Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 20th anniversary of Habitat for Humanity, Fresno. Habitat for Humanity, Fresno was formed in 1985. For the past 20 years, Habitat for Humanity has been a champion in the community on behalf of those who cannot afford homes. The mission of Habitat for Humanity is to end poverty housing ``by uniting individuals, families and communities to build decent, affordable housing.'' Since its inception, Habitat for Humanity, Fresno has helped build over 35 homes. The process through which it helps to build homes demonstrates its dedication to its mission. Habitat for Humanity stresses that it does not build homes for families. It facilitates the building of homes. While the difference may seem slight, it is in fact one of the sources of success for this organization. To qualify for aid from Habitat for Humanity, families must show that they are invested in building a home. This investment, or dedication, will serve as the foundation from which a house is built. Habitat for Humanity chooses its families regardless of ethnicity. It provides aid to low income families who show a willingness to partner with the community. This willingness to partner serves to perpetuate an altruistic sense of participation and involvement within the community. And indeed, Habitat for Humanity is fueled by the dedication and goodwill of volunteers. Since 1985, Habitat for Humanity has hosted over 7,000 volunteers. These volunteers range in age, ethnicity, gender and occupation. The diverse background of these volunteers is representative of the far reach that Habitat for Humanity has in the community. The homes they construct are built with the love, strength and dedication of a community. The mission of Habitat for Humanity goes far beyond merely building houses. Through its work in the community Habitat for Humanity not only builds houses, it builds strength within the community and confidence in its recipients. I congratulate Habitat for Humanity, Fresno on the celebration of its 20th anniversary and wish them continued success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2005'' to ensure that our Nation's pharmacies fill all valid prescriptions without unnecessary delay or interference. We are hearing more and more stories about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for contraceptives because of their personal beliefs, not their medical concerns. Some of my constituents have told me about their experiences. One woman in Merced County was turned away by a pharmacist who said ``we don't do that here,'' but, less than two hours later, another pharmacist in the store filled the same prescription for another customer immediately. It's not just in California, of course. In Menomonie, WI, a pharmacist told a woman he wouldn't fill her prescription for birth control pills or even transfer her prescription to another pharmacy. In Fabens, TX, a married woman had just had a baby. It had been a C-section. Her doctor told her not to get pregnant again in the near future, and prescribed birth control pills. She went to get her prescription refilled while visiting her mother in Fabens. Unfortunately, the cashier told her that the pharmacist wouldn't be able to refill her prescription because birth control was ``against his religion'' and was a form of ``abortion.'' The American people do not think this is right. According to a November 2004 CBS/New York Times poll, 8 out of 10 Americans believe that pharmacists should not be permitted to refuse to dispense birth control pills, including 70 percent of Republicans. They know that contraceptives are a legal and effective way to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. But this challenge is not just about contraceptives. It's about access to health care. It's about making decisions based on science and medicine. Tomorrow, pharmacists could refuse to dispense any drug for any medical condition. Access to pharmaceuticals should depend on medical judgments, not personal ideology. The Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act requires pharmacies that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding to fill all valid prescriptions for FDA- approved drugs and devices without unnecessary delay or interference. That means, if the item is not in stock, the pharmacy should order it according to its standard procedures, or, if the customer prefers, transfer it to another pharmacy or give the prescription back. There are medical reasons why a pharmacy wouldn't want to fill prescriptions including problems with dosages, harmful interactions with other drugs, or potential drug abuse. This bill would not interfere with those decisions. I know some are concerned about those pharmacists who do not want to dispense particular medications because of their personal beliefs, including their religious values. I believe that is between the pharmacist and his or her employer. In this bill, it is the responsibility of the pharmacy, not the pharmacist, to ensure that prescriptions are filled. Pharmacies can accommodate their employees in any manner that they wish as long as customers get their medications without delay, interference, or harassment. Most of our pharmacies receive reimbursements through Medicaid. When the prescription drug program goes into full effect in January, a growing number will be part of Medicare. If a pharmacy contracts with our Medicaid or Medicare programs, directly or indirectly, they should fulfill their fundamental duty to the patients they serve. Most pharmacists work hard and do right by their patients every day. They believe in science. They believe that if a doctor writes a valid prescription, it should be filled. But, unfortunately, some have put their personal views over the health of their patients. That is wrong. When people walk into a pharmacy, they should have confidence that they will get the medications they need, when they need them. The Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2005 will help ensure just that.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the memory of a very special man, Martin Mackey of Marin County, CA, who died on March 25, 2005. He was 87 years old. Martin Mackey was born in San Francisco. He earned his engineering degree from Stanford and entered the Navy Midshipman Reserve Training Program. He served in the Navy during World War II and was trained in antisubmarine warfare. Martin met his wife Mary while on leave in Seattle during World War II. They were engaged 5 days later. Martin and Mary just celebrated their 61st wedding anniversary last December. After the war and after 22 years of steel and concrete sales with a multinational company, Martin retired with a desire to change the world. The year was 1968, and he was deeply disturbed by social injustice and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy. He went on a weekend retreat with his wife Mary to figure out what he should contribute to make our world a better place. Martin played a key role in bringing affordable housing to Marin County. President Lyndon Johnson had just signed the Housing Act into law. Martin's good friend, Larry Livingston, who was a city and regional planner, told Martin that Marin County badly needed low and moderate-income housing. Martin was convinced. As chairman of the Social Concerns Committee at Marin County Unitarian Church, he called upon ministers throughout the county to form a social action group to respond to the community's housing needs. They met in a rent-free office in the attic of a convent. Then he called upon other leaders and friends in the community to join their efforts. This social action group of faith and community leaders began to raise money and became the Ecumenical Association for Housing, EAH, still in existence today. EAH began with 24 organizations, each pledging $200. Martin selflessly accepted a salary of $1 to serve as executive director. EAH quickly took off and began lending money to architects and regional groups to build affordable housing projects throughout Marin. Their first project was Pilgrim Park, a 61 unit, low-income housing development in San Rafael. For more than 22 years, Martin devoted himself to EAH and affordable housing. Martin worked to persuade citizens and elected officials to accept low and moderate-income housing in their wealthy communities. To develop his knowledge and save EAH outside consultant fees, Martin went to Catholic University in Washington, DC, to take a 2-month course in how to be a housing consultant. He eventually expanded his services and consulted for affordable housing projects in other parts of the Bay Area as well as Arizona. From its origins as the fledgling group Martin founded in 1968 to a 325-person staff and $6 million budget, EAH has completed 62 projects and 4,556 housing units in the Bay area and beyond. Martin was a dynamic figure in Marin County. My staff and I always knew we could call on him for invaluable information and sound advice. He was a passionate and effective advocate for affordable housing. He led EAH with a sense of humor and a deep appreciation for the dedicated individuals who worked with him. His accomplishments in creating affordable housing for Marin residents is legendary. He was also a respected member of the Marin community and a wonderful, inspiring man who will be deeply missed. We take comfort in knowing that countless future generations will benefit from his courage, his vision and his leadership.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Murray in cosponsoring this important amendment to increase veterans health care funding. We owe it to our veterans, who have so bravely served our country, to give them the best medical care possible. It is disappointing that funding for veterans programs, especially veterans health care, has not kept pace with either the increased number of veterans in the system or medical inflation. This amendment is crucial to providing veterans with the services they have earned. As I have talked to veterans in California--and as I have met with returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan--I have come to one disturbing conclusion: we are not serving all of the needs of our veterans now and we are not prepared to serve the tens of thousands of veterans who will be returning over the next couple of years. Senator Murray's amendment begins to address this situation. It will increase veterans health care funding by almost $2 billion. This includes $610 million for new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Funding for these veterans is not included in the current VA budget. In addition, each of the 21 veterans regions will receive $40 million to address their budget shortfalls. This will allow each region to determine how the funds can best be used to benefit their veteran population. I am especially pleased that this amendment includes funding designated for veterans mental health care. Specifically, $525 million is designated to expand mental health services, with $150 million targeted for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder--PTSD. The VA has estimated that 30 percent of men and women currently serving in the Armed Forces will need treatment for mental illness or readjustment issues. That is why this funding is so critical. This amendment has the support of many veterans organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, and Paralyzed Veterans of America. They realize, as I do, how crucial it is that this funding be made available. Without it, the VA will not be able to meet the needs of the men and women who have so bravely served our country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the Miracle League, an organization dedicated to providing opportunities for all children to play baseball, regardless of their abilities. In 1997, Coach Eddie Bagwell of the Rockdale Youth Baseball Association in Atlanta, GA, noticed a young boy in a wheelchair on the sidelines at all of the youth baseball team's practices and games. The enthusiasm and excitement that this boy had for baseball was inspiring and it was then that Coach Eddie realized that youth with disabilities ought to have the same opportunities as others to play ball. In 1988, Coach Bagwell formed the Miracle League, a youth baseball league designed to allow children of all abilities to participate in our Nation's favorite pastime--baseball. The league started with 35 children. The following year, the number more than doubled, with 80 children clamoring to join a team. Since the Miracle League was breaking new ground, it came up with five rules to play by: every player bats once each inning; all base runners are safe; every player scores a run before the inning is over (last one up gets a home run); community volunteers serve as ``buddies'' to assist the players; and each team and each player wins every game. As word spread quickly, Miracle League baseball teams were started across the country. In my home State of California, there are now four Miracle League teams: in Belmont, Westminster, Ventura County, and Visalia. Nationwide, there are more than 50 Miracle League teams. I commend the Miracle League for its philosophy that ``Every Child Deserves a Chance to Play Baseball.'' As the Miracle League begins its Spring 2005 season, I send my best wishes for a fun and exiting season. Play Ball!

Mrs. BOXER

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

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.

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.

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.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, 10 minutes each and no second-degree amendments; is that part of it?

Mrs. BOXER. Then I have no objection.

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?

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

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. 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. 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 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.

Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator also then make the unanimous consent request for the 40/20 so I know that is in line?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I so appreciate my colleague coming to the floor and taking time to express his views, but I think it is very important to straighten out the record. What my colleague is talking about is putting strings on U.S. taxpayer funds. That is the Helms amendment, and that has been the law since 1973. What the global gag rule does is different. It tells nongovernmental organizations abroad that they will lose U.S. funding if they use their own funds not ours, but theirs--to lobby to change egregious laws in their country. In order for a nongovernmental organization to fight to change an egregious law, like the one that used to exist in Napal--which I know my friend would not agree with--that nongovernmental organization, I tell my friend, had to give back their USAID money because they were using their own funds to change the laws of Nepal. So we gagged this nongovernmental organization from helping a child who was raped. The rapist did not go to prison. The rapist--the uncle--was free. The parents did not go to prison even though they forced her to have an illegal abortion. The child went to prison. The only way the nongovernmental organization was able to work to change the law in that country, which punished a child who was a victim of incest, was to give back the USAID money. Otherwise, they could not lobby for law changes in their own country. Now, I use that example because it shows why this law is so egregious. And again, to make the point to my friend, the Helms amendment, which has been in place since 1973, already precludes U.S. Federal funds from being used by nongovernmental organizations in any aspect having to do with abortion. They already cannot use our funds to perform abortion. They already cannot use our funds to refer. They already can't use funds to advocate. That is taken care of. The global gag rule is different from that. It is putting a gag around the very people who are trying to help prevent pregnancies, who are trying to help girls such as Min Min in Nepal who was the victim of incest. That is plain wrong. I don't mind my friend disagreeing with me. And we do agree on many issues and have worked together and will continue to. But I would hope we would not confuse the Helms amendment, which has been in place since 1973 and does not allow a penny of taxpayer funds to go in any way to the provision of abortion services. Don't confuse that with the gag rule, which keeps nongovernmental organizations from being able to use their own funds as they see fit to help women and girls in tragic circumstances such as the one I described by changing the repressive laws in some of their countries. I urge my friend to please be clear that these are different issues. We already deny the use of Federal funds for anything having to do with overseas abortion or its lobbying. But the gag rule takes it a step further and says these organizations that work so hard in the toughest environments cannot use their own funds in the way they see fit to advocate for changes in the law, to help women understand what their options are. And it is antithetical to the United States of America, to freedom of speech. My friend knows we couldn't do that here. We couldn't tell people here that they can't talk to their patients. That would be unconstitutional. I urge my colleagues to please vote on what this issue is, not on what this issue is not. We live with the Helms rule. We are not changing that. We simply want to get rid of this global gag rule today. I hope Members will vote aye on the Boxer-Snowe amendment.

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.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the Boxer-Snowe amendment. It is very important to make sure women around the world are given the health care they deserve. Since 1973, the Helms amendment has been in place. That means no American funds can ever be used for anything to do with abortion. But the global gag rule which we are trying to overturn goes much further. It says nonprofit organizations overseas cannot use their own money to help a woman by giving her options, by giving her a referral. It even says a nongovernmental organization would lose all their USAID funding if they advocated to change a very restrictive law in their own country. This is clearly unconstitutional if it were applied here in America. With our men and women dying around the world for freedom, I do not think we should say there should be no freedom of speech in these countries. We overturned this law many times. I hope we will do it again. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask that this amendment be adopted.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Gregg, Conrad, Stevens, and Sununu. We are all working together to make sure that our oceans can finally get the attention they deserve. We have a new commission on oceans. Admiral Watkins is working hard on that commission. What we are doing, which has been agreed to on all sides, is simply saying we need to enact a comprehensive, coordinated, integrated national ocean policy that will ensure the long-term economic and ecological health of the U.S. oceans, coasts, and lakes. I think it is wonderful that we can come together on this, and on the Commerce Committee we will be working to make sure this happens. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Comptroller General of GAO tells us that prepackaged news that is put together by Federal agencies is unacceptable and that--I am quoting them--``Americans deserve to know when their Government is spending taxpayer money to try to influence them.'' My amendment simply encourages agencies to add a disclaimer to those prepackaged news stories that says ``Paid for by the United States Government.'' This is very important for the taxpayers to know it is their money that is being spent. I hope and I wish the other side would agree to this amendment. If not, I guess we will have to have a vote. I yield the floor.