Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I propose, similar to what the Senator from New Hampshire said, that the Senator from Kansas has the time he already used, plus 30 minutes, during which he will have offered and spoken on or yielded to others to speak on his two amendments, and then the Senator from California have up to 30 minutes, either to speak or to yield to others and to offer her amendment. Then the amendments be set aside to be voted on prior to final passage at a time to be determined by the two managers.

Mr. LEAHY. And in an order to be determined by the two managers?

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is right, there will have to be votes on these amendments prior to final passage.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45 p.m. today, whatever is pending be set aside and the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in sequence, the other votes, if they require a rollcall, be limited to 10 minutes each: the Ensign amendment No. 2700, Lieberman amendment No. 2691, Brownback amendment No. 2707, Boxer amendment No. 2719, and the Brownback amendment No. 2708.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, both Senator Gregg and I will oppose this amendment. In doing so, we are supporting President Bush's number on these dues. The fact is, we can't ask the U.N. to carry out peacekeeping missions unless we pay our dues. For example, this Congress pushed very hard to have the U.N. do a peacekeeping mission in Darfur just last month. After we pushed for that, they agreed to it. Now we have to do what our own Ambassador says, what President Bush has said, and what the Secretary of State has said: We have to pay our share of peacekeeping operations. I would hope Senators will join with the distinguished ranking member and myself and oppose this amendment by voting no. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEAHY. I am voting no and actually supporting the administration on this position.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the next amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. And the amendment be accepted.

Mr. LEAHY. I think the next amendment is 2707.

Mr. LEAHY. That is true. I would say to my colleague from Arkansas that this subcommittee is not satisfied with the performance of the Department in the last few months with respect to the adjudication and distribution of passports in a timely fashion. We recognize that a tremendous number of dedicated public servants at all levels of the State Department have been putting in long hours trying to get rid of the backlog in passports. We think it is very important, however, especially as the deadline for implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative gets closer, that the Department be better prepared to handle spikes in demand for passports and to disseminate better information about the procedures and options available for getting expedited passports.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, no one, no one supports forced abortion or forced sterilization. Let's be honest about that. What this is, there is a provision in the U.S. law called the Kemp-Kasten amendment. It is designed to ensure that U.S. Government funds do not go to organizations engaged in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. We all support that. But the law has been construed differently by the White House to deny funds to the UNFPA because it is a program in China. The irony is they are trying to give alternatives to abortion. They are trying to give alternatives to forced sterilization. If we agree to this amendment, then what we are saying is we will turn our backs on the most populous nation on Earth, a country that is rapidly becoming the largest contributor to global warming, and we will not support a program that will give them alternatives to abortion and forced sterilization. I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Boxer for her leadership on this issue of such importance to the health of the world's poorest women. On his first day in office in January 2001, President Bush, by executive order, with no prior consultation with Congress, reinstated the controversial Mexico City policy on international family planning. The President explained his decision with these words: It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City policy should be restored. If U.S. law did, in fact, permit taxpayer funds to be used to pay for or promote abortions overseas, then the President might have had a point. But our law does not allow that. Our law explicitly prohibits any U.S. funds from being used for abortion or to promote abortion. That is the settled law of the United States. It was passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It is something we have all supported. In fact, it has been the law for as long as I can remember, even during past administrations. It is already against the law to use taxpayer funds for purposes related to abortion. Somebody should have told that to President Bush. In fact, the Mexico City policy, which he reinstated and has maintained ever since, goes much, much further. Many have called it a ``global gag rule.'' It prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to support private family planning organizations, if they use even one dollar of their own private funds--not taxpayer funds, but private funds--to provide advice, counseling, and information about abortions, and to advocate for safe abortion practices in countries where tens of thousands of women suffer injuries or die from complicatlons from unsafe abortions. If we tried to impose the Mexico City policy on any family planning organization within our borders, it would violate the first amendment. But we impose it on those same organizations when they work overseas beyond the reach of our Constitution. Proponents of the Mexico City policy say that it will reduce the number of abortions. There is not a shred of evidence to support that illogical argument. The reality is the opposite. The International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is cut off from U.S. Government support because of this policy, used every U.S. tax dollar it received in the past to provide voluntary family planning services, like contraceptives, to couples who lack them. By providing for the first time modern birth control methods to people in countries where abortion was the primary method of birth control, the number of abortions goes down. I remember the distinguished former Senator from Oregon, Senator Mark Hatfield, a dear friend of mine, one of the most revered Members of this body, who became chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Hatfield was fervently pro-life, opposed to abortion, very strong in his beliefs. I remember a debate on the Mexico City policy when he stood here--and he probably said it best. I will quote what he said: It is a proven fact that when contraceptive services are not available to women throughout the world, abortion rates increase. The Mexico City policy is unacceptable to me as someone who is strongly opposed to abortion. Contrary to a lot of the press reports, this issue is about far more than abortion. It is about protecting the health of women in desperately poor countries where more than half a million women die each year from complications relating to pregnancy, and where women have little control over their own bodies or their lives. We have the opportunity, at very little expense, to help. Instead--not to save money but to make a political point--we cut off that help. The Mexico City policy has been the subject of more political posturing, more press releases, more fundraising letters, more debates, more votes, and more Presidential vetoes, than virtually any other issue I can think of. I remember when President Clinton did the right thing by repealing the Mexico City policy. When he did that, a Republican Congress responded by sharply cutting funding for voluntary family planning--not funding for abortions but for voluntary family planning. President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget request for family planning does the same thing. His budget would cut it drastically, contrary to what he said he would do back in 2001. The predictable, tragic result would be an increase in the number of abortions and of deaths of women from botched abortions. Again, the evidence is indisputable that when family planning services are available, the number of abortions goes down. I have traveled to many parts of the world. My wife is a registered nurse. She has traveled with me. We have seen how bad the situation is. We have seen how a little help can move women in many parts of the world generations ahead of where they are today. That is what the Boxer amendment would do. It would restore U.S. credibility and leadership on an issue of great importance to global health, to population growth, to global warming, and to the work of private organizations to make lifesaving services available to the world's poorest women.

Mr. LEAHY. The first one in order will be Coburn No. 2773.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend my previous consent request to reflect, where I said Kyl material support. It is Kyl-Leahy material support; and where I said Kyl-Leahy sense of the Senate, Egypt, it is Kyl-Lieberman.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments remaining in order to H.R. 2764 be the following, and a managers' amendment which has been cleared by the managers and the leaders; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to each amendment equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no second-degree amendment be in order prior to the vote; and that after the first vote in the sequence, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes each: Coburn amendment No. 2773; Coburn amendment No. 2716; Coburn amendment No. 2706; Coburn amendment No. 2704; Cardin amendment No. 2689; Brown amendment No. 2701; Vitter amendment No. 2774; a Levin sense of the Senate on Iraq refugees; a Kyl amendment on material support; a Coleman amendment on UNDP; Obama amendment No. 2692, with a modification; a Kyl-Leahy sense of the Senate on Egypt; a Bingaman amendment on UNFPA; that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time, and without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Nevada yield to me?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator yield for another question? I also note in here S. 1927 basically gives a great deal----

Mr. LEAHY. Would the Chair please state who the sponsors are of the two individual pieces of legislation?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Rockefeller-Levin bill might not be precisely the bill I would have written to fix the problem, but it is a responsible and targeted fix to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, problem that has been identified. It is an appropriate response to the need expressed by Director of National Intelligence McConnell regarding our foreign intelligence collection overseas. In addition, it tries to preserve some balance and some protections for the civil liberties of Americans by keeping the FISA Court involved when there are significant communications to and from the United States. I have been briefed by the DNI and his staff and met with him several times recently about a problem that our intelligence agencies are having in collecting information from overseas. I have said that I am willing to fix this problem, and I am. I have proposed ways to fix this identified problem. It might not be everything he would like, his wish list, but it solves his problem. The Congress has shown that it is willing and able to reform FISA when changes are needed. We have done so many times since FISA was first passed in 1978 and at least half a dozen times since September 11, 2001. I believe such a targeted, responsible fix is justified. To achieve that fix, I would vote for Rockefeller-Levin. We could enact the needed change immediately. As I have indicated, it is not everything that I would have wanted or drafted precisely as I would have written it. But it does the job and achieves a better balance than any viable alternative. I have worked with Senator Rockefeller for weeks on this matter and appreciate his leadership on this matter, as well as that of Senator Levin. The problem our intelligence agencies are having is with targeting communications overseas. We want them to be able to intercept calls between two people overseas with a minimum of difficulty. Obviously, the situation is complicated when people overseas might be talking to people here in the United States. These calls could be innocent conversations of businesspeople, tourists, our troops overseas to their families, or to other friends or family in the United States. We should want to give the Government great flexibility to listen to foreign-to- foreign calls, while still protecting privacy of innocent Americans by making sure the Government gets warrants when they are involved. The Rockefeller-Levin bill accomplishes both of these things. It provides a very flexible standard up front for the Government--it is only required to go to the court for approval of procedures for how it will know that the targets are, in fact, overseas. There is no case-by- case application and approval of warrants for these overseas targets. There is even an initial emergency provision that would allow the Government to start these interceptions before the court has done anything. To protect Americans, the House bill requires the Government to have guidelines--and show them to the Congress--for how it will determine when a target is having regular communications with the United States. Then they need to go back to the regular FISA procedures and show probable cause. Also, the Department of Justice inspector general must do an audit of the conduct under this bill to see how much information about people in the United States is being collected and must provide that audit to the court and Congress. Because this process has been so expedited and the issues involved are so significant, the bill would sunset in 180 days, so the Congress and the administration will have an opportunity to review it and act in a more deliberative way on these important issues. Some things were added here that I might not have done. It now applies to all foreign intelligence targets, not just those involving international terrorism. It also does not require the court to review and approve the guidelines for handling significant communications with the United States, only the Congress sees this. These aspects trouble me. They are significant. The Director of National Intelligence has said that with these changes, the bill solves his problems and would significantly enhance our national security. This bill should resolve the matter, but this administration does not know how to take ``yes'' for an answer. Regrettably, what has come over from the administration and has been introduced here by Senator Bond and Senator McConnell goes far beyond what the DNI said he needs and I fear would be very harmful to the civil liberties of Americans. The bill the administration has proposed is a vast rewrite of the FISA law that undercuts the purposes of that act in significant ways. What the administration has done is leverage a fixable problem into passage of a wish list of ways to give the Attorney General and through him the White House virtual unfettered authority to conduct surveillance. It would take away any meaningful role for the FISA Court for calls between overseas and the United States. In fact, because it is not restricted to terrorism but involves any foreign intelligence, the administration's bill gives them far greater authority than they had claimed in their secret, warrantless surveillance program. This bill allows Attorney General Gonzales to order surveillance. This Attorney General is in charge of decisions about when to conduct surveillance and can instruct the court to enforce those decisions. In effect, the only role for the court under this bill is as an enforcement agent--it is to rubberstamp the Attorney General's decisions and use its authority to order telephone companies to comply. The court would be stripped of its authority to serve as a check and to protect the privacy of people within the United States. Their bill likewise requires no review or audit by the Justice Department or anyone else about the number of U.S. communications that are being gathered by these orders. I believe it is important to solve the problem our intelligence agencies are having right now. It is also essential to preserve the critical role of the FISA Court in protecting civil liberties of Americans. The House bill will do both of these things better than its alternatives.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after the overthrow of Ethiopia's brutal former Prime Minister Mengistu, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi ushered in a period of hope and optimism. On May 15, 2005, Ethiopia held its first open multiparty elections. The international community praised the people of Ethiopia for an astounding 90 percent voter participation rate, an encouraging beginning to a new political process. The Ethiopian people deserve a democratic process in which opposition parties can organize and participate, and journalists can publish freely, without fear of arrest or retribution. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the 2005 election was not the turning point many had hoped for. Early polls suggested the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy Party would make gains in the Ethiopian Parliament that could threaten the control of Prime Minister Meles' ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. These reports were followed by credible allegations of manipulation of the vote-counting process. When the government finally announced results that assured its continued hold on power, thousands of people took to the streets in protest. The police arrested over 30,000 people and some 193 people were killed. Although most of the protesters were released soon after their arrest, 70 opposition leaders and journalists remained in prison. Following these events, I wrote to Ethiopia's Ambassador Kassahun Ayele and officials at the State Department to express my concern with the imprisonment of the Ethiopian politicians. Human rights organizations and other international figures condemned the detentions and urged Prime Minister Meles to release them. These efforts were to no avail. Some detainees remained in jail for over 2 years before being brought to trial in a manner that was incompatible with international standards of justice. Last month, they were convicted of such vague charges as ``outrage against the constitution'' and ``inciting armed opposition.'' They were stripped of their rights to vote and to run for public office. Several were sentenced to life in prison. Nothing was done to prosecute the police officers who fired on the protesters. The situation had gone from bad to worse. Then suddenly, less than 2 weeks ago, the Ethiopian Government announced the pardon and release of 38 opposition leaders. I am pleased that Prime Minister Meles heeded the pleas of the Ethiopian people and the international community and released these prisoners. The fact is, none of them should have been arrested or tried in the first place. Their release was long overdue and is welcome. I hope the government acts expeditiously to release the remaining political detainees, and bring to justice police officers who used excessive force. I also hope the negotiations that resulted in the prisoners' release will lead to further discussions between the government and the leaders of the opposition, to ensure that their political rights are fully restored and that future elections are not similarly marred. While this news is positive, it comes at a time when journalists and representatives of humanitarian organizations report human rights abuses of civilians, including torture, rape and extrajudicial killings, by Ethiopian security forces, including those trained and equipped by the U.S., in the Ogaden region. Congressman Donald Payne, chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and a vocal defender of human rights and democracy in Ethiopia, inserted into the Congressional Record a June 18, 2007, New York Times article that described these abuses. This situation is also addressed in the Senate version of the fiscal year 2008 State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and report, which were reported by the Appropriations Committee on July 10. The Appropriations Committee seeks assurance from the State Department that military assistance for Ethiopia is being adequately monitored and is not being used against civilians by units of Ethiopia's security forces. We need to know that the State Department is investigating these reports. We also want to see effective measures by the Ethiopian Government to bring to justice anyone responsible for such abuses. Unfortunately, it appears that the Bush administration has made little effort to monitor military aid to Ethiopia. It is no excuse that the Ethiopian military has impeded access to the Ogaden, as it has done. In fact, this should give rise to a sense of urgency. If we cannot properly investigate these reports, and if the Leahy law which prohibits U.S. assistance to units of foreign security forces that violate human rights is not being applied because the U.S. Embassy cannot determine the facts, then we should not be supporting these forces. As if the allegations of human rights violations were not enough, the New York Times reported on July 22 that the Ethiopian military is blocking food aid to the Ogaden region. The article also claimed that the military is ``siphoning off millions'' of dollars intended for food aid and a UN polio eradication program. A subsequent article on July 26 indicated that the World Food Program and the Ethiopian Government have reached agreement, after weeks of discussions, on a process for getting food aid through the military blockade to civilians in the Ogaden region. But the same article also reported that regional Ethiopian officials have expelled the Red Cross. During the Cold War we supported some of the world's most brutal, corrupt dictators because they were anti-Communist. Their people, and our reputation, suffered as a result. Now the White House seems to support just about anyone who says they are against terrorism, no matter how undemocratic or corrupt. It is short sighted, it tarnishes our image, and it will cost us dearly in the long term. Prime Minister Meles has been an ally against Islamic extremism in the Horn of Africa, for which we are grateful. But there are serious concerns with Ethiopia's U.S.-supported military invasion of Somalia. It has led to some of the same problems associated with the Bush administration's misguided decision to invade Iraq without a plan for leaving the country more stable and secure than before the overthrow of Saddam. Iraq's partition now seems only a matter of time, and it is hard to be optimistic that Somalia a year from now will be any more secure, or any less of a threat to regional stability, than before the influx of Ethiopian troops. Ethiopia is also a poor country that has faced one natural or man- made disaster after another, and the U.S. has responded with hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian and other assistance. We have a long history of supporting Ethiopia and its people, and we want to continue that support. But our support to the government is not unconditional. We will not ignore the unlawful imprisonment of political opponents or the mistreatment of journalists. We will not ignore reports of abuses of civilians by Ethiopian security forces