Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, this past weekend, at the Northrop- Grumman shipbuilding facility in Pascagoula, MS, the USS Gravely, the 57th Arleigh Burke class Aegis Guided Missile Destroyer, was christened in honor of the late VADM Samuel L. Gravely, Jr. Vice Admiral Gravely was born in 1922, in Richmond, VA. In 1942, Gravely interrupted his education at Virginia Union University and enlisted in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He attended officer training camp at the University of California in Los Angeles after boot camp at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station in Illinois, and then midshipman school at Columbia University. When he boarded his first ship in May of 1945, he became its first African-American officer. Gravely was the first African-American to command a fighting ship, the USS Falgout, and to command a major warship, the USS Jouett. As a full commander, he made naval history in 1966 as the first African- American commander to lead a ship, the USS Taussig, into direct offensive action. He was the first African-American to achieve flag rank and eventually vice admiral. In 1976, Gravely became the commander of the entire Third Fleet, commanding over 100 ships, 60,000 sailors, and overseeing more than 50 million square miles of ocean. Gravely's tenure in the naval service was challenged with the difficulties of racial discrimination. As a new recruit, he was trained in a segregated unit; as an officer, he was barred from living in the bachelor's officers' quarters. In 1945, when his first ship reached its berth in Key West, FL, he was specifically forbidden entry into the officers club on the base. Gravely survived the indignities of racial prejudice and displayed unquestionable competence as a naval officer. Gravely exemplified the highest standards and demanded very high standards from his crew. Throughout his career, he stressed the rudiments of professionalism--intelligence, appearance, seamanship and, most importantly, pride. Vice Admiral Gravely was a trailblazer for African-Americans in the military arena. He fought for equal rights quietly but effectively, letting his actions and his military record speak for him. Gravely died on October 22, 2004, at the naval hospital in Bethesda, MD. In a fitting tribute, the obituary on the U.S. Department of Defense Web site quoted Gravely's formula for success: ``My formula is simply education plus motivation plus perseverance.'' Samuel L. Gravely, Jr.'s performance and leadership as an African- American naval officer demonstrated to America the value and strength of diversity. He was a true professional with superb skills as a seaman and admirable leadership attributes. The USS Gravely, christened in Pascagoula, will reflect his character, his forthrightness, and his steadfastness and will stand for and deliver his legacy wherever it serves. His spirit aboard the USS Gravely will be an inspiration to its crew, the U.S. Navy, and Americans for generations to come. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 4 minutes.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 798 and ask for its consideration.

Mr. WICKER. The amendment is very simple and straightforward. It aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm. I emphasize, this bill deals with checked, secure luggage, not carry-on luggage. It would apply to Amtrak the same as airlines.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, if I could understand the order, do I understand that the time is equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the amendment and that we are to vote at approximately 10 after noon; is that correct?

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Vermont will yield on that point?

Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, I await their remarks, and I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. WICKER. Well, I do not ask for that, Madam President. Now, I asked if the Senator will yield on his time. I yielded to him on my time just a moment ago.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I am prepared to close, and I assume the Senator from Vermont will do so also. The Senator from Vermont says the money in this bill will go to sanitization, to protect against child marriage, to protect against female genital mutilation, to promote maternal health care. No one objects to that. If the President of the United States, under the Wicker amendment and under the 25-year-old Kemp-Kasten provision, can certify that such organizations do not promote coercion in the name of family planning, then the money will go to these worthy causes. The question is, Why does the Senator from Vermont and the people who agree with him on this issue not trust the President of their own political party to make a determination? Now, the Senator says that the Kemp-Kasten language is still in the bill. I would submit that, in fact, is not true. The bill purports to retain Kemp-Kasten, but it goes on to say that funds will be directed to the United Nations Population Fund ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' I say to my friend from Vermont, that is the change in the law that guts Kemp-Kasten, that changes 23 years to 25 years of Federal policy and allows U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent for coercive sterilization, for forced abortion, and that is the issue. Yes, Kemp-Kasten is purported to be in the bill, and then it is gutted in the next paragraph. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. I thank the Chair. I would inquire of the Senator from Vermont if he has further speakers?

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, may I inquire of the Chair as to how the remainder of time will be divided?

Mr. WICKER. If I may, let me begin the debate. I understand Senator Brownback and others may be coming also. I had, frankly, understood the debate would begin later so I rushed over from a hearing. The Senator from Vermont has questioned the necessity of this amendment. Actually, I will point out to my colleagues that what the Wicker amendment does is restore the Kemp-Kasten provision that has been a part of the foreign policy of this Nation for almost a quarter century. It has worked well under Republican and Democratic administrations. I submit it would be wrong to change that policy at this point. What does Kemp-Kasten say? Kemp-Kasten says Federal funds, American taxpayer dollars, should not go to fund coercive abortion practices or involuntary sterilization practices. It prohibits the appropriation of American dollars to organizations involved in such activities. But it has always made provision that the President of the United States has the right to investigate and certify whether these organizations have been engaged in practices involving coercive family planning activities. Should my amendment pass, President Obama would have the same authority President Reagan, President Bush 1, President Bush 2, and President Clinton had to make this certification. In other words, the Wicker amendment keeps the Federal policy as it has been, and the underlying bill would amount to a dramatic shift in foreign policy. Why do we need the amendment to begin with? I quote from a letter, dated June 26, 2008, from John D. Negroponte, the Deputy Secretary of State, to Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on this question, wherein he writes: As reflected in the law and as a matter of longstanding policy, the United States opposes coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. Let me interject at this point. Certainly, that should still be the policy of the United States. That should always be the policy of this Federal Government, that we oppose coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. The letter goes on: I have determined that by providing financial and technical resources through its sixth cycle China Country Program to the National Population and Family Planning Commission and related entities, UNFPA provides support for and participates in management of the Chinese government's program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. If that is true, this Senate, this Congress has no business taking hard-earned tax dollars from taxpayers and sending them to UNFPA, if it, indeed, is true that they participate in the management of this coercive Chinese program. If it is not true, the President will be able to make a determination. But if he investigates the question and finds that such coercion is still being practiced in China and if American dollars, through UNFPA, are being used to assist the program, then I would hope he would truthfully make the determination and, once again, it would not be a matter of the U.S. taxpayer funding such awful practices. Now, let me read, then, from the Analysis of Determination that Kemp- Kasten Amendment Precludes Funding to UNFPA, which was attached to Secretary Negroponte's letter. The analysis says: China's birth limitation program retains harshly coercive elements in law and practice, including coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. That is what this debate is about. Do we want tax dollars of American workers to go for coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization? The analysis goes on to say: These measures include the implementation of birth limitation regulations, the provision of obligatory contraception services, and the use of incentives and penalties to induce compliance. Further quoting: [I]t is the provinces that establish detailed birth limitation policies by regulation, enforce their compliance and punish noncompliance. Quoting from the second page of this analysis: China's birth limitation program relies on harshly coercive measures, such as so-called ``social maintenance'' fees . . . the threat of job loss or demotion, loss of access to education-- If Chinese citizens do not comply with these harsh measures-- extreme social pressure, and economic incentives. In families that already have two children, one parent is often pressured to undergo sterilization. On the third page: Since fiscal year 2002, the Administration has reviewed annually UNFPA's program in China and determined that the U.S. cannot fund UNFPA in light of its support or participation in the management of China's program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Let's be careful. I would say to my colleagues, let's be careful with American tax dollars. Let's keep the provision that allows the President of the United States to make this determination. If there is evidence to prove that American tax dollars would be used by the United Nations to fund these coercive practices, then, for God's sake, let's not allow the U.S. taxpayers to be a party to these abhorrent and coercive practices. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up my amendment.

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

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 607: Senator Enzi, Senator Bunning, Senator Inhofe, Senator Coburn, Senator Vitter, and Senator Grassley.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I spoke at some length yesterday about this amendment. It deals with one issue and one issue only--whether U.S. taxpayer dollars will be provided in this omnibus bill to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President of the United States to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. As it has always done, the provision would allow the President to release those funds after he has made such a certification. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision. The omnibus bill that we have before us purports to retain Kemp-Kasten, but then it also includes six troubling words that effectively kill the provision. In addition to Kemp-Kasten, the bill directs funds to the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' Perhaps these words were added inadvertently. I don't know. But the words that are added--those six little words--represent a loophole that in effect guts Kemp-Kasten and alters this longstanding bipartisan foreign policy in the process. Some people may ask why restoring Kemp-Kasten is important, and here is why. The U.N. Population Fund, a group that is in line to receive some $50 million in this bill, has actively supported, comanaged, and whitewashed crimes against women under the cover of family planning. Under the Kemp-Kasten provision, the last administration withheld money from UNFPA for this very reason. I would like to quote then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, who stated: UNFPA support of and involvement in China's population planning activities allows the Chinese Government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time. That is the end of the quote from our Secretary of State. A further analysis by the U.S. State Department of the Chinese program on family planning reveals this--I will quote from the State Department analysis: China's birth limitation program retains harshly coercive elements in law and practice, including coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. Does anyone in this Senate want to spend U.S. funds to support these activities: coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization? I think we ought to have a unanimous consensus in the Congress that we have no business spending our taxpayers' dollars on such things. The report goes on to say: The State Department summarized these practices in its 2007 China Country Report on Human Rights Practices. . . . These measures include the implementation of birth limitation regulations, the provision of obligatory contraceptive services, and the use of incentives and penalties to induce compliance. Further in the report, and I continue to quote: China's Birth Limitation Program relies on harshly coercive measures such as so-called ``social maintenance'' fees. And to skip down further: In families that already have two children, one parent is often pressured to undergo sterilization. A number of provinces have legal provisions that require a woman to have an abortion if her pregnancy violates government regulations. . . . I wish we could stop this practice worldwide. China is a sovereign nation, and they have the power to impose these laws on their people. But taxpayer funds should not be spent from the U.S. Treasury to assist an organization that funds such practices in China. The most recent State Department report on UNFPA activities shows that their funds are indeed funneled to Chinese agencies that coercively enforce the very practices I just read about. Are we to believe that in less than a year the UNFPA has changed its practices? That is not a bet I am willing to take with the taxpayers' money. The Wicker amendment should be adopted to once again give the President, President Obama, the opportunity to certify that UNFPA, or any other organization, is not participating in family planning techniques such as the harsh techniques I just read about. My amendment does not represent a radical shift or departure from what is normal. In fact, it simply returns the language in this bill to language that was agreed upon by both Republicans and Democrats in last year's Foreign Operations appropriations bill during a time when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and controlled the Senate of the United States. The language that I am offering was agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats. Finally, there have been concerns voiced about the need not to make changes in this bill. We have been told this bill has been preconferenced. Persons say that in doing so we might delay the bill's passage by sending it back to the House for approval. I admit the funding contained in this bill is important, but that does not mean we can forget about our jobs as legislators. I do not believe the other body will let this bill die simply because we are doing what is right, by clarifying our country's policy of standing against coercive population control practices like forced abortion and forced sterilization. I realize opinions in this Chamber and across our country vary greatly on the issue of abortion. I am pro-life and I am mindful that some Members in this body would describe themselves as pro-choice. But regardless of where we come down on that issue, can't we agree that we do not want to spend taxpayer dollars to force this on women who do not want this procedure? We ought to all be able to agree that is wrong and that is a misuse of American taxpayer funds. The United States should not turn its head on coercive family control programs like sterilization and forced abortion, and our taxpayers should not have their dollars used to help fund such horrible acts. My amendment will help stop that from happening. It restores a longstanding foreign policy provision. It reflects our Nation's commitment to promoting human rights. I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to proceed and debate.

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, tomorrow I will rise to offer a pro-life and pro-child amendment to the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. But more than that, it will be an amendment that is profreedom that follows in the line of reasoning of my friend and my colleague from New Jersey. It is anti-oppression, prowoman and anticoercion. My amendment tomorrow will restore the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion population control provision that has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter of a century. Since 1985, the Kemp-Kasten provision has denied Federal funding to organizations or programs that, as determined by the President, support or participate in a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Should my amendment be adopted, then President Obama would be able to make an official determination as to whether organizations engage in such coercive practices. The Kemp-Kasten amendment has been included in appropriations bills without substantial changes for 23 years, until today. Perhaps at this point it would be helpful to my colleagues if I outlined the differences between the Mexico City policy and the Kemp-Kasten provision. Already, as one of his very first acts as President, President Obama chose to nullify the so-called Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy said the United States would not federally fund groups that promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning. According to a Gallup poll released last month, overturning this pro-life policy was the least popular of the President's actions in his first week in office. Only 35 percent supported funding groups that promote or provide abortions as a method of family planning, and 58 percent oppose this new Obama administration policy. I disagreed with President Obama on his Mexico City policy. I think most Americans, frankly, disagree with President Obama on this Mexico City decision. I think most Americans would rather not spend taxpayer dollars on international organizations that promote abortion as a method of family planning. Having said that, I am not surprised by the President's decision. He ran, frankly, as a pro-abortion candidate. Senator McCain ran as a pro- life candidate. I think the decision in the election came down to other issues. Elections have consequences, but can we not all agree that forced abortion is wrong? Can we not all agree that coerced sterilization is wrong? That is what Kemp-Kasten has stood for for almost a quarter of a century. Regardless of how Senators come down on the pro-life or pro-choice debate, can we not all at least agree on this one proposition, that the United Nations should not be able to spend American tax dollars on coercion in the name of family planning? That is the issue dealt with in Kemp-Kasten, and that is the only issue addressed in my amendment. Here is what the bill language currently does. It purports to retain Kemp-Kasten, but then goes on to direct funds to the United Nations Population Fund ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law''--these six words, in effect, nullify the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion provision. It is either contradictory or purposely deceptive that one portion of the omnibus bill purports to retain Kemp-Kasten while another paragraph has the real effect of gutting Kemp-Kasten. One might inquire: Why does the majority party not trust a President of their own party to make a determination about whether U.N. funds are provided to coercive abortion programs? Surely a majority of this body does not favor funding UNFPA even if the organization is engaging in coercion. Surely we can all agree on that. Perhaps not. The truth is, the U.N. Population Fund, UNFPA, has actively supported, comanaged, and whitewashed pervasive crimes against women in the guise of family planning. Just last year, the U.S. State Department found, once again, that the UNFPA violated the anticoercion provision of Kemp-Kasten and, accordingly, reprogrammed all funding originally earmarked to the UNFPA to other maternal health care and family planning projects. The most recent State Department report on UNFPA activities in China shows that UNFPA funds are, indeed, funneled to Chinese agencies that coercively enforce the one-child policy. What has changed in less than a year? Are we to believe that all these organizations have suddenly shifted their policies? This bill gives UNFPA a 25-percent funding increase and a deadly exception. What has really changed is that we have a new administration with a pro-abortion agenda. I don't think coerced abortions were what the American people voted for last November. Creating this exception specifically for UNFPA makes a mockery of longstanding U.S. policy to protect human rights abroad. If we cannot stop the abuse in other parts of the globe, at the very least we should not be encouraging abuse with U.S. funds. We should be pressing the UNFPA to conform to human rights standards, instead of trying to change human rights standards to conform to the oppressive Chinese population control program. By creating a loophole for UNFPA, we regrettably send a message to oppressive governments that coercive abortion is not a serious concern for American citizens. This message could not be further from the truth. I urge my colleagues tomorrow to support the Wicker amendment and continue our longstanding policy against coercive abortion. Let's continue the time-honored Kemp-Kasten policy. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.