seeking refugee status in the United States, and they are being denied that status of coming to the United States.

I think it is very important that they be allowed to come here as a statement of our support for freedom and liberty and against the tyranny of Kim Jong-il and his regime. The story of the North Korean people is one of the saddest tales on Earth, of hunger and fear and desperation. Isolation, indoctrination, torture, and arbitrary executions are the means to keep North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and his circle of cronies in power, and they exercise this authority and abuse that enormously.

Just the other day, the Financial Times reported on the lavish lifestyle of the North Korean tyrannical dictator saying that while Kim kept a private chef flown in from Japan to prepare his meals:

His people were forced to consume . . . tree bark, grass

and insects to stave off starvation.

The wretched situation inside North Korea has forced many North Koreans to take flight to any country that will accept them. The most logical destination is China, given its porous border and proximity with North Korea. Yet China refuses to acknowledge North Korean refugees, instead calling them ``economic migrants,'' thereby denying them protections normally afforded those fleeing political persecution. This is first and foremost a humanitarian concern for the fate of several hundred thousand refugees currently hiding in fear from North Korea in northeast China.

Without forcing China to grant this opening for safe harbor, not only will we be abandoning the North Korean refugees in China but we will be abandoning the 22 million people still inside North Korea. If a window for exodus is created, then the North Korean people will want to escape Kim Jong-il's tyranny. Though it is not yet certain, this exodus will likely expose the fissures in the regime, therefore triggering its implosion.

I rise to offer this amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, an amendment version of the North Korean refugee bill that I recently introduced along with other Members. Senator Kennedy has been a key sponsor and supporter of this effort, which will allow North Koreans fleeing Kim Jong-il's tyranny to be resettled in the United States.

Under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, any person born on the Korean peninsula of a Korean father automatically retains the right to citizenship in the Republic of Korea, that is South Korea. That presents a simple problem for Koreans wishing to be resettled here in the United States.

This past weekend, as I noted, while we were enjoying hot dogs, fireworks, and family during the Fourth of July Independence Day, four teenaged North Koreans made their way to the consulate of the United Kingdom in Shanghai, China. These four North Koreans wanting to get away from the Stalinist-style repression sought refuge first with the British consulate, but expressed the desire to be resettled as political refugees in the United States.

According to today's Korea Times, their request to be resettled in America was denied by the U.S. Government, reportedly saying that it is the U.S. position not to ``accept North Korean defectors.''

These are people simply yearning to be free from a Stalinist, repressive regime, one of the worst human rights situations in the world, one of the worst politically oppressive situations in the world. If this is the case, if they are being denied by our Government, then I wonder if the Department of State believes that by doing so it is upholding America's responsibility under international law and fulfilling our moral obligation to give safe harbor to anyone fleeing persecution, and clearly they are.

I find this report to be appalling. It is sad to me to think that of all the United States can do in the world, and do so correctly, it is to be humane and uphold the principles of human dignity.

On June 5 of this year, I chaired a hearing titled ``Life Inside North Korea,'' exposing the brutality of Kim Jong-il's regime. In January, I attended the inauguration of the new South Korean president, President No, in which I asked him, a former human rights lawyer and admirer of Abraham Lincoln, to have compassion for his fellow Koreans across the DMZ and help them in their exodus.

Last December, I traveled to northeast China along the North Korean-

Chinese border to see the situation there, to meet with local Chinese officials and get input from NGOs working with North Korean refugees trapped in China.

Finally, in June of 2002, Senator Kennedy and I held a hearing on North Korean refugees and the resettlement question.

My amendment would ensure that at least there is the opportunity to come to the United States as refugees and it would give hope to those fleeing this repressive regime of North Korea.

There is much we could do to prioritize resettlement of North Korean refugees, but this is the first, easiest, and most noncontroversial step. I want to thank Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden for allowing me to offer this amendment and give this consideration before the committee.

This is a situation that needs to be addressed now. It will be an enormous positive statement to the world and to the Korean refugees if the United States says, yes, we will accept refugees from North Korea. It will be a terrible travesty if we say, no, we will not accept refugees fleeing one of the cruelest, meanest dictators in the world.

About a third of the North Korean people right now live on international food donations, much of which are coming from the United States. It is a regime that is repressive beyond belief. There are books out now--one I have read, ``Eyes of the Tailless Animals''--about how the regime treats the people so horrifically, worse than animals.

We have had pictures of refugees coming out--they drew them. They could not take pictures, but they showed how deplorable the conditions are.

I ask for a strong vote in this body to pass this amendment allowing the possibility of resettlement of North Korean refugees in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to address the Boxer amendment being considered. I acknowledge the

passion and leadership of the Senator from California. I have always respected her thoughtful arguments. We have had some issues in agreement and some issues in disagreement. This happens to be one we are in disagreement but it does not reduce my acknowledging her skill and abilities and the heart she brings to each and every discussion she puts forward.

This is a straightforward and simple issue, one that everyone can clearly grasp. It is about the use of taxpayer dollars, Federal, U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas; do you agree or disagree with that.

Some say, yes, we should do that; other people say, no, I don't think we should use taxpayer dollars overseas to fund issues such as this. Others say, I don't think we should use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion because of their deeply held feeling they are aborting a child and they disagree fundamentally with that. We have a clear issue before the Senate.

I note the history behind the so-called Mexico City language. On January 22, 2001, when President George Bush was sworn in and put into office as President of the United States, in one of his first acts, he reinstated the Mexico City policy. I say ``reinstated''; this was a policy President Reagan put in place. It was in place during President Reagan's term in office, in place during President Bush I's first term in office, and immediately repealed when President Clinton came into office.

The policy simply states that it prohibits Federal taxpayers from funding foreign organizations that ``perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.'' That is what the Mexico City language is: ``perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.''

So the President is saying as part of U.S. policy that we will not fund private organizations, NGOs, that perform or actively promote abortion overseas.

That is the issue. That is the point of the issue. You can color it with a lot of stories, you can color it with a lot of rhetoric, but the issue to decide in this body is, do we want to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions or promote abortion overseas.

As I note to people, there are primarily two grounds that people disagree. The first ground is as a moral objection. A number of people just disagree with the issue of abortion. It is probably the most difficult social issue today as a society. We debate it regularly. The issue is, is the young child a person or a piece of property.

Others look at this differently. Senator Boxer and I have different views on that particular issue. I think history will clearly point out the side I represent is accurate and true and is the side I hope ultimately all Americans will agree with, that we believe in the fundamental rights of a personhood and of dignity, of each and every individual, no matter how weak or helpless they might be. It is in the great traditions of the Democratic Party to support people in a difficult spot, and it should be that support for the weakest and the most vulnerable which clearly that child in the womb represents. That is No. 1 as an issue.

The second issue, should you use taxpayer dollars, taxpayers from California, from Missouri, from Kansas, from Indiana, wherever they might be, should we be using those to support a policy that funds abortion in Nepal and Africa or that supports organizations in various places around the world that want to either perform abortions or promote the use of abortion in that country and that society? A number of people would say yes, I am willing to use taxpayer funds to go do that. Probably more people in the country, I think if you would poll people in the United States, would say no. No. 1, I think you spend too much overseas the way it is right now. No. 2, I disagree with you either paying for abortions overseas or supporting organizations that are trying to promote abortion overseas. I think that is a bad use of taxpayer dollars.

Those are the fundamental arguments that people bring forth in looking at the Mexico City policy. I think the Mexico City policy is a very commonsense policy that has been put forward by President Reagan, put forward by President Bush, George Bush No. 1, President Bush No. 2 as well. It has been in law since 1984, as an administrative act by the President. It is based in part on the belief that U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize or support organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas for family planning programs.

I have noted some of the specific arguments why that takes place. I want to take on one of the indirect arguments that a number of people raise. Some people argue incorrectly that Federal tax dollars would not have to be used for the actual abortion but could still be used to support the organization's other activities. This argument fails to properly understand the fungibility of money. Once you give money to a organization, it can use that for a broad range of causes. It can say, Look, we don't use this money for abortions or promoting abortions because we will use it in this sector, sector A of our organization. But in sector B of our organization we do fund abortions and we do promote abortions.

This money can be used to subsidize the overhead operation of the organization, it can be used to subsidize a mailing, and while this portion doesn't support abortion, there is also an additional mailing inserted that does. It can be used in the fungibility of the dollars. That is why we tried to put forward--why President Bush has tried to put forward a clear firewall on this set of funds.

It is not that the United States should not try to do good overseas, because we should and we are. I applaud this President for his efforts in global HIV, on the Millennium Challenge Account, where we are trying to help people in other countries to get out of these debilitating, horrific situations of HIV and its spread, of trying to give them some economic opportunity. The President put those forward. I strongly support those and hope those will clear through the Congress.

But here is one: Why would we take something so controversial, so counter to so many Americans' fundamental beliefs, fundamental thoughts, and say to the American taxpayer: We are going to use your dollars to do this, and, yes, we know you disagree with it on moral grounds and, yes, we know you disagree with it on fiscal grounds, yet we are going to go ahead and do that?

If we are so concerned about the individual overseas, and we should be, why not put the money in something we all agree with that is a terrible problem like global HIV or solving issues dealing with malaria or other diseases that are horrific but that do not get the number of research dollars they should for developing cures for them because they are in countries where people do not have enough resources to be able to buy the pharmaceutical drugs that would cure them? There are so many better ways you could spend this type of money than in something so controversial and so counter to what America stands for.

I think it is important for us to vote against the Boxer amendment.

There is a final reason here. I want to hit this point. There is another one as well. The final reason here is that the President has stated clearly he will veto the bill if this language that funds overseas abortions or the promotion of abortion is included in this bill. If that is in this bill, the administration will veto this bill.

The chairman and the ranking member have worked very hard to put a bill together to do the authorizing on authorization instead of appropriations so we can get a bill through. Rather than having it vetoed, wouldn't it be wise for us to go ahead and get this through?

One of the reasons we were criticized, and I think rightfully so, in the last Congress was that we didn't get anything done. There was a major Energy bill, didn't get it done; a major Medicare bill, didn't get it done. What the chairman and ranking member are trying to do here is pass a major State Department authorization, foreign assistance. We are trying to get it done and we can get it done. We can finish this and we can get it done. Yet you are trying to insert language to kill the whole bill and the whole process. On top of the controversy for using the funds for these purposes, the controversy about the whole moral issue of abortion, you are going to cause the veto of a bill over this issue.

I do not think that is wise legislating on our part. I do not think it is the appropriate way for us to go. I think the

American people would look at that as well and say: You know, this isn't a life-or-death issue on the point of getting this language.

Some would contend it is. If that is the case, let's make a malaria cure a portion. That is a life-and-death issue. But you are going to kill a bill by including such controversial language in it.

I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to overturn President Bush's clear language, the clear policy that I think represents, really, what the American people want to see us do.

With that, I would like an opportunity--I think there are others who are going to speak on this bill--to possibly be able to rejoin the debate to answer some of the points that might be put forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have an amendment that I call up for immediate consideration.

This concerns providing support for democracy in Iran and has been previously filed and been amended.

I worked closely with Senator Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Biden, the ranking member. Together we have worked out language that we have all agreed to on an important issue of democracy and promotion of democracy in Iran.

This is a very important issue to the country and to the people of Iran. I am very thankful to the chairman and to the ranking member and their staffs for working together to get this language put together, language that is very strong, quite good, and makes a very positive statement.

I rise to discuss this important issue. It is our policy toward Iran. As the President rightly stated, Iran is a member of the axis of evil. The terrorist atrocities it spreads around the world are equalled by the horrific atrocities committed against its own people.

Today marks the fourth anniversary of the first major Iranian protest against a government that promised reform and utterly failed. I will show a picture to my colleagues of that protest 4 years ago, 1999, July 9--4 years ago today. The students, protesters, were out, thousands protesting the Government of Iran and saying they desired freedom.

This is a scene of that. It is being replayed again today. Protesters are out in Iran, even though the regime is doing everything they can to stop it, having quasi-police groups--really, thugs--going around and beating people with chains. They are putting people in prison. But people continue to protest.

This is a picture of a protest taking place 2 weeks ago, not just in Tehran now but protests are taking place all over the country, as the fire of democracy and liberty continues to burn aggressively among the people of Iran.

These are people who are pro-American, as well, broadly throughout Iran. They support the United States and our stand for freedom and democracy. It is important we stand with them.

The fact we continue to see protests in Iran despite very harsh treatment is showing the world that these protests are growing and will eventually lead to real change inside Iran. It is very appropriate it is today that we are offering this amendment to the State Department authorization bill which declares firmly that America supports real democracy in Iran. What is there now is not democracy.

It is a very basic message. It is extremely important that this body send a message to the Iranian people, and send it today, that we support their struggle for freedom.

This is not just an altruistic gesture of support. Supporting the forces of democracy in Iran is in the direct security interest of America. As I am sure many of you have heard, there are new reports about additional nuclear weapons facilities in Iran--these are based on military complexes and there can now be no misunderstanding of the intent behind this technology. Estimates are that Iran could have nuclear weapons as early as 2005.

Also, Iran has just confirmed that it has successfully tested a midrange missile, the Shahab-3, which is capable of hitting Israel, parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, where many of our troops are stationed.

This means that Iran could have nuclear weapons--and the means to deliver them to hit us and our allies.

Clearly, this is a bad situation which is growing worse by the day. So, why, in this context, would we shy away from supporting pro- democracy forces in Iran that want to bring the rule of law, respect for human rights and an end to support for terrorism to their country?

Some have said that if the U.S. supports the protestors, we will be bound to intervene militarily. These people have not paid attention to the unique situation inside Iran or the fact that Iranians don't want U.S. military intervention but, rather, strong moral and political support.

Young people make up nearly 70 percent of the country--and they are taking it back from the mullah minority. The Iranian people are a proud, strong, and independent people. They do not need, nor do they want, an outside military force to come into their land.

They will handle this matter themselves. They have already begun to do so. This does not mean that the military option is off the table. America reserves the right to protect its people and innocent civilians from a nuclear threat or further Iranian-backed terrorists, but this is a defensive option.

To be honest, America hopes that the Iranian people change their regime themselves, and the hesitancy you see within America's foreign policy circles with regard to Iran comes largely because there is such hope for internal change, where there was none in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There is no division in the U.S. Government about the fact that Iran is a threat to its own people and certainly to Americans. The Iranian people and the Iranian regime alike should know that we are united and resolute in our understanding of what Iran is doing. We will not allow Iran to spread its corruption throughout the region.

As President Bush so clearly stated in his State of the Union Address this year:

In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its

people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports

terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and

death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and

democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose

their own government and determine their own destiny--and the

United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.

That is what the President, stated in the State of the Union Address of January 28, 2003.

Recently, the President praised the Iranian people who kept up protests for over a week in the face of government sponsored thugs who beat innocent women with chains. The President called these protests ``heroic'' and indeed they are.

Just as it was an important rhetorical step for President Reagan to dub the Soviet Union ``an Evil Empire,'' so too it is important for us to recognize the current regime in Iran for what it is--an illegitimate, ruling elite that stifles the growth of genuine democracy, abuses human rights and exports terrorism.

It is clear by the Iranian regime's treatment of its own people in their attempt to be heard, that Iran is no democracy.

After all, it is the State Department's own report that classifies Iran as the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Do we really believe this is the will of the entire Iranian population? If so, we are saying that all Iranians are terrorists. This is wrong, and America must make it clear that we see the difference between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people--and we are supporting the people.

You can't call a country that screens the candidates a democracy. You can't call a government that tortures and kills its people openly a democracy. You can't call a country that refuses to enforce the laws that the screened, elected officials pass a democracy. All this is currently going on under Iran's so-called reformers.

I want to show how the reformers were elected into office. I will show a chart so my colleagues can easily see how we do get to the government that is currently in place in Iran. Seven years ago President Khatami was elected by the people. But how did he even get on the ballot? I want to show that, and also make some statements about his election.

For people to be running as candidates in Iran today, they have to go through the Council of Guardians. This is six members appointed by the Supreme Leader and six by the judiciary. The Supreme Leader is appointed by the council as well and is appointed for life. Khamenei, Supreme Leader, appointed six and six by the judiciary. Then all the candidates running for President, Assembly of Experts, 86 clerics elected for 8-year terms, and the Parliament, 290 members elected for 4-year terms, all these candidates have to be vetted by this 12-member council, so you can't get on the ballot unless you clear through the 12-member council for any of these three--the Parliament, the Assembly of Experts, or the President. You can't get on the ballot unless you clear through these 12 people, 6 appointed by the Supreme Leader who is appointed by them for life, never stands for election in front of the people, and 6 appointed by the judiciary. This is not a free election.

What about Khatami's election to President? He was elected for 4 years, for a 4-year term initially. This was 7 years ago. In his initial attempt he was elected. He was voted on, overwhelmingly favored by the people as the most reformist-minded candidate that the Council of Guardians would even let on the ballot. Over 60 percent of the people say: This is our guy because he is the most reformist, open- minded of the group, even though he was not. And it turned out that he was exactly what the Council of Guardians wanted: Good face, looks a little friendlier, gives the people a way to voice their thoughts. But he did not reform. He did not bring democracy. He did not bring human rights. He did not bring rights to women within the country. And he kept the country continuing its movement toward terrorism.

Even if you take all the power of these elected officials--so-called elected officials--they don't have the power over foreign policy, over the military, or over the Treasury. That continues to be held by the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians. So most of the power isn't even in the people who are so-called elected.

This is not a democracy, and that is why the people continue to protest--because they do not get to pick their own leaders and they want to pick their own leaders.

I want to show you what has taken place inside Iran, as a country, and why there is so much discontent, and why people are saying: Down with the President of Iran. Down with the Council of Guardians. They are so actively willing to protest and risk their own lives, and risk being arrested and beaten.

One thing I want to point out, too, these protests that have been taking place in the last couple of weeks, several sons and daughters of parliamentarians have been arrested as protesters. They are saying: Look, this government is not reform minded and we, as children of the parliamentarians, are saying this is not reform. And they have been arrested. They see the fallacy of the system, that it isn't working.

Look at this long-term trajectory pattern that Iran is on since 1978. Since the last government was thrown out, the Shah, and the protests were taking place, in 1979, what has happened to Iran? It was taken over by the ruling Mullahs, the Ayatolla at that time. They took captives of U.S. Embassy personnel for over 400-some days. Look what has taken place. Per capita, GDP is 20 percent lower today than in 1978 in Iran. There is widespread corruption, which was a key contributor of the 1979 revolution. Youth unemployment exceeds 30 percent. There has been a huge population explosion. Fifty percent of the population is under age 20--50 percent of the population.

There are religious legitimacy problems, persistent challenges to the Supreme Leader's religious credentials, and most Grand Ayatollahs do not approve of the Supreme Leader's doctrine on religious matters.

So this is really fomenting a situation. All we are doing with this amendment, which has been agreed to, and has strong language, is saying this is an illegitimate government; that we should and we do support true democracy in Iran and the right of the people to actually choose their leadership in Iran.

I think it is one of the most important things we can do. We need to show clear moral support to the people who are risking their lives today on the streets, across the country of Iran.

I hope we can get this through, that we can express our clear support to the Iranian people. This will be a powerful statement to the people protesting today.

I hope we can agree to this yet this evening.

I thank the chairman for allowing me to bring it up on the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member very much for allowing us to put this forward. I think it is the very strong and right thing for us to do, and it is the right time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Lugar in presenting the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. As the chairman has described, we will soon submit a substitute amendment consisting of the text of three bills: S. 925, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act as reported out of committee in April; S. 1161, the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, as reported out of committee in late May; and thirdly, a bill authorizing a new program, the Millennium Challenge Account which

was initiated by the Bush administration in March of 2002. This program was authorized by the committee in legislation also reported in May. Since then, further discussions have occurred between myself, Senator Hagel, and the chairman which the chairman has already described. I will return to that subject in a few moments.

All three bills received unanimous support from the Committee on Foreign Relations. The markups of these bills were not at all contentious and, quite frankly, didn't last very long. Their easy passage in committee is a testament to the bipartisan approach the chairman is developing on this legislation and the committee as a whole. The chairman has already summarized the provisions of the substitute amendment. Let me join him in highlighting a few of the key points.

First, the bill provides the President's budget request for the Department of State, and it does more. We increase the authorization for several programs where we believe the budget request is inadequate, such as embassy security, international exchanges, public diplomacy, and in certain foreign aid accounts, including programs devoted to nonproliferation activities. If we are going to send people overseas to advance American interests, we have to protect them. We have to give them the tools to do the job. That is what we attempt to do here.

Second, the bill authorizes establishment of a Middle East television network. In recent years, the Broadcasting Board of Governors has done an incredible job in reviving our radio broadcasting in the region. Radio Sawa now is, if not the most popular, one of the most popular and oft-listened-to programs in the region. I would note parenthetically that as we struggle to make our case known in the Middle East, we have to understand who our target is. You have the vast majority of the people, for example, in Iran under the age of 18. You have the vast majority, 60 percent of the folks in the Arab world, under the age of 18. We have a very young audience, an audience that if we don't begin to get the U.S. message across, in light of what they are being fed now, these young pages sitting here who make the Senate run, they are going to, when they get to be my age, inherit the whirlwind. They will have a gigantic problem.

The television network is a new undertaking that I and others have been pushing for some time. It is a new undertaking for the U.S. Government in broadcasting but one that I believe is clearly worth trying. Most people in the Middle East get their news from television. Three of us, the Presiding Officer, the chairman and I, returned a week or so ago from Baghdad. One of the things we found out was our case has not even been made there. We control the television de facto right now, and we are on, unless something changed in the last week, at least 4 hours a day with the most bland broadcasts. It is not but it seems that it is straight out of the public information department of one of the agencies in the Federal Government. We have to figure out a way to get Iraqis on television 12, 14, 18 hours a day explaining straightforwardly what is going on over there.

The Iraqi people right now are in 123 degree weather. They have no electricity and they are wondering why Uncle Sam, who could defeat their great Satan Saddam Hussein in such a short time, rout his vaunted army and Republican Guard and fedayeen, can't get everything up and running immediately for them.

They think like most folks in that difficult region of the world that there must be some plot. What they don't know is--and we are not broadcasting it--that all our efforts--not all--are being sabotaged, literally blown up, blowing up the grids, blowing up the powerplants. They are blowing up the oil pipelines.

So one of the larger points about the television network is we have to be in the game. We have to be in the game to be able to try to get our points across in a region where we don't get a very fair shake.

Third, the bill authorizes expanded international exchanges with the Muslim world, including high school exchange programs, modeled on a successful effort that has been in place with Russia and the newly independent states for some time now, and it is successful. There are a lot of avenues for reaching out to the Muslim world, and face-to-face exchanges are one of the best ways to be able to have impact on opening people's minds.

In the foreign assistance portion of the bill, let me call attention to two provisions--the Radiological Terrorism Threat Reduction Act and the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act. My friend from Indiana, the chairman, may be quietly smiling at me for taking these two and focusing on them because they are two proposals that I put forward. But I thank him for concluding they had merit and seeing to it they are in the bill.

I developed these bills over the past year to address the threat of possible radiological terrorism and bioterrorism. The bill on radiological terrorism would address the threat posed by radiological dispersion devices, colloquially known as dirty bombs. Most people listening to this do not understand when we talk about dirty bombs. A lot of people think it is a nuclear device, a homemade nuclear device. That is of consequence, but the dirty bomb can cause incredible economic dislocation, although it is not likely to kill a lot of people. It is taking radioactive material and packing it around conventional explosives and blowing it up and ending up making the area in which it is dispersed have a level of radiation that exceeds what is safe in the minds of the EPA and scientists for people to be engaged in. But it is not going to kill a lot of people if one went off, God forbid, in the Mall, which is not far from here. But it is a clear and present danger and a concern.

The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act is the second piece of legislation which authorizes $35 million in assistance for fiscal 2004 for developing nations to improve their efforts to detect, track, and contain disease outbreaks.

As the SARS epidemic has demonstrated, viruses and pathogens do not respect national borders. Without a quick diagnosis of a biological attack or a rapid recognition of suspicious patterns of diseases, and fast transmission of that information, we can see that an epidemic can spread very rapidly by getting people heading out of an airport not knowing they were exposed.

In dealing with dirty bombs and dangerous pathogens, it is in our national interest to help other nations contain these threats before they get to our shores--threats that do not respect national borders. This legislation does that. It helps them set up infrastructures to be able to have their public health systems go out and identify the existence of these pathogens. One of the things we know about SARS--and the criticism of the Chinese is they didn't acknowledge what was happening quickly enough. They didn't put in place quickly enough a national system to contain it. You have to know the problem before you can warn people of its existence. Many of these countries--a vast portion of them--do not have a public health infrastructure to be able to do this. This helps them; it is a small start of $35 million for that effort.

Finally, let me say a few words about the millennium challenge account. The President deserves, in my view, credit for proposing a significant increase in foreign aid, and requiring that such assistance be targeted to selected countries which meet certain performance criteria. I will acknowledge on the floor what both of my colleagues here know. I was skeptical of whether or not the performance criteria were really a way to avoid delivering foreign aid or a way to identify what we know is important. When we give foreign assistance to a country that, for example, is a democracy, as opposed to a dictatorship, we know that aid is more likely to meet its desired end and be used in a way that is efficacious than when we give it to a country that has no standards, so that we can determine how the money is being dispersed. I have become convinced for some time now that--and this is a President who, historically, I am told has been opposed to foreign aid per se, and some of his predecessors share his view--this is actually a way to increase not only our contribution in foreign assistance but also its efficacy. When we spend a dollar, we will get a dollar's worth of benefit--not us, but the people who get it for the expenditure.

We have learned over the last several decades that providing foreign assistance is important. We have learned a lot. One thing we know is that assistance works best in countries that get the basics right, countries that invest in the health and welfare of their people, have a relatively democratic system and an economic system that is open and transparent. That is what this millennium account is about--making sure that more money goes to places that will be able to use it well.

Where the administration has taken the wrong turn, in my view, is with this proposal to establish a new governmental agency to administer this program. Five years ago, under the leadership of our friend and former colleague, Senator Helms, Congress abolished two foreign policy agencies, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the U.S. Information Agency, and merged them into the State Department. The legislation enacted in 1998 also gave the Secretary of State more authority to supervise operations of agencies; in particular, the Agency for International Development, so-called AID. I supported that initiative as did I think both of my colleagues here.

The President's proposal, the Millennium Challenge Account, in my view, is directly contrary to the decision Congress made 5 years ago about how we should organize. It would create a new agency to be located outside the State Department and outside the Agency for International Development. In my view, it would weaken the authority of the Secretary of State to coordinate all foreign assistance. I find it ironic that a Republican President would seek to expand the Government's foreign policy bureaucracy, just a few years after Congress voted to reduce the size of that same bureaucracy.

During the committee markup on this bill, the Presiding Officer, Senator Hagel, and I offered an amendment with the very powerful case he made, which the committee adopted by an 11-8 vote, to prevent the establishment of such an agency. Instead, the Hagel-Biden amendment gave the Secretary of State the authority to coordinate this new program consistent with the 1998 Helms reorganization legislation that passed. The administration responded by threatening a veto if the Hagel-Biden amendment were to survive in conference. I must say I don't find that veto threat very credible. It is easy for me to say, since I am not the chairman. There is a degree of sensitivity that increases when you are the ranking member and it is a President of your own party. I have been there. So I am sure my friend believes that veto threat is much more credible than I think it is. But that is pure conjecture. The reason I am doubtful is the President has yet to veto a bill--I would be shocked if he would veto this whole bill over that one issue. But that is a matter of subjective interpretation.

Subsequent to our markup and this veto threat, the chairman developed a compromise text that meets Senator Hagel and me part of the way. It retained the provision establishing a new agency, but it does do some good, in my view. It gives the Secretary of State greater authority over the agency by having its chief executive officer report to the Secretary of State, just as the AID administrator reports to the Secretary.

That is an improvement, but it still contains a fatal flaw, and that fatal flaw is the new agency, in my view. Moreover, it adds to the confusion by having the head of the agency report to the Secretary of State, but then assigns several of its critical functions to a five- member board on which the Secretary of State is only one of those five members and dispersing this aid through the millennium account.

Reluctantly, I will go along with this compromise proposed by the chairman. I still believe it is a mistake to create a new agency, and if things were to change, and if by the grace of God and the good will of the neighbors my party took over the Senate again, and if I were chairman of this committee, I must put everyone on notice that I will try to eliminate that agency and try to put it back in the State Department because I think it is a mistake. But I want to deal in full disclosure here.

I am going along with it because, quite frankly, the option is not particularly acceptable. The option is not have the agency, not have the money, not have the increased foreign aid, which I think is not a rational option.

If this legislation is enacted, as I said, I reserve my right to fight another day to attempt to reverse the decision. But based on the way things are going, I do not think anybody should get too worried if you think having a separate agency is a good idea.

I have acceded to the desire of the chairman in order, as I said, not to let the bill get bogged down on this organizational issue. I agree Congress should move forward and improve this important initiative, but in the coming months, the President's proposal will be put to the test relatively quickly. In announcing this initiative, the President pledged to increase foreign assistance above and beyond current aid budgets; in other words, not to sacrifice current programs. This is not we take away from here to give to foreign aid. It is to increase foreign aid and maintain our commitment on other programs as well.

I must tell my colleagues, I am starting to doubt the President will be able to deliver on that commitment. The allocations of the foreign operations appropriations account for fiscal year 2004 in the other body, the House, is abysmally low, in my view, just $17.1 billion, a reduction of $1.7 billion below the President's request. The allocations in this body, in the Senate, are better, $18.1 billion, but still three-quarters of a billion dollars below the President's request.

Even the bill before us falls short. It authorizes $1 billion in fiscal year 2004 and increases to the $5 billion level by 2006. But for this fiscal year, it is $300 million below the President's request.

Again, this is not a criticism of the chairman. He made a very valid point. We have not passed an authorization bill in a long time, and we did pass a budget with which I did not agree. I voted against the budget resolution, but the majority of the U.S. Senate voted for it. The chairman's argument is we must stay within that budget to have credibility in order to get the requisite number of votes to do something we have not done in a long time: pass an authorization bill.

The fact is, we are below the President's request because of being constrained by the budget guidelines we passed, and the House is way below it, $1.7 billion. According to press reports, the Vice President of the United States was involved in negotiations with the House leadership over House allocations. If that is true, it does not look to me as if the administration is working very hard to support this millennium challenge account. Again, as the old saying goes, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We are going to know very soon, God willing.

It is beyond my comprehension how the Congress will adequately fund the millennium account, keep our commitment to $3 billion a year to HIV/AIDS assistance, and not reduce any current programs. I seriously doubt it can be done, but I sincerely hope I am proven wrong on that score.

The burden, in my view, is on the President and the majority in Congress in both Houses to deliver on the President's promise. Just as the United States will demand accountability for countries that become eligible, the rest of the world is waiting to see if we will fulfill the President's commitment that has been widely circulated at the G-8, widely circulated in every international forum, and I think we will be making a gigantic mistake if we do not meet the President's commitment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the chairman, and I believe we are ready to consider amendments. I see Senator Brownback is in the Chamber. It is my understanding Senator Brownback may start, but we are going to, at 2 o'clock, have a vote and then go back to Senator Brownback.

I thank the chairman for his diligence, for his courtesy, and for his leadership in getting us to this point.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. It was a great honor for me to participate.

Amendment No. 1138 to Amendment No. 1136

Parliamentary inquiry: Is it appropriate to ask unanimous consent that is how we proceed; that is, a voice vote will follow if, in fact, the amendment is not tabled?

That is what I thought. That is why I asked the question. The amendment can be agreed to; is that possible?

At the time? I can't ask that now?

Parliamentary inquiry.

The Senator from Indiana is about to make a motion to table the Boxer amendment. It has been stated verbally that if that tabling motion fails, then we would move to a voice vote to accept the Boxer amendment. Is there any way in which to get a unanimous consent agreement that is how we would proceed?

I thank the Chair. Words make a difference.

I ask unanimous consent that if, in fact, the Boxer amendment is not tabled, the amendment be agreed to.

I thank the Chair and apologize for the clumsy way in which I phrased the question.

I commend Senator Boxer for her leadership on this legislation. I co- sponsored this bill in the last Congress and I am proud to support it again.

The Mexico City policy, also known as the ``global gag rule,'' is bad policy and a bad idea.

Let us be clear what this issue is not about. The issue is not about abortion--although it is often portrayed as

such by the proponents of Mexico City. Rather, the provision is about free speech and democratic values.

Longstanding law--a law authored by former Senator Jesse Helms-- already prohibits the use of U.S. funds to perform or promote abortions.

Let me repeat that. Current law, on the books for nearly three decades and authored by our former colleague Jesse Helms, already bans the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to perform or promote abortions. Any assertion to the contrary is false.

The ``Mexico City'' policy goes much further: it demands that foreign, nongovernmental organizations which receive U.S. population assistance funds agree that they will stop using their own funds to discuss with their own governments how abortion will be regulated.

No such restrictions would be imposed on U.S.-based organizations, for a simple reason: they would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Nor are such restrictions imposed on foreign governments. If they were, then U.S. assistance to countries such as Israel might be in danger, because the Israeli government uses its own funds to pay for abortions.

In my view, the Mexico City policy is anti-democratic, because it attempts to silence foreign recipients of U.S. funds.

It is the policy of the United States to advance the cause of democracy by promoting the values which we hold dear--such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of the press.

The Mexico City policy flies in the face of these fundamental values by attempting to restrict the speech of recipients of U.S. funds.

This is a gag rule, pure and simple. It restricts speech. And for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone--Republican or Democrat-- would support a provision that would violate the First Amendment if applied to U.S.-based organizations.

Of course, foreign citizens and organizations do not have constitutional rights. But just because we can legally apply this restriction does not mean that it is good policy. And I do not believe that it is.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I share the view of my friend from Indiana. I think of the 20-some amendments out there, 99 percent of them are able to be worked out. Many of them will be accepted with a few small changes. I encourage if not the Senators, the staffs who are authorized to come to the floor and work them out.

Further, it is my understanding, regarding the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, we should proceed on an amendment he may withdraw. However, he is prepared to speak to that amendment. He wants to do that. I promised him I would try to get him up next. I am not asking unanimous consent but I am talking long enough so his staff can hear this and get him back over here. He is ready to go.

Mr. President, I will be happy to accede to that in light of the fact that Senator Brownback is here to go and Senator Lautenberg is not.

I want to make clear what I am saying. We already know there are 20-some amendments out there. I believe we can settle almost all of those amendments by negotiation without long discussions on the floor tonight or tomorrow or any time. I have no illusions, having been here a long time--even longer than the assistant leader--that we are going to get this thing done quickly, nor that we may not have nongermane amendments that may be meritorious and may take a long time. I understand that.

All I am saying is what we do know is this: Let's get it done because most of it is not nearly as controversial as it appears to be. That is the point I am trying to make. Not that I am making any predictions. There are two things I never predict. One is the weather and the second is what the Senate is going to do. So I am not predicting. I am saying we know what we have before us; let's get it done and we can move on tomorrow or the next day or next week or next year to do whatever comes up.

I yield the floor.

Yes. We are prepared to accept the Brownback amendment.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, at this point I want to talk to the general subject of the two second-degree amendments offered by the Senator from California which will be pending for us to vote on later this afternoon. They both have to do with the requirement under the underlying amendment to impose an ethanol requirement for gasoline throughout the country and to not allow States to opt in or opt out of that mandated ethanol requirement.

One of the amendments by the Senator from California is to allow an opt-in, so that States that believe this will help them deal with their problems of ozone and the environment or other environmental pollution can opt into this program and take advantage of it; but for those States that believe it would be harmful to their environment, they would not have to opt in. The other amendment would require findings with respect to whether or not it would help the environment.

I want to comment about that because the State of Arizona is one of the States that would be adversely affected by a requirement to use ethanol. Partly, this is as a result of the fact that the climate in Arizona is very warm, shall we say, particularly in the summertime. Our summer runs essentially from April through October. During that period of time, ethanol does not work well in communities such as Yuma, AZ, and Tucson, AZ, because of the way it interacts with the surrounding hot air, and the product that is produced, the moisture from the tailpipe of the automobile, interacts with the air to in fact produce ozone, which is the very thing we are trying to prevent by the use of oxygenated fuel. As a result, Arizona has used an MTBE substitute oxygenate that doesn't create the same problem ethanol creates in the hot environs of the climates in Yuma or Tucson, AZ.

As you know, MTBE is associated with some environmental damage to aquifers, where MTBE has spilled into them inadvertently and, as a result, MTBE is being phased out.

Arizona receives all of its gasoline from refineries in California. Therefore, decisions California makes pretty well impact on what Arizona has available to it for its vehicle use. This is why, naturally, the points of the Senator from California are exactly the points I make, because they apply to the refineries in her State and the same kinds of climatological requirement that my State of Arizona has with respect to environmental protection.

So let me refer to several points with respect to the ethanol mandate and begin with that point of environmental impact. Ethanol is an extremely volatile fuel. It breaks down very quickly. In fact, it is virtually impossible to transport by pipeline because of this. It has to be transported by truck. Obviously, it is not produced in the West, in States like Arizona. It would have to be trucked in from other places such as the Midwest. This adds to the cost of the fuel, but that is another matter. Ethanol has been used as an additive in gasoline sold in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. But according to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the State agency of the State of Arizona that is responsible for environmental protection in the State of Arizona, this mandate would be very bad for communities, as I said, like Yuma and Tucson, probably causing those areas to violate the 8- hour ozone standard under the Clean Air Act. This would have dramatic effects in Arizona. Those communities would be out of compliance.

There are a whole host of economic negative effects from finding a violation of the ozone standard. How can it be that the use of an oxygenate such as this would create more ozone? Because of the unique climate in Arizona in the summertime where, instead of reducing the amount of ozone particulate, it increases it.

Given the fact that there is no evidence that the use of oxygenates like ethanol would help improve the quality of air in Arizona, it seems to me a finding from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality that says Arizona communities would likely violate the 8-hour ozone standard by being forced to use ethanol is a very powerful argument for the Governor of the State of Arizona having the option of opting into this program.

Why would the other States force on Arizona a program which our own Department of Environmental Quality says is going to make the air worse, not better--in fact, so much worse it will be in violation of the Clean Air Act? It is not as if the committee and the proponents of the underlying amendment have not understood that the mandate should not apply to all States. In fact, two States are specifically exempted--Hawaii and Alaska--from this mandate.

Why, if it is appropriate to exempt two States, is it not appropriate to at least afford other States the option of submitting themselves to this mandate or not, depending upon whether this mandate would make their air quality worse or better? It seems to me if we are really talking about environmental quality here, rather than a subsidy for the corn industry in the Midwest, then we would be looking at the environmental impact of a mandate of this sort. Since we have already decided that two States should not be required to comply with this mandate, we have already crossed the bridge of saying it is appropriate to exempt some States. Why not allow those States, with their departments of environmental quality having said they would be harmed, the ability to opt out, or the requirement that they opt in, in order for the program to be effective in the State? Why not allow that option for those States? What is so important about this mandate that every single State, except two--and I don't know why these two were exempted--is not at least given the opportunity to exempt itself from the provision?

It seems to me there has to be something else involved here. I suspect it has to do with the desire of the corn producers and the people who transform the corn into an ethanol kind of product to make a buck. But we already provide them a lot of bucks through the subsidy for ethanol that has already been voted on by the Congress, has already been in existence for many years, and which will increase in this bill. I could understand--I would not agree with it--a subsidy to try to produce more of something we think we want to produce. Even though I don't think that is a good idea, I could at least understand the theory that if we want more of something, we are going to have the Government provide a subsidy to produce more of it. I could also understand the alternative, which would be that this is such a good idea that we are going to force people to do it; we are going to mandate it because we in Washington know best, of course, and therefore irrespective of what the environmental quality people in your own State believe, by golly, we know better, so we are going to make them do it.

What is a little hard for me to understand is why we still need the subsidies if we are going to have this mandate. The purpose of the subsidies was to try to encourage this production, but we do not need the subsidies if people are going to be required to use ethanol. It is a mandate. We do not need the incentive or the encouragement anymore.

Clearly, this is about special interest money influence, and I will be that specific because the environmental benefits, especially to an area such as mine, have not been demonstrated. At least the point is made by an agency of my State that it would actually degrade the air quality of some parts of the State--in fact, pull them out of compliance with the Clean Air Act, and yet

the mandate would be imposed at the same time we continue to provide this subsidy. Something is drastically amiss here.

There is an old phrase, ``Follow the money,'' so maybe that is what we should do here. Let's take a look at the money part of this issue.

Currently, refiners use approximately 1.7 billion gallons of ethanol annually, and the underlying provision would increase that to 5 billion gallons annually by the year 2012.

There is no question that gasoline prices would increase, based on data from the Energy Information Administration. It has been estimated that the increase in gas prices caused by this mandate could be between $6.7 billion and $8 billion a year. So that is the price we as a country, as consumers of this product, will be paying simply to enrich the people who produce the product.

Arizonans will, according to this estimate, be paying on average 7.6 cents more per gallon of gas. Is that fair, Mr. President?

I speak very plainly about the subsidies to the ethanol industry. According to the Congressional Research Service--this is an unbiased source--the ethanol and corn industries have received more than $29 billion in subsidies since 1996 and could receive another $26 billion more over the next 5 years.

CBO, another unbiased source, has a different estimate for a different time period. They have estimated, based on a review of S. 791, the basis of the underlying amendment we are debating, $2.3 billion just between the years 2004 and 2008.

We also know there is an impact on the highway trust fund because every gallon of gas containing ethanol--10-percent blend--gets a 5.3- cent subsidy in the form of reduced gas taxes. This amounts to a 53- cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy to the industry at the expense of the highway trust fund, and the Energy Information Administration has estimated that this will reduce the annual gasoline excise tax collections by an average of $892 million between the years 2006 and 2020.

Again, my State is a donor State already. Arizonans send $1 in taxes to the Federal Government and for highway transportation-related needs receives in return only 90.5 cents. So to the extent total revenues to the fund are reduced, the Arizona highway program will obviously be significantly impacted.

There are a lot of general points that I could discuss. There are disputes between authorities on the subject of whether or not it takes more to produce a gallon of ethanol than the gallon actually contains in terms of Btu content; in other words, do you actually have a net loss in net energy value. There are disputes about that. Some experts say about 29 percent more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy in a gallon of ethanol. The National Corn Growers Association, not exactly an unbiased source, disagrees with that. I do not know where the truth lies. Clearly, it seems to me the science is at best in dispute.

In any event, we would all have to agree that taking into account all costs, not just the energy cost, that clearly it costs a great deal to produce a gallon of ethanol or they would not need the subsidy which Congress has generously provided for its production.

I have already talked about the environmental benefits being questionable. It is not just my own State environmental agency but also a National Research Council report found that oxygenates have little or no impact on ozone formation, and there are a lot of refineries that claim they can actually produce similar environmental gains without the use of oxygenates. In fact, that is what we are going to have to do in Arizona because we cannot use MTBE, and we would hope not to have to use the ethanol, as a result of which we would have to find a different blend and would be committed to doing that.

It seems to me the ethanol industry, which enjoys this 5.2-cent-per- gallon exemption on the ethanol blend, or gasohol, from the 18.4-cents- per-gallon Federal excise tax on motor fuels, with the resulting mandate that the Congress is going to impose for the increase in the number of gallons used, would no longer need to be supported by this subsidy, which, as I said, works out to be 52 to 53 cents per gallon for pure ethanol.

The General Accounting Office estimates the tax exemption has deprived the highway trust fund--a slightly different number than I gave before--of between $7.5 billion and $11 billion over the 22 years it has been in place. This is a very costly subsidy and would be a very costly mandate.

Because the underlying amendment is costly, is not necessary, is contradictory with the subsidies that are already provided, and because the amendment of the Senator from California would simply provide the opportunity for States that would be adversely affected by this mandate to deal with their pollution problems in some other way--remember, they still have to comply with the Clean Air Act; nobody is exempting anybody from the Clean Air Act; they simply have to find a different way to comply--it seems to me it would be appropriate for us to support the amendment of the Senator from California and allow States to tailor their blends to the unique situation in their particular States.

Everybody would still have to meet the Clean Air Act but we could each do so in a way that best suits our individual purposes. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. President, can we have order?

Mr. President, let's make it clear that every State still has to comply with the Clean Air Act. The question is how they each choose to do so. In Arizona, the Department of Environmental Quality, the department of the State that is required to cause the State to be in compliance, says this mandate will actually cause two of our larger communities, Yuma and Tucson, to be in noncompliance with the ozone standard during the summer months. Each State can meet the requirements in the ways they deem best under the amendment of the Senator from California. Let's not mandate a one-size-fits-all--oh, excuse me, except for Alaska and Hawaii--for every State. Give the Governors who are responsible people the ability to decide whether this is the best way for their State to meet the Clean Air Act standards.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his extraordinary leadership as subcommittee chairman and ranking member over a number of years and his eloquent and important statement on Africa today.

In a moment, the majority leader will be on the floor, and Members will want to take note that a rollcall vote is likely to occur sometime around 2 p.m. The leader will explain the situation. In the meanwhile, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in the absence of the Senator from Delaware, I congratulated and commended him earlier on for his work as former chairman of the committee and one who has worked so closely with the chair and with myself on the MCA and so many other issues. I deeply appreciate that. That is the reason we are at this point.

Amendment No. 1139 to Amendment No. 1136

Mr. President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk, and

I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

I thank the Chair. Senator Brownback is in the Chamber, and he has amendments to offer. I am hopeful he might be recognized.

Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. Some may suggest this legislation is unnecessary, that any legal right to citizenship that North Koreans may have in South Korea would not necessarily bar them from eligibility for refugee or asylum status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

However, with enactment of this legislation, certainty is provided on this issue. And I believe we must do more. It is important that we continue to press China toward better treatment of North Korean refugees, and I support efforts by the Administration in providing greater emphasis on supporting non-government organizations assisting North Korean refugees.

Mr. President, very shortly we are going to have a rollcall vote. I am hopeful we might take action before that point. So I will make just a brief statement of support for the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. He is a dedicated member of our committee, has traveled to Korea as he mentioned in his statement, as well as other parts of Asia that are relevant to this amendment.

Some suggest the legislation is not necessary, that the legal right to citizenship North Koreans may have in South Korea would not necessarily bar them from eligibility of refugee or asylum status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, with enactment of this legislation, certainty is provided on this issue.

I believe we must do more. It is imperative that we continue to press China toward better treatment of North Korean refugees and support efforts by the administration in providing greater emphasis on supporting nongovernmental organizations assisting North Korean refugees.

Both managers of the bill, Senator Biden and I, are prepared to accept the amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from California, a member of our committee, is prepared to offer an amendment, and we are eager to have that debate.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from California has presented her case, as always, with eloquence. Let me ask the distinguished Senator, I understand Senator Brownback may wish to speak on this issue, I want to speak for a short while on the issue, and the Senator from California perhaps wants some time.

What I would like to propose is we plan to vote at 5 o'clock and have 40 minutes more debate evenly divided, 20 minutes to a side. That would be my hope.

Very well. I will proceed, and then if the Senator can inform me, that will be helpful.

Mr. President, when the Mexico City policy, which is our discussion today, was restored by President Bush in 2001 when he came into office, he stated once again the conviction that the U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or for the advocacy, for those who actively promote abortions as a means of family planning.

The fact that this President has taken this position, as have other Presidents before him, does not lessen his commitment or our commitment to strong international family planning programs. Indeed, President Bush's fiscal year 2004 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 one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing voluntary family planning services. That is a policy of our Government now. It is a policy that our President advocates for the future.

We are all aware of the numerous attempts to reach compromise language that would satisfy all sides on this very important issue but no acceptable accommodation has been found to date. Perhaps in recognition of this state of affairs, the President has advised that any legislation that seeks to override the Mexico City language will be vetoed.

Let me make clear that the restrictions in the Mexico City policy do not prevent organizations from performing abortions if the life of the mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term, or abortions following rape or incest. Similarly, health care facilities may treat injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions.

I wish to make that point because the distinguished Senator from California has told the story, and it is a tragic one, of a 13-year-old girl. I simply want to clear up the point that the Mexico City policy has not prevented organizations from performing abortions if the life of the mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term, or abortions following rape or incest.

The issue comes in whether taxpayer funds of the United States should be utilized by organizations in the internal debates within countries. That clearly is an issue upon which Senators will differ, but it is a different issue than the issue of whether, in fact, funds might have been utilized in this particular tragedy.

There are many foreign nongovernmental organizations through which

USAID can provide and does provide family planning information and services to people in developing countries. The President has decided that assistance for family planning will be provided to those foreign grantees whose family planning programs are consistent with the values and the principles of his administration. And every President since 1984 has exercised his right in that regard.

I wish to make clear, and the Senator from California is correct in this assumption, the administration's statement of policy with regard to legislation that we now are engaged in states with regard to the amendment on Mexico City policy:

The administration would strongly oppose any amendment that

would overturn the administration's family planning policy,

commonly known as the Mexico City policy, and allow U.S.

taxpayer funds to go to international organizations which

perform abortions and engage in abortion advocacy. The

President would veto the bill if it were presented to him

with such a provision.

Mr. President, as manager of this bill, I have to take that statement seriously, as does every Senator. The distinguished Senator from California has indicated perhaps the President might be persuaded to change his mind, and perhaps that is the case. But this President has been very clear and I think the directives with regard to policy on this legislation are very clear in the language I have just read.

I appeal to Senators that there are so many important provisions in this legislation with regard to our national security, the importance of our diplomacy, humanitarian concerns to international organizations, the dues that are paid--a whole host of issues. I think Senators are aware of that. I hope we will not jeopardize all of this progress. I hope we will continue to have honest debate on the Mexico City policy in other fora, and there are opportunities for Senators, simply with bills that are directed to this issue, as opposed to amendments added to legislation in which we have put together the State Department authorization, the foreign assistance authorization, the Millennium Challenge Account, and a number of issues which are very important to the future of our country.

I will oppose the amendment. I ask other Senators to do so for the reasons I have given.

If I may engage in colloquy with the distinguished Senator from California, is there disposition that we may be able to proceed to an agreement on time for a vote?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, just for the sake of explanation to Senators of what is about to transpire, I am going to move to table the amendment that has been offered by the distinguished Senator from California. Senators will have a chance to vote. I will call for the yeas and nays, so it will be a recorded vote. In the event that Senator Boxer's amendment is not tabled, then I will move that we adopt the amendment by voice vote.

I thank all Senators for their assistance in this procedure.

I move to table the Boxer amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, we have made progress on our bill. There are three amendments that will require some debate--but that will inevitably be accepted--still lined up for this evening.

I encourage--and I am certain the distinguished ranking member would join me--all Members who want to resolve their amendments to please do so this evening. We will be here. We have a good opportunity to work through almost all of the known amendments this evening.

Having said that, the leader has told me there will be no more rollcall votes and authorized me to make that announcement once again, We will proceed on this bill as long as it is productive. We hope Senators will come to the floor, offer their amendments, and have them resolved.

I will assist the Senator by indicating I suggest an order of Senator Brownback offering his amendment, then Senator Lautenberg, and then Senator Allen so the Senators would have some idea of the batting order. Senator Brownback, I understand, is prepared to go with an amendment on Iran that Senator Biden and I have studied. Then we would have Senator Lautenberg immediately following.

I thank the distinguished Senator for mentioning Senator Lautenberg and for obtaining his attention so he will be back and we can proceed.

I am prepared to yield the floor, and I understand Senator Brownback is prepared to offer an amendment.

Amendment No. 1145 to Amendment No. 1136

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his research, for his leadership on this issue, and for the amendment he has offered.

On our side, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Let me inquire of the distinguished ranking member of the committee if he is prepared to accept it on the Democratic side.

Thank you very much.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. What is the desire of the Senator? Does he desire to proceed to a vote on his amendment?

Mr. President, I appreciate that thought of the Senator. I indicate the amendment still needs to be discussed by some Members who have asked for an opportunity to speak; therefore, I am not prepared to accept it on our side at this point. So I am hopeful the Senator will allow us to lay the amendment aside temporarily for action tomorrow morning when others will be present to speak, and then we

would progress in the normal order to resolution.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment be temporarily laid aside and that Senator Allen be recognized.

Mr. President, we commend the distinguished Senators who have offered this amendment and worked carefully through the text of it to an amendment that is acceptable to both sides. I indicate my support and we are prepared to accept the amendment. My understanding is that the distinguished Senator from Delaware,

the ranking member, is prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.