Accelerating the Increase in the Refundability of the Child Tax Credit - Motion to Proceed

ACCELERATING THE INCREASE IN THE REFUNDABILITY OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT—MOTION TO PROCEED

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

    Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Lugar in presenting the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. As the chairman has described, we will soon submit a substitute amendment consisting of the text of three bills: S. 925, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act as reported out of committee in April; S. 1161, the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, as reported out of committee in late May; and thirdly, a bill authorizing a new program, the Millennium Challenge Account which was initiated by the Bush administration in March of 2002. This program was authorized by the committee in legislation also reported in May. Since then, further discussions have occurred between myself, Senator Hagel, and the chairman which the chairman has already described. I will return to that subject in a few moments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMENDMENT NO. 1141

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

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

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

    Let us be clear what this issue is not about. The issue is not about abortion—although it is often portrayed as such by the proponents of Mexico City. Rather, the provision is about free speech and democratic values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

    Mr. LUGAR. I thank all Senators for their assistance in this procedure.

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

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

    There appears to be a sufficient second.

    The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the roll.

    Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. EDWARDS), the Senator from Florida (Mr. GRAHAM), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. MILLER) are necessarily absent.

    I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) would vote "nay."

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

    The result was announced—yeas 43, nays 53, as follows:

    The motion was rejected.

    Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

    Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.

    The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is now agreed to.

    The amendment (No. 1141) was agreed to.

    Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

    Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.

    The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. REID. That was just information; it was not a unanimous consent request.

    We have been on this bill for just a few hours. I know, having managed a bill or two in my day, how important it is for the two managers of this bill to get their legislation passed.

    Everyone has to stop and pause a little bit. The last time this bill came up we spent 2 weeks on it. We are not going to finish this bill in 3 hours. Everyone should understand that. I know there are 20 amendments and 90 percent of them will be agreed to. There may be other amendments that the two managers are not aware of. It is important we move this long and we are certainly not trying to stall this legislation.

    However, I apologize to Senator Lautenberg because I thought we were going to do no more tonight. We have a joint function that Senators are to attend tonight and I told Senator Lautenberg we would not be doing any more tonight. So that is my fault. I did not know the manager would try to do other amendments. We have a lot of amendments that people want to offer but I didn't believe tonight that was going to happen.

    I told the two leaders I would work during the night to find out some indication of what we would have tomorrow but in the few minutes since I spoke with the distinguished majority leader there are people who want to offer amendments. The vast majority of those amendments are related to this bill; they are not unrelated. Senator Murray has indicated she wants to offer an amendment on unemployment benefits. We want to make sure she has an opportunity to do that.

    I don't want to rain on the parade other than to say this bill is not going to be finished early tomorrow.

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

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

    I yield the floor.

    Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand this bill is very important. The two managers have both talked to me how important they think it is, and I acknowledge it is important. We will try to help them any way we can to get this bill passed.

    The good news is Senator Lautenberg has heard us talking and he is on his way back. That is an amendment that will be disposed of tonight. I look forward to working with the two managers tomorrow to see what we can do to help expedite this legislation.

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

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