[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5617-5630]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, very shortly there will be a unanimous 
consent request on how to proceed on the Boxer amendment, which has not 
been introduced yet but will be spoken to shortly. I would like, with 
the permission of my friend from California, to make a brief opening 
statement relative to the overall bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator also then make the unanimous consent 
request for the 40/20 so I know that is in line?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, we are just clearing it 
with the leadership. We are working that out. I am sure we will be able 
to move the amendment immediately after my statement which I don't 
think will take more than a few minutes.
  Mr. President, under the leadership of Chairman Lugar, we tried very 
hard to move this bill in the last couple of years. I hope the third 
time is a charm. As I believe the chairman has explained, the bill 
contains the basic authorization for all the major foreign affairs 
agencies and programs at the Department of State, foreign assistance 
programs, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and the Peace Corps.
  The bill contains several initiatives I would like to briefly 
highlight.
  I am glad the bill includes the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act, 
which we have been trying to enact over 3 years. In recent years, the 
SARS epidemic and the avian flu epidemic have made us acutely aware of 
how vulnerable the world is to a rapid spread of infectious diseases. 
We face that same vulnerability for diseases that might be used as 
weapons of bioterrorism.
  The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will combat the bioterrorism 
threat by improving other countries' capabilities to detect and limit 
disease outbreaks and by improving international investigation of 
disease outbreaks. Because these diseases--whether they are natural 
occurrences or man-made--have no respect for borders, we are only as 
safe as the weakest link in the chain is strong. This bill will go a 
long way to help other countries at an early stage detect the existence 
of these diseases, these potential biodiseases that can be spread via 
what we call bioterrorism.
  The majority leader, who cosponsored the original version of the act 
in 2001, is once again pressing for action on this bill. He added a 
very useful provision to the act, which Chairman Lugar and I have 
happily endorsed, calling for the executive branch to develop a real-
time data collection and analysis capability to serve as a warning sign 
for a possible bioterrorism event. With the majority leader's support, 
I hope and believe this year we will finally enact this important 
measure.
  I am also proud of the work the committee has done, with the 
chairman's leadership, to help the U.S. Government strengthen its 
capacity to handle postconflict reconstruction.
  In the last decade, the United States has taken on stabilization 
missions in countries such as Bosnia, East Timor, Haiti, Somalia, 
Afghanistan, and Iraq. In the decade to come, whether we like it or 
not, nation-building and postcon-
flict resolution and reconstruction will remain important to our 
security. As the Presiding Officer knows because of all the work he has 
done in the Balkans, this is not something that gets done in a day and 
we are able to leave behind in a year. We should not attempt to 
reinvent the wheel every time we are faced with a stabilization crisis, 
such as the one we faced in the last decade. It is inefficient and 
ineffective. Rather than address crises by cobbling together plans and 
personnel each time they occur as we have been doing, we need to be 
better prepared.
  This bill establishes a special office in the State Department for 
reconstruction and stabilization. It establishes a special corps of 
civilian reconstruction experts who would be ready to be deployed on 
short notice. The bill also creates a special emergency fund to deal 
with such crises.
  Finally, I am pleased the chairman and I are able to agree on the 
inclusion of a provision to protect vulnerable persons during 
humanitarian emergencies--an undated version of a bill I first 
introduced in 2003 called the Women and Children in Conflict Protection 
Act.
  I have been concerned about the vulnerability of women and children 
affected by conflict and humanitarian emergencies for some time now. 
Since the accusations were made about sexual exploitation of refugees 
by humanitarian workers in west Africa nearly 3 years ago, that concern 
has been heightened.
  Most recently, we have been confronted with cases of rape used as a 
weapon of war in Darfur, sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. 
peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and concerns that the 
children affected by the tsunami in Asia could be vulnerable to human 
trafficking.
  This provision in the bill establishes a coordinator at the 
Department of State or AID specifically charged with ensuring that our 
assistance programs not only provide food and shelter, but also support 
programs to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse of those living in 
refugee and internally displaced persons camps. It prohibits U.S. 
funding of humanitarian organizations that do not sign a code of 
conduct prohibiting improper relations between aid workers and 
beneficiaries. Finally, the provision authorizes the President to 
provide aid specifically for things such as security for refugee camps 
or something as simple and inexpensive as buying firewood so women will 
not have to leave these camps, which they have to do now, in order to 
find material with which they can make a fire to cook and find 
themselves subject to rape and exploitation outside the confines of 
these camps.
  We have a very good bill that was passed out of our committee 18 to 
0. I urge my colleagues, as Senator Boxer is about to do, to come 
forward with their amendments because I, like the chairman, would very 
much like to move this bill forward. It is within the budget. It is 
right on the button of the President's budget number. It has, as I 
said, unanimous support out of our committee. I believe it is a solid 
bill, and I hope we can move it forward this year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in a short while, we hope to have a 
unanimous consent agreement so that Members will have a roadmap for the 
remainder of the afternoon. That is not at hand for the moment; 
therefore, I hope the Chair might recognize the distinguished Senator 
from California, who will offer an amendment. Informally, we have 
talked in terms of an hour of debate being the limit, 40 minutes for 
the Senator from California, 20 minutes for me or others I may 
designate. We will encapsulate, hopefully, a unanimous consent 
agreement in due course during the course of this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to ask my chairman, for whom 
I have great respect and admiration, am I then to send the amendment to 
the desk at this time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I prefer the Senator send it to the desk 
and our debate commence.


                           Amendment No. 278

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

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

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

[[Page 5618]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

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

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

     SEC. 2227. GLOBAL DEMOCRACY PROMOTION.

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

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to 
overturn the so-called Mexico City policy which undermines some of our 
country's most important values and goals. The Mexico City policy is 
also known as the global gag rule, and I will explain what it does in a 
moment.
  Most of my colleagues know the history of this policy. It was named 
the Mexico City policy because that is where it was announced in 1984. 
But it is also known, as I said, as the global gag rule because that is 
exactly what it does--it gags international organizations that receive 
USAID family planning funds.
  What does that mean? It means, for example, that a family planning 
clinic in Nepal that receives USAID funding is prohibited from using 
its own funds--the clinic's own funds--to provide, advocate for, or 
even talk about abortion to the women they serve, even talk to a woman 
about her options.
  Let's be clear what we are talking about one more time. We are not 
talking about spending one slim dime or one penny of U.S. money to pay 
for abortions abroad because that has been illegal under the Helms Act 
since 1973. So since 1973, U.S. funds abroad cannot be used in any way 
to advocate for abortion, to allow women to have an abortion, or to 
refer her for an abortion. U.S. funds since 1973 can never be used for 
any of those purposes.
  We can debate that, but I am not going to debate that. What I am 
going to debate is why the greatest, freest country in the world, the 
United States of America, would put a global gag rule, put a tape over 
the mouths of organizations that are trying to help the women in their 
country if they use their own funds--not U.S. funds but their own 
funds--for those purposes.
  I cannot understand for the life of me how we can in good faith, as 
the leading democracy in the world, sending our troops abroad--and they 
are dying every day for freedom of speech and for the kind of 
constitution we hope others will have--how we could put a global gag 
rule on those organizations when in this country we could not even 
consider it for 2 seconds because it would be completely 
unconstitutional.
  This is a free country. We are proud of the fact that it is free. We 
are proud of the fact that we do not tell our citizens what they can 
think, what they can say, if it is on their own dime. Yet abroad, in 
some of the poorest countries in the world, we are saying if they want 
to get a penny of Federal funds, USAID or the like, they cannot use 
their own funds in any way they would like. We are telling family 
planning clinics that are in the toughest of circumstances, treating 
women in the direst poverty, that they are gagged if they want to 
receive any U.S. funds.
  Again, these restrictions we are placing on these nonprofit agencies 
would be unconstitutional and unacceptable in the United States of 
America.
  Ironically, what is very interesting is the global gag rule is even 
stricter than the requirements put on by the Helms amendment. So this 
is an unbelievable move by this administration, after these 
restrictions were removed in 1993, to place these restrictions back.
  It is true that the White House, depending on who is in the White 
House, has shifted back and forth on the advisability of the global gag 
rule, but the Senate has always said it has no place as part of 
American law. The Senate has stood proud, Democrats and enough 
Republicans, yes, to make sure that we do not have a double standard, 
that we do not say with the one hand to these countries we want 
democracy for them, we want freedom for them, we want freedom of speech 
for them, and then on the other hand say, but if they exercise it they 
are going to be punished.
  Tell me how that makes sense for America. Tell me how that makes any 
sense for our credibility in the world.
  The last time we debated this global gag rule and the Mexico City 
policy in this Chamber was about 2 years ago. I introduced this exact 
amendment, and it passed with bipartisan support. We hope we will 
achieve that same outcome today. It will be a close vote--we have had 
some changes in this body--but we still think and hope we have the 
votes. We will find that out.
  What is at stake is do we want to have an America that lives what it 
says, that not only says to the world freedom is good and freedom of 
expression is good, and if groups work hard and raise their own funds, 
as long as they spend them consistent with their own laws in their own 
countries, we will say it is their right. But, oh, no, that is not what 
this administration has done. One of the first things the President did 
when he got elected the first time was to put back in place this global 
gag rule.
  This global gag rule is not fair. We are a country that believes in 
fundamental fairness. Yet this global gag rule tells foreign 
nongovernmental organizations--these are people working in the toughest 
of circumstances--how they should spend their own money.
  For example, it tells clinics they cannot use their own money to help 
a woman in deep despair who comes in with a serious problem, an 
unintended pregnancy that perhaps was even forced on her. It tells the 
NGOs, the nongovernmental organizations, they cannot use their own 
funds even to advocate for less restrictive laws.
  For example, let's say there is a law on the books in one of these 
poor countries that says if a person is raped or a victim of incest 
they cannot have an abortion, and in this country we changed that. If 
one is a victim of rape or incest we say Federal funds can be used to 
help her. Let us say there is a country that has a total restriction, 
even if someone is raped or there is incest involved, and the 
nongovernmental entity is trying to change that law in their country. 
Under the global gag rule we say they will lose all of their Federal 
American dollars if they advocate to change what I would call ignorant 
laws.
  This global gag rule tells clinics that they cannot use their own 
funds to even tell a woman who comes before them what her options could 
be. Even if the woman asks what she can do, they cannot tell her. In 
our country, that would be illegal, unconstitutional. But, no, we put 
this on the poorest nations of the world. That is not Uncle Sam, that 
is Imperial Sam, and none of us wants to be imperial. At least that is 
my impression. We want to be democratic. But we are not acting in a 
democratic fashion when we have this double standard around the world.
  We believe in freedom of speech and yet the global gag rule tells 
foreign nongovernmental organizations they cannot in any way express an 
opinion on this subject without losing their funds. We do not tell 
organizations of the United States of America what they can say and 
what they cannot say in this country, even if we find it offensive. 
There are a lot of organizations that I find we would be better off 
without. I do not think their advocacy is right, but I have no right as 
a Senator to tell any organization in America I am tired of hearing 
what they are saying, do not say it anymore, because if I tried to stop 
them I would be ruled out of order, unconstitutional, and that would be 
the right thing.

[[Page 5619]]

  Yet we do it to foreign nongovernmental organizations.
  Some Senators just came back from Iraq. I was one of those people. We 
saw the unimaginable challenges facing our soldiers, government 
officials, and the Iraqis themselves as they struggle to deal with a 
very dangerous insurgency in that country. Our soldiers are putting 
their lives on the line so that the Iraqis have a chance to live in 
freedom. One of the foremost freedoms in our country that we wish for 
other people is freedom of speech. Government will not interfere with a 
person no matter what they say. As long as they are not hurting anybody 
or inciting anybody, they can hold an opinion. That is why our soldiers 
are over there fighting so that the Iraqi people can write a 
constitution that gives them the same freedoms we have.
  We heard the Iraqis tell us, the up and coming leaders: We read your 
constitution, we read your history, we know about your filibuster, and 
how it protects minority rights. These are the Iraqis. We heard our 
soldiers say they are willing to risk their lives so the Iraqis can 
have freedom. Well, that includes freedom of speech. Yet we take away 
the freedom of nongovernmental organizations to tell the truth to the 
women who may come before them seeking help with their reproductive 
freedom.
  Our policy should be a model for the world, but the gag rule instead 
sends a bad signal. It enforces a dangerous code of silence. It tells 
people if the government in power does not agree with them, then they 
should put a gag over their mouth and just suck it up and not tell the 
truth about how they feel and keep vital information from the women 
they are serving. Whether one is pro-choice or anti-choice, this has 
nothing to do with it. It is a question of freedom of speech. I hope 
that regardless of how we come down on the issue of choice, we would 
agree that it is fair to debate it. I may not like to hear your opinion 
if I do not agree with you, it may be hard for me to handle, but that 
is part of this great country. We have to listen to each other. We have 
to debate and we have to respect each other's views. But I am not 
showing respect if I walk up to a Senator on the floor and say, you 
know what, I am tired of hearing your point of view and I am going to 
put a gag over your mouth. How ridiculous. If they did that to me? How 
ridiculous. It is freedom of speech we are talking about, and the 
global gag rule takes a hammer to our Constitution, to our credibility, 
and I think just knocks us down in the eyes of the world. And it makes 
hypocritical what we are asking our soldiers to do across this globe.
  I want to give some examples. In Peru, for example, family planning 
NGOs funded by the U.S. were barred from advocating against a 
constitutional clause banning abortion. It was not the Peruvian 
Government gagging their own people, it was our Government. And it was 
not all Peruvian NGOs who were barred from participating in that 
debate, it was only those who opposed the abortion ban. The other 
people were free to talk about it.
  What is that about? America comes in and says if you want our money 
you can only advocate for the position that the Government in power 
wants. You cannot have another opinion. I think that is beyond 
outrageous.
  Just listen to what one nongovernmental organization leader in Peru 
said, and I am quoting this individual:

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

  This is a terrible thing, this global gag rule. I am so proud of the 
Senate. Every time we have brought it up we overturned it. I hope that 
will be the case today.
  I want to tell you a story about a real case in Nepal. In 2001, this 
issue came to my attention. There was a nongovernmental organization 
that had to make a Hobson's choice: Do we take USAID money which we 
desperately need to help our people if it will force us to remain 
silent on the issue of reproductive freedom? What should we do? Should 
we give up the money and retain our freedom?
  Let me tell you what this organization did. It gave back the USAID 
money, even though it put them in a very precarious financial position. 
They did it because of a 13-year-old girl named Min Min. I brought her 
picture with me to the Senate floor 2 years ago because I wanted my 
colleagues to see the face of what we are talking about here today. 
This is not just about freedom of speech. This is about real, live 
people and what happens to them if they cannot get reproductive health 
care.
  Min Min was raped by a relative. She was raped by an uncle. She 
became pregnant, and it was a shame upon the family and the family said 
you must have an illegal abortion. As a result of that illegal abortion 
of a girl 13 years old who was raped by her uncle, someone was 
sentenced to 20 years in prison. Who was it? Was it the rapist? No. Was 
it the parents who said you have to end the pregnancy? No. It was this 
tiny girl, 13 years old, who was sent to jail for 20 years for the 
crime of being raped by a relative and being forced by her family to 
have an abortion.
  The nongovernmental organization wanted to go to bat for this child, 
so they turned back American money. Can you believe it? We punished an 
organization that wanted to go to bat for a 13-year-old rape victim--
incest victim, really. We took the side of the rapist. That is what we 
did. We said to the NGO: If you want to help this child, give back the 
money because you cannot advocate for changing the law in your land.
  So this clinic in Nepal turned back their money--our money--and 
fought for Min Min. She had her 14th birthday in prison. She had her 
15th birthday in prison. But then, because they did not take American 
money and they were free to lobby in behalf of Min Min, they succeeded 
in changing the laws of Nepal, and they helped set that little girl 
free.
  For their valor and their courage and their success in freeing a 
child from prison who was put there after she was raped by her uncle, 
this is what they had to do. They had to give up $100,000 in USAID 
funding, and they had to let 60 staff members go. They couldn't help 
more than 50,000 other people who desperately needed them.
  These are the real stories behind this Presidential edict of the 
President, when he steps up to the plate and says I am putting in place 
a gag rule.
  I am ashamed. I am ashamed that we were on the side of the rapist and 
against the side of a little girl who was a victim of incest. How can 
this Senate look at that story and say, yes, that's right, we want to 
be on the side of the rapist? Why should the rapist suffer? We don't 
want to change the laws in Nepal. To me, this example alone is enough 
reason to do away with this global gag rule.
  Here is another point. We should always look at our policies and ask 
the question: Are our policies decreasing the number of abortions that 
take place worldwide because all of us want to decrease the number of 
abortions taking place worldwide. Frankly, the Mexico City global gag 
rule makes it far tougher to reduce the number of abortions. We support 
family planning counseling and care. We support family planning, I 
thought, because we want to prevent abortions. Between 1988 and 2001, 
modern contraceptive use in Russia increased by 74 percent, and the 
abortion rate went down 60 percent. So there is a direct correlation 
between contraception and education on how to use contraception and the 
abortion rate. I say this, even though I believe this should be a known 
fact, but sometimes we seem to forget it. So what happens when we 
punish a nongovernmental organization that is involved with family 
planning, such as that clinic in Nepal I talked to you about, that had 
to give back $100,000 and lay off 60 people? They could no longer serve 
the women who so desperately needed their help.

[[Page 5620]]

  Is this President saying he wants to keep contraception away from 
women who are asking for it? Because if that is what he wants to do, 
this global gag rule is doing just that. This is a radical thing we are 
dealing with because when you tell agencies they have to make a deal 
with the devil, take money and then be gagged, many of them will say: I 
don't want your money. I would rather be able to advocate.
  And if they do not take the money, then they are in a terrible 
circumstance because they have to lay off people who would otherwise go 
out and counsel young women about family planning. Then, when those 
young women, in the poorest of the poor nations, are desperate, 
unfortunately they may seek what we called here, when abortion was 
illegal, back-ally abortions--and women died. Many women have died, 
thousands every year across this globe, because of illegal, unsafe 
abortions.
  I believe very much that family planning is the answer. It can bring 
us all together, whether we believe in a woman's right to chose or we 
believe the Government should be involved in it, we should not tell a 
woman, tell a family how to live their lives regardless of what side 
you are on. My goodness. Family planning ought to bring us together.
  For those of us who believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, 
the way to get to that place is to have adequate family planning. For 
those of us who believe the Government should prohibit the jailing of 
women and doctors who have or give abortions, they should want to have 
family planning services so we have fewer abortions.
  Why don't we hold hands on this vote as we have in the past and walk 
down the aisle together across those divides and say family planning is 
the way to make abortion rare? That is the key. But the global gag rule 
has the opposite impact. The global gag rule is causing more abortions 
because the nongovernmental organizations will not take the funding, 
they won't be gagged, and they won't have the staff to go out and give 
those women the advice and the contraceptions that they are asking for.
  There is another issue that comes into play here, and that is the 
issue of HIV/AIDS. Preventing AIDS is very important. The use of modern 
family planning methods will help us prevent AIDS.
  This global gag rule is dangerous. It is dangerous directly, and it 
is dangerous indirectly. It goes against our Constitution and freedom 
of speech. If this President tried to put this kind of gag rule on in 
America, he would be laughed out of the courts. Of course, they do not 
do that because we have something called the Constitution and freedom 
of speech. We don't go around putting a gag on doctors who have their 
own practices. We let them do what they think is right--to do no harm 
and to help people.
  I want to talk about a school in Uganda where three of its students 
died from unsafe abortions. The same man impregnated the three girls. 
It was a horrible tragedy. But the local clinic still didn't know what 
to do since it received USAID funding. They had a situation where three 
girls were impregnated by the same man, and they didn't want to give 
back the money they had gotten from the United States of America. This 
is what they said.
  What should the school do? Refer the girls to the clinic? It is a 
very difficult situation for the nurses. What can they counsel about? 
It is a problem if the provider is a member of that community. A person 
cannot even speak as a community member or a parent. Because how can 
you differentiate between an individual and the fact that they are an 
employee of a nongovernmental organization?
  The point here is that if someone in the clinic in the area where one 
man impregnated three girls in the school feels that he or she can't 
speak out in their capacity as an individual citizen because they work 
for a nongovernmental organization that could be forced to give up its 
funding--this is a very bad policy. We are saying to clinics throughout 
the world that are supposedly trying to help that you must choose 
between limiting your services to a woman who comes to you in desperate 
need or shut down your doors because you have to give back the funding 
from the United States of America. It is really a stunning and unfair 
policy.
  One of the Planned Parenthood chapters in my State is in Ethiopia 
right now. They are seeing firsthand the impact of the global gag rule 
on women's lives. Think about what it means to try to get health care 
in Ethiopia. If you are lucky, you might have only a 3-day or 4-day 
walk to a clinic--a 3-day or 4-day walk to a clinic in Ethiopia.
  Less than 8 percent of the population has access to contraception. 
Only 20 percent get prenatal care. One in seven women die from 
pregnancies or unsafe abortions. In fact, backyard abortions are the 
second leading cause of death among women only, behind tuberculosis.
  Because of the global gag rule that this administration has put in 
place, supplies to the largest planning provider in Ethiopia have been 
cut. They have been cut because they refuse to be gagged. The people in 
Ethiopia are looking to America with our Constitution and our freedom 
and our freedom of speech, and they are saying: We are not going to 
allow the President of the United States of America and this Congress 
to gag us. We will have to give back the money.
  That is the most counterproductive thing we can do. Why? Because they 
are running out of the contraceptives because they don't have the 
money. They are less able to serve rural areas, only 7 percent of which 
have access to basic sanitation. They are less able to curb the rising 
tide of HIV which is sweeping over the population, leaving shattered 
lives and families in its wake.
  Why would we want to be responsible for that? We don't have to be 
today. We are going to have a chance to do what the Senate has done 
year after year after year. We have stood up for women's health. We 
have stood up for freedom of speech. We have stood up for the right of 
people--even the poorest of the poor--to get access to health care, to 
find out what their options are, to know what the possibilities are, to 
fight for changes in the law.
  The Senate has stood on the right side of this issue--on the correct 
side of this issue--for years. I am so proud of the Senate. We did it 
with almost all Democrats and many Republicans standing with us. I hope 
that happens today. If it doesn't, a message will be sent throughout 
the world--yes, to our troops in Iraq who are fighting to bring freedom 
of speech around the world, that here in the U.S. Senate, we have just 
stood with a global gag rule. I hope that is not the message we send.
  I don't want to see us continue this global gag rule. It is hurting 
the very people we say we care about--the poorest of the poor, the 
women, the girls, the victims of rape, the victims of incest.
  The amendment I plan to offer and which we have actually set aside is 
identical to the one we passed 2 years ago. It is very simple. It 
simply says that nongovernmental organizations cannot be denied funding 
solely because the medical services they provide with their own funds 
include counsel and referrals. They cannot be denied funding solely 
because they use their own funds to advocate for new laws. That is all 
we say.
  In this amendment we admit very straightforwardly that no NGO can 
violate its own country's law. If abortion is illegal and you cannot 
refer people in your country, if they say that is the law of the land, 
of course, we support people paying attention to the laws of their 
country. But we do not say, and we shouldn't say and we wouldn't say it 
here, that these NGOs shouldn't be able to lobby for new laws. This is 
very important.
  In Nepal they sent a 13-year-old girl away for 20 years. She was a 
victim of an uncle's incest. They let the rapist go free and there were 
no penalties for the parents who forced her to have an abortion. That 
NGO, that clinic that turned back USAID funding, said we are not 
selling out our people. We are not selling out a child for some 
dollars.
  I cannot believe the side that we were on. The global gag rule put us 
on

[[Page 5621]]

the side of a rapist. That is what the global gag rule did. That is not 
a side anyone in this Chamber wants to be on. I hope everyone in this 
Chamber will vote to be on the side of the women who were the victims. 
They need us to be by their side.
  Basically, what we are saying in our amendment is we believe in human 
rights. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe other countries 
should have the same freedoms we have in this country. And if we cannot 
gag people in this country, let's not do it abroad just because we can. 
Almost 60 years ago in the dark shadows of World War II, it was our 
country that championed the universal declaration of human rights, 
setting a standard for human rights all over the world. This is what 
that declaration said:

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

  That is America after World War II. Can someone explain to me how 
America feels it is on the side of the good when we will punish a 
nongovernmental organization that goes to bat for a rape victim who is 
13 years old? We are not on the side of human rights. We are on the 
side of people who are doing evil. That is wrong. That is not what our 
Government ought to be doing.
  The aspirations of our country and of our people should be reflected 
in our policies. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to do what they have done over and over again: Stand up and be 
counted on the side of freedom and justice and the American way. It is 
the American way to foster freedom and justice, to allow people, even 
when we do not agree with them, to take their complaints and their 
points of view to their governments. That is what our soldiers are 
fighting for and dying for in Iraq, yet with this policy we stand on 
the side of tyranny.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with us again. This is a bipartisan 
Boxer-Snowe amendment. I urge Members when the time comes--and I hope 
the chairman will let us know at what point we will be voting--I urge 
Members to stand with Senators Boxer and Snowe in this bipartisan 
amendment to end the global gag rule.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, once again the distinguished Senator from 
California has presented her case, as always, with conviction and with 
eloquence. She is an able and a remarkable advocate for her position on 
this very important and controversial issue.
  When President Bush restored the so-called Mexico City policy upon 
coming into office in 2001, he stated his conviction that United States 
taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or for those who 
actively promote abortions as a means of family planning.
  It should be made clear this does not lessen our country's commitment 
to strong international family planning programs. Indeed, President 
Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget requests $425 million for population 
assistance, the same funding level appropriated during fiscal year 
2001, President Clinton's final year in office.
  President Bush has confirmed his commitment to maintaining these 
funding levels for population assistance because he knows that one of 
the best ways to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies 
through voluntary family planning services. This is the policy of our 
Government today and it is one that President Bush advocates in the 
future.
  I expect we will continue to have debates in the Senate on the Mexico 
City policy. As the distinguished Senator from California has pointed 
out, that has been the case for several years. Over the years there 
have been numerous attempts to reach compromise language that would 
satisfy all sides on this important issue, but no acceptable 
accommodation has thus far been found. This is why President Bush has 
advised us he will veto any legislation that seeks to override the 
Mexico City policy.
  USAID can and does provide the family planning information services 
in developing countries through many foreign NGOs. The President has 
determined that such family planning assistance will be provided only 
to those foreign grantees whose family planning programs are consistent 
with the policies of this administration. Every President since 1984 
has exercised that right.
  As manager of the President's bill, I, along with every other 
Senator, must take seriously the President's statements that he would 
veto the legislation if it were presented to him without the Mexico 
City policy intact. I believe it is highly unlikely that he will change 
his mind at this point. The President has been very clear and the 
directives with regard to administration policy on this legislation are 
also clear.
  I will oppose this amendment. I ask other Senators to do so for the 
reasons I have given.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Corzine and Mikulski to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, women around the world should have access 
to safe health care, especially those who are struggling in some of our 
world's poorest nations. That is why I am in the Senate this afternoon 
to support the Boxer amendment. I thank Senator Boxer for standing up 
on an issue that affects women around the globe. I am very proud to be 
a cosponsor and supporter of this amendment.
  This amendment is about ensuring that women around the world have 
access to health care that they need, especially reproductive health 
care. It does not get much attention, but in the developing world, 
complication from pregnancy is one of the leading causes of death for 
women. It ranks right up there with tuberculosis. According to the 
World Health Organization, more than half a million women die every 
year of causes related to pregnancy or childbirth. That is more than 
one woman dying every minute of every day. That is what we are talking 
about with this amendment. That is a crisis.
  Now, you know when there is a medical crisis, something that kills 
hundreds of thousands of people every year, we do not just stand by. We 
work to make things better. In poor countries around the world, medical 
professionals and nongovernmental organizations are simply trying to 
make things better. They have set up clinics. They have done an 
excellent job. They are reaching out to poor communities. And they are 
opening the doors of access to women and families who desperately need 
health care. They are doing great work. But today their hands are tied, 
and even worse their hands are tied because the Bush administration has 
imposed a political ideology on the world. We cannot allow this 
undemocratic policy to deny women and their children health care and 
ultimately sentence them to die.
  As my colleague, Senator Boxer, has talked about, when President Bush 
took office in 2001, he signed an Executive order known as the global 
gag rule. It denies U.S. funds to any overseas health clinic unless it 
agrees not to use its own--its own--private, non-U.S. funds for 
anything related to abortion. If you are a medical professional living 
in an impoverished country trying to help people, save lives, you are 
gagged from even talking about certain reproductive health services.
  We would not stand for that in the United States. We know how 
important the doctor-patient relationship is. When we go to a doctor, 
we want to know that the doctor is giving us all the advice we need--
not holding something back because of a gag rule imposed on him by 
someone else. But that is exactly what the global gag rule does. It is 
forced on women in poor countries around the world, and that is just 
simply wrong.
  I am not going to take the time to go into detail on why I believe 
this gag rule is so wrong, but I just want to mention a few things. 
Simply put, the

[[Page 5622]]

gag rule undermines reproductive health care, it hurts our efforts to 
prevent HIV and AIDS, and it limits access to contraceptives. The gag 
rule places limits on women and doctors that we would never accept here 
in the United States.
  But here is the bottom line and something all of our colleagues 
should remember as we go to vote on this amendment: This is about 
protecting women's lives. Today, the women around the world are being 
denied the care they need because of an ideological policy, and they 
are dying as a result. We cannot tolerate that as Americans, and that 
is why I have come to the floor this afternoon, to urge my colleagues 
to support the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank young very much, Mr. President. I thank my 
colleagues for discussing this important issue and I appreciate Senator 
Boxer's concern. This is well-plowed ground that we have traveled over 
several times. We have been over this issue a number of years. The 
Mexico City Policy was first introduced by Ronald Reagan. It is a 
commonsense policy that President Reagan first put forward in 1984, 
based in part on his belief that U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to 
subsidize or support organizations that perform or promote abortions 
through international family planning programs, period.
  President Reagan, as was typical in his way, looked at the root of 
the issue and said: I understand we have an enormous debate in America 
and around the world about the issues surrounding the questions ``when 
does life begin? Does it begin in the womb or not?'' There is an 
enormous debate about these important questions--and I am going to set 
that debate aside, President Reagan said, but I am going to say as 
well, the American public has very clearly defined itself on the issue 
of taxpayer funding of abortion. The people are saying: We may debate 
back and forth about the life issue, but we do not want taxpayer 
funding to provide for abortions, particularly overseas. That is just a 
bridge way too far for me to cross, too far from the very fundamentals 
of the debate, for now the country is a pro-life country and generally 
people are opposed to abortion taking place.
  That was the 1984 decision put in place by Ronald Reagan, later 
overturned by President Clinton, later put back into place by President 
Bush. One of George W. Bush's first acts in office was to reinstate the 
Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy simply prohibits provision 
of Federal taxpayer funds to organizations that ``perform or actively 
promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.'' It 
is a very simple issue. It is a very direct, straightforward issue. I 
want to say as well, that when individuals try to frame this debate by 
saying this is about women's rights and issues, and a lack of our 
support of them on the international level, I want to step aside for 
just a minute and point out the record of the Bush administration on 
women's rights, on issues in Afghanistan where women are now voting and 
actively participating in politics and society, is just tremendous.
  Senator Boxer and I both put forward a bill about women's rights in 
Afghanistan, and, in addition, the Bush administration is implementing 
and remedying concerns for women in Iraq who are now voting and are now 
proudly waving their fingers with the ink stain upon them. Brave women 
are demonstrating their rights and standing up to defend their rights 
around the world. This administration, on a very practical level, is 
putting forth and implementing programs in great strides to assure 
women's rights around the world, and they should be congratulated for 
that and thanked for all their efforts.
  Now, you can try to tie this question of taxpayer funding for 
abortions oversees back into that issue, but I do not think that is a 
fair point of the debate. The fair point of the debate is, it is 
taxpayer dollars. It involves the very difficult, sensitive issue of 
``when does human life begin?''--a question which we have failed to 
resolve in this country as of this moment.
  Should American taxpayers be funding abortions in many countries all 
around the world? People say: Well, there is more family planning now. 
The dollars do not go directly for abortion. The money is fungible. It 
can go into an organization and be used to replace dollars that can 
then be used for abortion. Why should we put that sort of ideology 
forward on another country when we have not resolved it ourselves?
  I think the Bush doctrine, formerly the Reagan doctrine, the Mexico 
City Policy, should stand for good reason. It stands with the American 
public. We should not be using Federal taxpayer dollars to fund 
abortions overseas. That is the view of 75 to 80 percent of Americans.
  Many Americans do not like the way we handle foreign assistance now 
anyway. I personally think we should be generous in our foreign 
assistance and in some cases do substantially more to alleviate 
poverty. But if you frame the debate into these sorts of issues alone, 
you start to drive away people's support for foreign aid and for 
supporting the good that is taking place in other countries. That is 
not a good thing to do, particularly when we have been given so much as 
a nation. I would hope we could help more overseas, but it has to be in 
a sensible way that the American public agrees with.
  So while I appreciate being able to work with my colleague from 
California on many issues, this is one where we will have to part 
company. I really think President Reagan got this principle right, and 
the continuation of the Mexico City Policy by President Bush is right 
as well. Respectfully, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I so appreciate my colleague coming to the 
floor and taking time to express his views, but I think it is very 
important to straighten out the record.
  What my colleague is talking about is putting strings on U.S. 
taxpayer funds. That is the Helms amendment, and that has been the law 
since 1973. What the global gag rule does is different. It tells 
nongovernmental organizations abroad that they will lose U.S. funding 
if they use their own funds not ours, but theirs--to lobby to change 
egregious laws in their country.
  In order for a nongovernmental organization to fight to change an 
egregious law, like the one that used to exist in Napal--which I know 
my friend would not agree with--that nongovernmental organization, I 
tell my friend, had to give back their USAID money because they were 
using their own funds to change the laws of Nepal. So we gagged this 
nongovernmental organization from helping a child who was raped. The 
rapist did not go to prison. The rapist--the uncle--was free. The 
parents did not go to prison even though they forced her to have an 
illegal abortion. The child went to prison.
  The only way the nongovernmental organization was able to work to 
change the law in that country, which punished a child who was a victim 
of incest, was to give back the USAID money. Otherwise, they could not 
lobby for law changes in their own country.
  Now, I use that example because it shows why this law is so 
egregious. And again, to make the point to my friend, the Helms 
amendment, which has been in place since 1973, already precludes U.S. 
Federal funds from being used by nongovernmental organizations in any 
aspect having to do with abortion. They already cannot use our funds to 
perform abortion. They already cannot use our funds to refer.
  They already can't use funds to advocate. That is taken care of. The 
global gag rule is different from that. It is putting a gag around the 
very people who are trying to help prevent pregnancies, who are trying 
to help girls such as Min Min in Nepal who was the victim of incest. 
That is plain wrong. I don't mind my friend disagreeing with me. And we 
do agree on many issues and have worked together and will continue to. 
But I would hope we would not confuse the Helms amendment,

[[Page 5623]]

which has been in place since 1973 and does not allow a penny of 
taxpayer funds to go in any way to the provision of abortion services. 
Don't confuse that with the gag rule, which keeps nongovernmental 
organizations from being able to use their own funds as they see fit to 
help women and girls in tragic circumstances such as the one I 
described by changing the repressive laws in some of their countries.
  I urge my friend to please be clear that these are different issues. 
We already deny the use of Federal funds for anything having to do with 
overseas abortion or its lobbying. But the gag rule takes it a step 
further and says these organizations that work so hard in the toughest 
environments cannot use their own funds in the way they see fit to 
advocate for changes in the law, to help women understand what their 
options are. And it is antithetical to the United States of America, to 
freedom of speech. My friend knows we couldn't do that here. We 
couldn't tell people here that they can't talk to their patients. That 
would be unconstitutional.
  I urge my colleagues to please vote on what this issue is, not on 
what this issue is not. We live with the Helms rule. We are not 
changing that. We simply want to get rid of this global gag rule today. 
I hope Members will vote aye on the Boxer-Snowe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we are looking forward to conclusion of 
this debate and another debate prior to getting into the voting 
sequence at about 4:30. May I ask the participants, the distinguished 
Senator from California and the distinguished Senator from Kansas, 
could there be agreement that the amendment would come to conclusion in 
20 minutes of time and that this be apportioned 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from California and 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Kansas? There would be no other speakers and 
that would conclude the debate. Then we would be able to proceed with 
an amendment by Senators Craig and Baucus.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I may respond to the chairman, I have no problem. I 
would like to close the debate. That will be fine with us as long as I 
may conclude.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. No objection from myself.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask that debate be of 20 minutes 
duration, that the time be under control of the Senator from California 
and the Senator from Kansas, and that the Senator from California be 
able to conclude the debate.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, 10 minutes each and no 
second-degree amendments; is that part of it?
  Mr. LUGAR. That would be correct, no second-degree amendments.
  Mrs. BOXER. Then I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair and the Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, responding to a couple of the comments 
of my colleague from California, I would like to cite and include in 
the Record a Congressional Research Service report on international 
family planning, the Mexico City policy. This report is dated April 2, 
2001. And then another one, an updated one on population assistance and 
family planning programs, issued for Congress, May 19, 2003.
  In the 2003 report, I want to cite this briefly because we are 
getting involved in a discussion about what the wording of the Boxer 
amendment does and what it does not do. I contend that clearly what 
could take place with the passage of the Boxer amendment, is that money 
could go to a foreign organization that performs abortions. These 
organizations can't use the money directly for abortions, but they can 
move private money to do abortions while using the government money for 
advocacy. That is what I am saying. My colleague is giving the 
illustration of this tragic situation that has occurred where there has 
been a rape in Nepal and this is a heart-rending example of these types 
of cases right before us now.
  Regardless of how you view life, and when human life begins, we are 
going to set that issue aside but I hope we get to debate that issue 
one of these days. In this CRS report dated 2003, USAID issued 
additional guidelines on the implementation of the Mexico City Policy 
and stated that organizations could not ``perform abortions in a 
foreign country except where the life of the mother would be endangered 
or in cases of forcible rape or incest.'' So where my colleague is 
talking about a case of forcible rape taking place and a choice of an 
organization having to choose between performing an abortion or losing 
their funding, the USAID policy says that performing such an abortion 
is a specific exemption from this Mexico City policy that is squarely 
on point in this CRS report.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record selections from the 
two CRS reports that I have mentioned.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At Mexico City, Reagan Administration officials emphasized 
     the need for developing countries to adopt sound economic 
     policies that stressed open markets and an active private 
     sector.
       Again nearly a decade later, the Clinton Administration 
     changed the U.S. position on family planning programs by 
     lifting restrictive provisions adopted at the Mexico City 
     Conference. At the 1994 Cairo Conference, U.S. officials 
     emphasized support for family planning and reproductive 
     health services, improving the status of women, and providing 
     access to safe abortion. Eight years later, President Bush 
     revoked the Clinton Administration position on family 
     planning issues and abortion, reimposing in full the Mexico 
     City restrictions in force during the 1980s and early 1990s. 
     Throughout this debate, which at times has been the most 
     contentious foreign aid policy issue considered by Congress, 
     the cornerstone of U.S. policy has remained to be a 
     commitment to international family planning programs based on 
     principles of voluntarism and informed choice that give 
     participants access to information on all major methods of 
     birth control.
       Nevertheless, the controversy spilled over into U.S. 
     foreign aid policy almost immediately when Congress approved 
     in late 1973 an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (Section 104(f)) prohibiting the use of foreign 
     development assistance to pay for the performance of 
     abortions or involuntary sterilizations, to motivate or 
     coerce any person to practice abortions, or to coerce or 
     provide persons with any financial incentive to undergo 
     sterilizations. Since 1981, Congress has enacted nearly 
     identical restrictions in annual Foreign Operations 
     appropriation bills.
       For the past 25 years, both congressional actions and 
     administrative directives have restricted U.S. population 
     assistance in various ways, including those set out in the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and more recent executive 
     regulations and appropriation riders prohibiting indirect 
     support for coercive family planning (specifically in China) 
     and abortion activities related to the work of international 
     and foreign nongovernmental organizations. Two issues in 
     particular which were initiated in 1984--the ``Mexico City'' 
     policy involving funding for non-governmental-organizations 
     (NGOs), and restrictions on funding for the U.N. Population 
     Fund (UNFPA) because of its activities in China--have 
     remained controversial and continue as prominent features in 
     the population assistance debate.
       During the Bush Administration, efforts were made in 
     Congress to overturn the Mexico City policy and rely on 
     existing congressional restrictions in the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 banning direct U.S. funding of abortions and 
     coerced sterilizations. Provisions adopted by the House and/
     or Senate that would have reversed the policy, however, were 
     removed from legislation under threat of a presidential veto.
       Efforts to Legislate the Mexico City Policy. Beginning in 
     1993, abortion opponents in Congress attempted to legislate 
     modified terms of the Mexico City policy. Under the threat of 
     a Presidential veto and resistance from the Senate, Mexico 
     City restrictions had not been enacted into law until passage 
     in November 1999 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 
     FY2000 (P.L. 106-113).
       In USAID-issued certification forms, organizations had to 
     state that they would not engage in three types of activities 
     with either USAID or non-USAID funds from the date they 
     signed an agreement to receive FY2000 USAID population funds 
     through September 30, 2001: perform abortions in a foreign 
     country, except where the life of the mother would be 
     endangered, or in cases of forcible rape or incest; violate 
     the laws of a foreign country concerning the circumstances 
     under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or restricted; 
     or attempt

[[Page 5624]]

     to alter the laws or governmental policies concerning 
     circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, 
     or restricted.
       If an organization declined to certify or did not return 
     the certification form, it was ineligible to receive FY2000 
     USAID population funds unless it was granted a waiver under 
     the $15 million exemption cap.
       The regulations also contain exceptions: abortions may be 
     performed if the life of the mother would be endangered if 
     the fetus were carried to term or abortions performed 
     following rape or incest; health care facilities may treat 
     injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortions 
     (post-abortion care).
       The new Administration Mexico City guidelines state that 
     U.S. cannot furnish assistance to foreign NGOs which perform 
     or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning 
     in USAID-recipient countries, or that furnish assistance to 
     other foreign NGOs that conduct such activities.
       Examples of what constitutes the promotion of abortion 
     include: operating a family planning counseling service that 
     includes information regarding the benefits and availability 
     of abortion; providing advice that abortion is an available 
     option or encouraging women to consider abortion; lobbying a 
     foreign government to legalize or to continue the legality of 
     abortion as a method of family planning . . .
       The regulations also contain exceptions to these policies:
       abortions may be performed if the life to the mother would 
     be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or abortions 
     performed following rape or incest.
       health care facilities may treat injuries or illnesses 
     caused by legal or illegal abortions (post-abortion care).
       ``passive'' responses by family planning counselors to 
     questions about abortion from pregnant women who have already 
     decided to have a legal abortion is not considered an act of 
     promoting abortion.
       referrals for abortion as a result of rape, incest, or 
     where the mother's life would be endangered, or for post-
     abortion care are permitted.
       Recipients of USAID grants, however, could use their own 
     funds to engage in abortion-related activities, but were 
     required to maintain segregated accounts for U.S. money in 
     order to show evidence they were in compliance with the 
     abortion restrictions.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Furthermore, I want to back up to an earlier point 
that I engaged on with my colleague. We live in a wonderful nation. 
This is a beautiful land. I have traveled to many of the developing 
countries around the world. They look up to America. They seek help and 
support from America. They seek our ideals. When we go there and we 
push issues such as abortion or are associated with groups that push 
issues such as abortion, we are reduced as a nation. Actions like this 
says to developing countries: We have issues such as malaria, we have 
issues such as HIV/AIDS, feeding our poor people, and you are out here 
pushing this ideology. Why are you doing that?
  I go home to my constituents in Kansas. They think the foreign aid 
budget is about 25 percent of the budget, which it is not. It is about 
1 percent. But then if a case such as this comes up, tax payer funding 
of abortions in developing countries--and they don't say it as much 
now--they say: We are funding abortions overseas, and we don't like it. 
I remember in 1994 hearing many people saying things such as that.
  If we pursue this sort of policy, it diminishes our possibility to go 
to the public and say: We want to do whatever we possibly can to end 
poverty, hunger, and alleviate suffering in the world. We can do more 
and we want to do more. We are out there pushing to do more. If we 
force policies such as this, it cuts the knees out from underneath all 
our other efforts because then a number of people say: How are you 
doing alleviating poverty by funding a group that funds and works for 
abortion? How is this work alleviating suffering and poverty? It seems 
as though you are going against the very message you ought to be 
driving and pushing forward.
  My colleague and I have come together to discuss and work on many 
important issues, but we disagree sometimes. We have different views on 
the point of life. But, from my work, I know that there are great 
groups of people in this country and a pretty strong majority that says 
we need to help more overseas. But it has to be sensible help. There 
have to be ways we can feed more people and ways we can take care of 
sickness, where we can end the fighting in places such as Darfur, where 
we can move forward in economic development, in ways such as the 
Millennium Challenge Account Program is structured to do.
  Amendments such as this have a harmful overall impact on the body 
politic of this country, disrupting a chance to do something that is 
very noble and good. I understand my colleague is putting it forward as 
a noble cause. I don't think it is being received or can be viewed in 
that way.
  With all due respect to my colleague and her heart for her goodness 
to do the right thing, this amendment is not helpful on many levels. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my colleague misses the entire point. The 
reason this child was sent to prison in Nepal after incest by an uncle 
and being forced by her parents to have an abortion is because of the 
former law in Nepal. And the policy my friend is supporting, the global 
gag rule he extolls, prohibited that clinic from going to bat for this 
child and using its own funds to change the laws. To do that, they had 
to turn back their U.S. funding. Are you proud of that? They decided, 
this nongovernmental organization, to give back the money because they 
felt it was that important to fight for that child who was the victim 
of incest and get that law changed.
  It took them several years. That child had a 14th birthday in prison, 
and she had a 15th birthday in prison. But they succeeded. One would 
think we would be on their side. One would think the United States of 
America would be on the side of a child who was raped and against a man 
who performed that act. One would think that is the side we would be 
on, the side of this child. But, oh, no, the global gag rule told that 
clinic: You cannot change the law because if you do that, you are 
violating the global gag rule.
  That is the point. It is true there is an exception for rape and 
incest in the rule, but it does not apply if the country does not make 
an exception for rape and incest. So what we should say in those 
cases--at least work with me on this--is allow them to keep their money 
if they are working to change the law on rape and incest in their 
country. But my friend is not doing that. He wants the status quo.
  Then we have the case in Uganda where three underage girls died from 
botched abortions. The same man impregnated them, and the clinic was 
afraid to help because they could lose all their American money. The 
girls died.
  Is that what we are celebrating today, a policy that allows a child 
to rot in prison if she is raped, a policy that allows a rapist to be 
free, a policy that says three girls impregnated by the same man should 
die in a back alley? I hope not. This is very serious. This is not only 
about words. This is not a debate about when life begins. We can have 
that debate any day of the week.
  I will tell my friend right now, I would die for his right to believe 
what he believes on that issue, and I hope he would die for my right to 
believe what I believe on that issue because that is a question between 
us and our God. That is not on the table today.
  What is on the table is a real-life question: With whom do we stand? 
I hope when we come to this vote, which we are going to have shortly 
today, we are going to stand with the women and girls of the world who 
need our protection, not our vengeance, who need to know we are not 
going to gag the people who are there to help them, but, in fact, allow 
the people who are there to help them, to use their own funds to tell 
the truth about their life and their options and their health. This is 
a very serious matter.
  Mr. President, if the other side will yield back its time, I will be 
glad to yield back mine; otherwise, I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could have 1 minute. How much time 
remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will address directly one point, if 
the

[[Page 5625]]

Senator does not object. I read from the CRS document May 19, 2003, on 
this topic:

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

  As I understand it, USAID is required by the Mexico City language, 
that in horrific difficulties and circumstances, such as the case the 
Senator discussed, individuals may work with organizations who provide 
abortions. But it is on a narrow set of circumstances because the 
American public does not agree with taxpayer funding of abortions 
overseas.
  I submit the report for the Record, and I yield the floor. If my 
colleague is prepared to yield back time, I am prepared to yield back 
time, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to respond.
  Again, my colleague has made my point. He read into the Record 
exactly what I said. Under the gag rule, you cannot perform abortions 
except for rape, incest, or life of the mother. That is right. But here 
is the second point: You cannot attempt to alter the laws, and that is 
the exact reason I cited for why the nongovernmental organization that 
is prohibited from altering the laws of their country had to give back 
their funding. That is exactly the point.
  My friend made my argument for me by reading what I have been saying. 
This nongovernmental organization wanted to change the laws in Nepal so 
that a child who was raped or a victim of incest would not rot in 
prison. They were precluded from using their own money to alter the 
laws of their country. My friend read it right into the Record, and I 
thank him for that. He made my point.
  So, yes, at the end of the day, we stand with the rapist in this case 
against the child, and that is wrong, and that is the reason I hope my 
colleagues will join with me.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in an effort not to belabor this too 
much, there is a set of semantics being argued back and forth. I invite 
my colleague to submit suggestions on regulatory changes to the USAID 
to try to address this narrow point, if that is, indeed, the case. I 
hope we do not, in focusing on a particular very narrow tragic issue 
and circumstance--and nobody is celebrating that tragedy--I hope we do 
not lose focus of the broader issue of taxpayer funding of abortions 
overseas.
  We can focus in on this very narrow point of view--and it is a tragic 
circumstance, I will concede that to my colleague. Maybe we can 
negotiate a regulatory change to address these important concerns if 
these words do not do it. I think we are arguing semantics here. Let's 
not lose sight of the fact, which is that this amendment would send 
taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is as if we are talking past each 
other. My friend made the case for me. He read the restriction which is 
that no organization can attempt to alter the laws of their country. 
And so we are standing against people having their rights at self-
determination. Can you imagine if we sent out a notice to our people, 
let's say on both sides of the gun debate, and said to both sides: You 
cannot discuss this matter with your representatives. We could not do 
that for 3 seconds. First, we would be run out of office on a rail. But 
we are willing to be an imperial power and tell others in other 
countries they cannot advocate on behalf of the people of their 
country.
  The last point I will make is my friend keeps repeating the phrase 
``U.S. taxpayer funds.'' He is confusing the debate. There was an 
outright ban written in 1973 by Jesse Helms which has been upheld in 
the Congress ever since that not a dime of U.S. taxpayer money could be 
used in any way, shape, or form to provide abortion. And there is 
another law that says you cannot use U.S. taxpayer funds to lobby. So 
those things are already set.
  What we are talking about is an additional law put into place by the 
Bush administration after it was off the books for 8 years which says 
forget about U.S. taxpayer money, we are telling nongovernmental 
organizations that to get that money, they cannot use their own funds 
in any way to provide abortion, to counsel women, to tell women their 
options, or--and this is the case in point--even to lobby their 
legislature to change laws, such as the one that put this child in 
prison who is the victim of incest. I do not understand how we can 
stand on that side of this issue.
  I can give you 100 examples. I do not want to take the Senate's time 
to do that. The other case was in Uganda where the clinic was gagged 
and could not tell these girls where they could go to get a safe 
abortion to end a pregnancy forced on them by a gentleman--I should not 
call him a gentleman--a man who impregnated three of his students, and 
the clinic was scared to say anything, and these girls got illegal, 
what they call backyard abortions in that country and died.
  Now, why do we want to stand on the side of the law that is resulting 
in girls going to jail when they are raped by a relative and girls 
dying from botched abortions because we put a gag on the clinic? I hope 
this Senate will pass the Boxer-Snowe bipartisan amendment that will 
send a signal to the world that we believe very strongly in their 
rights to aggressively approach their government and talk about laws 
that may need changing, their rights to look a woman or a girl in the 
eye and say, look, regardless of what your religion is or what your 
feeling is, these are the options you have.
  I do not think keeping women ignorant is a very liked policy, and 
anyone who votes for this global gag rule votes to keep the women of 
the world ignorant. I hope my colleagues will vote for the Boxer-Snowe 
amendment. I look forward to a successful vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senators for this 
debate. A vote will occur on it at a time in the future, probably in 
sequence with the 4:30 vote.
  At this point, I have two points of important business. These are 
amendments that have been agreed upon.


                           Amendment No. 279

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

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

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

                    (Purpose: To strike section 207)

       On page 24, strike lines 1 through 5.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this amendment strikes section 207. It was 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office as containing direct spending 
that needed an offset. While there is some disagreement between the 
executive branch and Congressional Budget Office on the scoring, if 
section 207 were not stricken, the legislation would be subject to a 
budget point of order. I understand the staff of the Budget Committee 
and the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have come to an 
agreement, and this amendment removes the threat to the legislation. We 
know the State Department considers section 207 important. We will do 
our best to provide these authorities,

[[Page 5626]]

but we must do so in a way that is budget neutral.
  For this reason, until a way can be found to resolve the scoring 
difficulties, we ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 279) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 280

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

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

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

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

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


                      Amendment No. 274, Withdrawn

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that adoption of 
amendment No. 274 be vitiated and the amendment then be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. At this juncture, I ask the Chair to recognize the 
distinguished Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. I ask that the pending amendments be temporarily 
set aside so I might offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to raise a question with the 
distinguished Senator from Montana. Would the Senator and his 
colleague, Senator Craig, be prepared to enter into an agreement that 
the amendment should have 36 minutes of consideration; namely, between 
now and 4:30, with the time equally divided between opponents and 
proponents, no second-degree amendments?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I might tell the chairman that is certainly fine with 
this Senator.
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. What was the Senator's conditioning on the second degree?
  Mr. LUGAR. The request is 36 minutes total for the amendment, 18 
minutes per side, that concluding at the time of our voting sequence 
starting at 4:30.
  Mr. CRAIG. Including all amendments?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes, with no second degree.
  Mr. CRAIG. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, the minority leader staff 
tells me we have to check with other Senators on this side who may want 
to speak to this amendment, but why do we not proceed. I would object 
for the moment, but hopefully I can resolve this very quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 281

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

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

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

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


                 Amendment No. 282 To Amendment No. 281

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5627]]



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

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

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

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

  That was a quote in 2001. It is most appropriate today. Senator 
Baucus, myself, Senator Roberts, Senator Hagel, Senator Lugar, and 25 
other Members of this Senate have grown increasingly frustrated with 
the bureaucratic effort at the Department of Treasury literally to shut 
down the intent of very important legislation that became law in 2000. 
The Trade Sanctions Reform Act recognized a need and an opportunity to 
sell agricultural products to Cuba for cash, that we would not ask the 
taxpayers of this country to facilitate. In fact, we would be very 
strict and very narrow in those relationships with the nation of Cuba 
because of overwhelming interests in a variety of other areas at that 
time, and it passed the Congress.
  That became law. That law began to work. In the course of its 
workings, Cuba grew from a trading partner that was the 226th largest 
against all of our trading partners to the 21st largest this past year. 
We have produced and sold nearly $1 billion worth of agricultural 
products to Cuba since that law became operative in 2000. It has become 
one part of a total of valuable tools that the agricultural community 
of this Nation uses in trade.
  Nearly 34 States have sold products to Cuba and that clearly speaks 
about the broad base of support that this legislation has.
  Somehow and for some apparently very biased reason--let me be blunt--
Cold War bureaucrats in the Department of Treasury at OFAC decided, no, 
we are going to change the law by regulation.
  We are going to squeeze and push and deny, and as a result we will 
collapse the ongoing trade with Cuba that is clearly within the law and 
within the Trade Sanctions Reform Act of 2000.
  What we do with this amendment offered to the State Department 
authorization bill, and my second-degree amendment, is very clear. We 
simply restate the law, the intent of the law. We want OFAC to 
understand what Congress's intent was. We define what a cash payment in 
advance is. We authorize the issuance of a general license for U.S. 
agricultural producers to travel to Cuba for the purpose of 
agricultural trade. We authorize direct cash payments to U.S. banks, 
cash payments. It is very important we understand that. We repeal 
section 211 as it relates to the 1999 Omnibus Act, and trademarks, and 
we clarify a variety of other issues.
  What is most important, and for our colleagues who support us in this 
effort and support the agricultural community in our country's ability 
to sell to Cuba for cash, we say we are for all intents and purposes 
reinstating the intent of Congress as expressed in the 2000 law. That 
is what is important here. We do not believe it is the right or 
responsibility of Treasury to change the rules or the name of the game 
or the intent of the law. That is why the Senator from Montana and I 
have come to the floor, for that purpose. The Senator remains on the 
floor and I know wants to express his concern.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first I thank the chairman of the 
committee, second my good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, and other 
Senators who have cosponsored this amendment. There are at the present 
moment about 30 cosponsors of this amendment. It is bipartisan. I might 
say there is tremendous interest in this legislation also in the other 
body.
  To review where we are, back in the year 2000, not too many years 
ago, we in the Congress approved legislation called the Trade Sanctions 
Reform and Export Enhancement Act, otherwise known as TSREEA. What was 
the point of that legislation? It was legislation which authorized 
cash-in-advance food and medicine sales to Cuba. That is, the Congress 
carved out a substantive area of food and agricultural sales to Cuba. 
It did not provide a broad-brush authorization for trade with Cuba; 
rather, it narrowed it to food and to medicine for humanitarian 
reasons. It just made sense for the United States to be able to send 
its medicine and its food products, its agriculture, to Cuba. Clearly 
this made a lot of sense. Food should never be used as a weapon, and 
surely no dictator has ever missed a meal.
  Second, big government has no business telling the U.S. farmers and 
ranchers to whom they could sell their products, for a lot of reasons. 
One is agriculture is facing such dire straits in many parts of our 
country. In addition, U.S. agriculture is facing a shrinking trade 
surplus. It used to be agriculture products exported overseas were the 
one big bright spot in the trade imbalance. That is no longer true. 
Agricultural programs are under tremendous pressure from budget cuts--
more so now than has been the case in the past.
  We should be looking around for new markets for American products, 
not cutting out export markets for American agricultural products. Cuba 
certainly presents a promising market for Montana and for American 
agriculture. Yet, unbelievably, the Treasury Department has recently 
issued a new rule. That rule makes it harder, it makes it much more 
difficult, for U.S. farmers and ranchers to sell agricultural products 
to Cuba. It makes it much more difficult in spite of the intent of the 
law we passed in 2000.
  This rule by Treasury requires Cuba to pay for goods before shipment 
instead of before delivery, as was the case in the last 3 years after 
the act was passed. For some reason, here in 2005, a few years after 
the act has been in operation and working, the Treasury Department 
passes new regulations, just out of the blue, which make it much more 
difficult for American farmers to sell their products to Cuba. If Cuba 
pays for the goods while they are still on U.S. soil, these goods, 
under this new rule, become Cuban assets, which make them vulnerable to 
seizure to satisfy unrelated claims.
  What is the effect of that? That has a very chilling effect. Treasury 
says it issued this rule as a ``clarification'' of the intent of 
Congress in the bill we passed in the year 2000. Let me be clear. My 
colleagues and I did not vote for a bill to enhance exports to Cuba 
that contained payment restrictions so severe as to render U.S. exports 
uncompetitive or worse. Clearly we did not pass a bill, we did not vote 
for a bill which makes it more difficult to sell agricultural products 
to Cuba rather than less difficult, and this regulation makes it more 
difficult. That was not the intent of Congress. We pass the laws. We 
decide what the laws of the Nation should be. It was our intent

[[Page 5628]]

that agricultural sales should proceed unimpeded on a cash basis to 
Cuba.
  When Treasury proposed this rule, I and colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle in both Chambers made our point very clear that we did not 
intend this. It was not our intent to have this interpretation.
  Why is this so important? Cuba, the largest island in the Caribbean, 
was worth $400 million to U.S. agriculture exporters in the year 2004. 
Since 2001, Cuba has purchased more than $800 million in agricultural 
products from 35 States in our Nation, making that island the 25th 
largest export market for agricultural products.
  A year and a half ago, I led a trade mission to Cuba, and I walked 
away with what I think is a pretty good deal for my State of Montana: 
$10 billion in agricultural products on a cash basis; and the fact is 
they bought $10.4 million of agricultural products from my State of 
Montana. I went back last December and signed a new agreement, this 
time worth $15 million for Montana agricultural products. 
Unfortunately, that agreement is now in jeopardy because of the new 
rule.
  In the interim, Treasury passed this new rule. It also applied this 
new rule even to sales completed months earlier on a retroactive basis, 
which is totally unfair. The rule is wrong in the first place. It makes 
it doubly wrong when it is retroactive. We have $3 million worth of 
wheat and pea shipments lined up, and now they have to be renegotiated 
or abandoned because of this Treasury rule. That is wrong, just dead 
wrong. I, in this body, have worked hard to sell agricultural products 
to Cuba and will not stand idly by while Government bureaucrats try to 
undo all that hard work.
  First, this reverses that Treasury rule and clarifies the intent of 
Congress for Cuba to pay cash for delivery of U.S. goods before 
delivery, not before shipment. This will ensure that cash sales 
continue as they have without interruption.
  Second, the amendment gives general license to producers and port 
authorities to travel to Cuba whenever they have agreements to 
negotiate. This is a big point. Very often, the United States makes it 
very difficult with a huge amount of bureaucracy and paperwork to go 
through when the American agricultural exporter wants to go to Cuba to 
negotiate an agreement. It makes it difficult to do so if we can't go 
to Cuba to put the deal together.
  Third, it requires greater transparency in visa processing for the 
Cuban buyers and inspectors who have legitimate itineraries in the 
United States related to the sale or inspection of TSREEA-authorized 
products.
  Again, if a State has sales to Cuba, it only makes sense if the State 
Department can allow a representative for the Government of Cuba or the 
representative of agriculture, the purchaser, to come visit that State 
to see what products that State has in mind. So far the Government is 
making it very difficult for that to happen.
  Fourth, this authorizes direct banking relations for authorized 
agricultural sales only. We are not talking about any other product. We 
are talking just about authorized agriculture sales--direct banking 
relations which would have the effect that U.S. banks can deal directly 
on this matter rather than as currently is the case where they would 
have to go through a third party, where European banks are making money 
off the U.S. agricultural sales.
  Finally, this amendment repeals an obscure trademark law that 
benefits no U.S. company, but puts at risk thousands of U.S. 
trademarks, including those branded food products sold to Cuba in the 
past 3 years. Section 211's supporters say it protects confiscated 
trademarks but in fact makes very clear no government--not even Fidel 
Castro's--can expropriate legally registered trademark rights. It is 
impossible to do. That is why this provision must be enacted.
  The truth is, section 211 was enacted to interfere in an ongoing rum 
label dispute. The fight is not my concern. But what concerns me is 
unless we fully repeal section 211, Cuba has the right, under 
international trademark law, to deny U.S. trademarks reciprocal 
recognition. That does not make any sense.
  In conclusion, I am here to urge us to pass this amendment. It allows 
American farmers and ranchers a break. More importantly, let them do 
what we intended them to do when we passed that law in the year 2000. 
Let us send a message to Treasury that when we pass laws, we mean it. 
It is not for Treasury. They are the executive branch, and they are 
supposed to implement the laws, not make new laws, which in effect 
Treasury is doing by changing its regulations. They are being totally 
irresponsible. There comes a time when, frankly, it is up to us to put 
a stop to it and say this is not right and we are going to change it.
  I see many of my friends on the floor. I thank my good friend from 
North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who cosponsored this amendment.
  I say also that I support the trade amendment offered by Senator 
Craig, a perfecting amendment which will help implement the major 
underlying amendment which I described.
  I yield the floor but reserve the time we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we under a time agreement at this 
point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments about 
this, and first credit my colleagues Senator Craig, Senator Baucus, and 
many other colleagues who have worked so hard on this. Their leadership 
is especially appreciated.
  Go back 5 years to the year 2000 when I, then-Senator John Ashcroft, 
and my colleagues Senators Craig, Baucus, and others passed an 
amendment here in the Senate that became law. The amendment we offered 
which became law said that American farmers could sell food into the 
country of Cuba as long as Cuba paid cash for that food. Since that 
time, we have sold over $1 billion worth of agricultural commodities 
into Cuba. When we debated that 5 years ago, I was on the floor of the 
Senate saying I think it is almost immoral for any country to use food 
as a weapon. Food ought not be a weapon in foreign policy.
  Does anybody here think that for 40 years when we prevented the sale 
of food to Cuba we injured Fidel Castro? Does anybody believe Fidel 
Castro missed breakfast, or lunch, or supper, or dinner, because of our 
embargo on food, because we decided to use food as a weapon? It didn't 
hurt Fidel Castro. When we use food as a weapon, it hurts hungry, sick, 
and poor people. That is what happens.
  One day not too long ago--a couple of years ago--22 train carloads of 
dried feeds left the State of North Dakota, my home State, to go from 
our farms to Cuba to be fed to the Cuban people. Cuba paid cash for it. 
It was the first shipment in 42 years.
  We have people who never liked that law; didn't like the fact that 
Congress passed that law; still want to use food as a weapon. What has 
happened is the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control 
has decided to illegally, in my judgment, redetermine how they 
interpret that force of law that requires cash payment for food. 
Normally, when you buy something, when they give you the product, you 
pay cash and they give you the product. That is the way it is. You pay 
the money, they give you the product.
  What the Department of Treasury has decided in OFAC is that the 
Cubans would have to pay for this. By the way, they paid cash through a 
European bank because they can't use a U.S. banking institution. They 
have to pay for it before that shipment even leaves the local country 
elevator. It dramatically changes the circumstances of being able to 
sell and be competitive. They are doing it for one reason, because 
those who did this don't want American farmers to sell food into the 
Cuban marketplace. The Canadians sell into the Cuban marketplace. The 
Europeans do. But they want to go back to the good old days when the 
American farmers were paying the cost of an embargo. They are dead 
wrong.
  It is interesting. We are told repeatedly and have been told for 
years that

[[Page 5629]]

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


                     Amendment No. 273, as Modified

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

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

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that following 
the vote at 4:45 on the resolution regarding Pope John Paul II, the 
Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment; provided 
further that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will take the time before the vote to 
rise in support of the Craig-Baucus amendment. I am a cosponsor of S. 
328, the bill on which the amendment is based. I appreciate the views 
of the Senators on both sides of the Cuban embargo issue. In the 
Committee on Foreign Relations, concerned Senators have offered 
constructive ideas on how to approach Cuba with the goal of 
transforming that island into a democracy, even as Senators disagree on 
interim policy steps.
  My view is within the defined limits of Trade Sanctions Reform and 
Export Enhancement Act of 2000, United States businesses and farmers 
should be able to sell products to Cuba. In the interest of expanding 
opportunities for U.S. agriculture, 5 years ago Congress enacted this 
law. It exempts from the trade embargo on Cuba commercial sales of 
agricultural and medical products and allows only for cash sales. No 
credit or subsidies to the Cuban Government are allowed.

[[Page 5630]]

  This law has provided a new market for our farmers and ranchers. The 
American Farm Bureau has reported that since the passage of the bill, 
United States farmers have sold approximately $800 million in 
agricultural products to Cuba. Exports to Cuba have more than doubled 
since 2002, reaching approximately $400 million in 2004. Growth in the 
Cuban market has become especially important as the United States 
agricultural trade surplus has narrowed over the last 2 years.
  Recently, the Bush administration issued a clarification to our Cuban 
export policy which changed the payment terms of cash sales to Cuba. 
The Treasury Department rule will make it more difficult to sell 
agricultural products to Cuba.
  The amendment would reverse the Treasury rule by returning it to the 
status quo payment terms. That has worked well since 2001. It also 
would cut some of the redtape that makes United States producers less 
competitive in the Cuban market.
  Expanding international markets in our hemisphere and the world will 
have a positive impact on the lives of Americans. All sectors, 
especially American agricultural, benefit from the opportunity to sell 
products to other nations that create jobs in the United States. My 
home state of Indiana is a world leader in agricultural production and 
manufacturing. If we hope to sustain our economic strength in the 21st 
century, we must participate in an expanding global economy. We must 
aggressively pursue opportunities in new markets and we must keep our 
competitive advantage and sell our products worldwide.
  As a Senator, I worked in the Congress to support trade and economic 
policies that I believe are in the best long-term interests of our 
Nation. Constricting agricultural sales to Cuba would have little or no 
effect on the Cuban regime, particularly since the rest of the world 
does not participate in our embargo. It would, however, limit the 
ability of our farmers and our ranchers to sell their products abroad.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Craig-Baucus amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________