Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple comments in regard to what Senator Murray has just put forward. She said we are talking about international facilities, but the amendment covers international and domestic facilities, which we have established here, so it would be domestic facilities. It is going to be abortion of all types. It could be abortion on demand at domestic facilities. If the Murray amendment is adopted, it would be for not just military personnel but also for minors, dependents who would be able to use these same facilities for abortion on demand. The reason I wanted to put forward a parental notification amendment is we will have a situation, if the Murray amendment is adopted and the amendment I would put forward is not accepted, we will have a situation at military bases throughout the United States of minors of military personnel seeking abortions and not notifying their parents and not having to notify their parents, even though State laws require a different situation. I want to check that point to make sure we would be able to do things differently on a military base than in State law. The point being we are talking about a massive expansion of the use of medical facilities on a very troubling area of the law. There is the issue the Senator from Washington raised about how this would actually work. I submit this is working fairly well right now. We are not receiving a huge level of complaints from women in the military saying: I want to be able to receive an abortion in any medical facility the military has anywhere in the world in cases outside of rape, incest, and life of the mother, which are currently provided. This is quite an expansive position on a very tense subject, and it is one that threatens to bring down the whole Department of Defense bill. I urge my colleagues, this is not the time and place for us to do this. It would be inappropriate to do so. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I think perhaps we are ready to proceed with a vote on the bill. I do not know if the Senator from Washington is ready to yield back her remaining time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am prepared to yield back my time. The issue has been well debated. People know the issue. It has been voted on before. I hope we can proceed with the vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. BROWNBACK. On your time, Mr. President.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you. Your amendment does not have conscience clause protection. That is already part of the base if you are a military physician, to be able to provide that. I want to hone in on what the amendment is about. It is about opening up DOD medical facilities, domestically and internationally--the Senator argues there won't be that much demand domestically, but it opens it up both ways to provide abortion on demand in the United States to U.S. military personnel and their dependents. So you are talking about a broad array of taxpayer-funded facilities you are opening up to provide abortions in Kentucky, Washington, Kansas, or wherever. I want to agree with the Senator from Washington that we are talking about the use of the facilities here--taxpayer-funded facilities--that provide abortions and not necessarily the doctor. The doctor may be recruited from outside and paid for privately, but you are using taxpayer-funded facilities to provide abortions. So you can see a situation in this country where you would have a military facility in Kentucky or in the State of Washington being protested by people who are pro-life because their taxpayer-funded facility is being used to provide abortions on demand--not just for the life of the mother, rape, and incest. Again, I recognize the strong support Senator Murray puts forward for the rights of women, and I applaud that. But we are talking about a very sensitive issue for a number of people when you talk about the use of taxpayer dollars to do something they really don't agree with. I don't think it is wise to do that, one. Two, I don't think we should be tying up the DOD authorization bill on probably the central most difficult issue of our day for people to really wrestle with. That is what this amendment would do. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to look at the actual text of the amendment and oppose the Murray amendment. I yield the floor and retain the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am honored to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Voinovich, to introduce this important piece of legislation that will address an area of our immigration law that is sorely neglected--unaccompanied alien children. Currently, these children face a legal loophole that can leave them in a confusing maze of technicalities, none of which actually help the child or the nation. This bill will fix that problem through several very straightforward remedies. Last year, through the Homeland Security Act, the responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was transferred from the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Refugee Resettlement. This was an important step in the right direction, but it did not accomplish everything we had hoped to do last year. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues in taking one more crack at providing safeguards for these vulnerable children. These safeguards are simple, but to the point. This legislation will ensure that the transfer of responsibilities mandated last year actually occurs in an orderly manner. It will remind Federal authorities to keep in mind the special needs and circumstances of unaccompanied children. It will ensure that these children have access to competent counsel and guardians ad litem when appropriate. Minimum standards for the care and custody of these unaccompanied alien children will be established, and the procedures for access to permanent protection for abused, abandoned or neglected children will be reformed. Finally, the legislation will require an annual report to Congress to ensure these provisions are being carried out faithfully. But that is all simply the legalese surrounding this issue. What's truly important are the children. That's the whole point of this legislation, and why I--and all of my colleagues who are cosponsors-- got involved and are committed to seeing this legislation pass. It is the children who suffer, through no fault of their own, if they're run through the legal system in the United States without any accounting for their unique situation as children. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this topic, inviting Senator Feinstein to speak--her testimony and the testimony of the children who came, moved me to cosponsor the bill that very day. I still remember the story the Senator told of a young girl from China, standing before a judge, unable to speak the language, her arms shackled to her sides, crying. That sort of situation is shameful. Or how about the case of Edwin Munoz, a Honduran youth who testified last year during this hearing? His story was simple but appalling: abandoned by his parents at age 7, he was left in the care of a cousin, who beat him mercilessly. At 13, he finally escaped, and hitchhiked alone to the United States. I can only imagine how frightening that experience was--but unfortunately it was only the start: once he arrived in the U.S., he was thrown into a San Diego juvenile facility filled with violent offenders. Without a lawyer or court-appointed guardian for weeks, this became a nightmare of taunts from the other inmates and being shackled each time he had to appear in court. These are children--not common criminals--and they should not be treated as such. They should be treated as children. The main purpose of our legislation is to ensure just that--that children who come to the United States are still treated as children. That does not mean that they will escape a proper and appropriate accounting and ruling on whether they may stay or not--it simply means that their age and circumstances will be considered at all times. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this critically important legislation. We are still the Nation described upon the Statue of Liberty--let's ensure our legal system remembers this point as well.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am honored to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Voinovich, to introduce this important piece of legislation that will address an area of our immigration law that is sorely neglected--unaccompanied alien children. Currently, these children face a legal loophole that can leave them in a confusing maze of technicalities, none of which actually help the child or the nation. This bill will fix that problem through several very straightforward remedies. Last year, through the Homeland Security Act, the responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was transferred from the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Refugee Resettlement. This was an important step in the right direction, but it did not accomplish everything we had hoped to do last year. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues in taking one more crack at providing safeguards for these vulnerable children. These safeguards are simple, but to the point. This legislation will ensure that the transfer of responsibilities mandated last year actually occurs in an orderly manner. It will remind Federal authorities to keep in mind the special needs and circumstances of unaccompanied children. It will ensure that these children have access to competent counsel and guardians ad litem when appropriate. Minimum standards for the care and custody of these unaccompanied alien children will be established, and the procedures for access to permanent protection for abused, abandoned or neglected children will be reformed. Finally, the legislation will require an annual report to Congress to ensure these provisions are being carried out faithfully. But that is all simply the legalese surrounding this issue. What's truly important are the children. That's the whole point of this legislation, and why I--and all of my colleagues who are cosponsors-- got involved and are committed to seeing this legislation pass. It is the children who suffer, through no fault of their own, if they're run through the legal system in the United States without any accounting for their unique situation as children. Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this topic, inviting Senator Feinstein to speak--her testimony and the testimony of the children who came, moved me to cosponsor the bill that very day. I still remember the story the Senator told of a young girl from China, standing before a judge, unable to speak the language, her arms shackled to her sides, crying. That sort of situation is shameful. Or how about the case of Edwin Munoz, a Honduran youth who testified last year during this hearing? His story was simple but appalling: abandoned by his parents at age 7, he was left in the care of a cousin, who beat him mercilessly. At 13, he finally escaped, and hitchhiked alone to the United States. I can only imagine how frightening that experience was--but unfortunately it was only the start: once he arrived in the U.S., he was thrown into a San Diego juvenile facility filled with violent offenders. Without a lawyer or court-appointed guardian for weeks, this became a nightmare of taunts from the other inmates and being shackled each time he had to appear in court. These are children--not common criminals--and they should not be treated as such. They should be treated as children. The main purpose of our legislation is to ensure just that--that children who come to the United States are still treated as children. That does not mean that they will escape a proper and appropriate accounting and ruling on whether they may stay or not--it simply means that their age and circumstances will be considered at all times. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this critically important legislation. We are still the Nation described upon the Statue of Liberty--let's ensure our legal system remembers this point as well.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 22. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1050, the Department of Defense authorization bill, provided further that the Murray amendment No. 691 be temporarily set aside, and, further, when the Murray amendment recurs, Senator Brownback be recognized; provided further that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Thursday, Senator Daschle or his designee be recognized to call up amendment No. 791.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for working with us. We have had a knotty problem here, but I think we are getting on through it, and I appreciate their cooperation in working with us.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume debate on the Department of Defense authorization bill. Amendments are expected throughout the day, and therefore rollcall votes will occur during Thursday's session. It is the managers' intention to finish this important bill at a reasonable time tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further action on H. Con. Res. 160 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 152 which was submitted earlier today and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 103, S. 515, reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee earlier today.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the leader for yielding the floor. I thank the Senator from California for the spirit in which she is putting this amendment forward. She wants to see the best possible happen. I appreciate the tenor and spirit she is putting forward. I reiterate what the chairman of the committee said: We want to get a bill through. If we put this amendment in, it is not going to get done in time for the G-8 meeting. The second issue, this week the First Lady of Uganda was visiting and spoke to a number of us. Uganda has been a wonderful model with great success thus far working on reducing the incidence of AIDS from a 21 percent level of infection of AIDS in their country in 1991 to 6 percent in 2002. She said very clearly and directly this is about a change of culture, about pushing a model of ABC which started with abstinence and be faithful. That was the key, the key area they needed to push in that they got the most success, the right thing to do. I point out in this area, the way the bill reads, in this actual provision, 33 percent of 20 percent would be used for abstinence programs, but not just abstinence programs. It would be abstinence and other programs along with it. Effectively, we are talking about roughly 6.5, 6.7 percent of the money. This is a small amount. It is a clear message we think needs to be sent along with an effective model that worked very well in Uganda and is being implemented in Senegal, Zambia, Ethiopia, and Jamaica because it has proven so successful. This is an important provision to leave in because if we change it, even with the good intentions of the Senator from California, it will stall, if not really put the bill way back, because this issue involved a major dispute with the House. Second, the abstinence programs have worked, in the clear places they have been used, particularly in Uganda, the model that has been most frequently cited. Third, it is a small portion of the funding; 6.7 percent is actually in use here. I urge for all those reasons my colleagues vote down the Feinstein amendment and stay with the provisions of the bill as sent over from the House. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the hour is late and I point out to my colleagues, I am told this is the 36th vote of the day. According to some, that is a record for this body in a 24-hour period. This appears to be the last one. I appreciate the spirit in which this is being put forward by my colleague from Connecticut who has a lot of interest and is focused on this region a great deal. This is coming from his heart. However, we can do this, and what he is asking for, under this bill as it is. What is in this bill would provide that opportunity to do it. Really, by his raising this, it will elevate the focus, the possibilities in the Caribbean. I read directly from the bill, ``directly approving all activities of the United States relating to combating HIV/AIDS,'' and it lists some 14 countries. Then it says ``and other countries designated by the President.'' I hope the facts he has put forward tonight will be considered by the administration. I believe they will be in combating this and we would use the funds--this is a large portfolio of funds we put forward, $15 billion--to focus and get results. We are on the edge of accomplishing something historic, of helping a lot, and we can do what our colleague from Connecticut says under the plain language of this bill. I hope we can go ahead and vote on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have enjoyed watching this debate with my colleagues on the topic of expanding the North Atlantic Alliance. This new round of expansion is one of the most significant events in the alliance's history and will have a profound impact on Trans-Atlantic relations for a long time. The message I bring and I think my colleagues bring is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, is still vital to our security and expansion will make it all the more stronger. Seven countries, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, have made bids to join NATO. This debate has evolved in such a way as to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the alliance in a sober way. The hyperbolic debate over burden-sharing and the contributions of some our allies, whether material or physical, has gone by the way-side with this new round of expansion. The contributions of alliance members is no less important-- in fact, it is a central tenet to the success of the alliance. Rather, by inviting these seven new members, we have focussed more attention on how better to integrate, and give opportunity and prominence to those states that wish to contribute more to the collective security of the alliance. At a hearing the Foreign Relations Committee held on the first of April, one of the witnesses, Bruce Jackson of the Project on Transitional Democracies made several excellent points about these new candidates, one of which I should emphasize for the sake of my colleagues who were not present. I will revert to the question of contributions and military power. Many critics have focussed on the current capabilities and potential contributions of these seven countries and questioned whether and what they will bring to the alliance. Mr. Jackson pointed to the fact that when West Germany was invited to join NATO, it had neither an army nor a defense budget. By contrast, the Baltic states have taken it upon themselves to orchestrate regional security agreements and contribute a rational portion of their budgets to national defense. The Balkan countries joining the alliance, Romania and Bulgaria, have militaries that can be immediately utilized for NATO operations. In fact, all of the seven countries, have themselves contributed to NATO missions in Europe, to Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF, in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF. Romania pulled together 100 of its personnel for SFOR in Bosnia, contributed 200 to KFOR in Kosovo. Romania committed itself and contributed substantially to our efforts during Operation Enduring freedom, OEF, and the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF. For OEF, they sent a 400-person battalion to serve in Kandahar. For ISAF, they sent a military police platoon to Kabul to support securing the Afghan capital. In support for the security and revitalization of a post-conflict Afghanistan, Romania airlifted arms and munitions to be used by a newly reconstituted Afghan National Army. In Iraq, Romania has sent a WMD unit to assist in force protection and have committed to providing peacekeepers and police to assist in the security of that country. In 1997, during the debate to enlarge NATO for the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, the emphasis was and for President Bush especially, still is a unified and free Europe. Our mission then was to stand beside these democracies and direct them to a bright future of freedom, democracy and prosperity. The assumption of all the states woven into the North Atlantic Treaty is a common set of values among its members. These values, democracy and free markets, are the values in which this collective security agreement is defending. Ensconced in the treaty signed on April 4, 1949 were the shared values of democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law, the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes, civilian control of the military, and central to the treaty's purpose, commitment to the stability and well-being of the countries party to the treaty. I have in my hands a copy of the Atlantic Charter, a document that very much predates the North Atlantic Alliance and was penned during the dark days of World War II by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt. This document espoused the foundations on which NATO was born--liberty, self-determination, perpetuation of prosperity and collective security. Though not the axiom which keeps the alliance glued together, it is difficult to ignore that, as much as the territory, it is those principles that the alliance is fighting to protect. Here in this building we should think proud of our institutions and their triumph on the world's stage. Not for the hubris at the moment of victory, but for the better tomorrow which all our new European friends will enjoy after the half-century of abandonment behind the Berlin Wall. Our commitment should never waiver and our continuing mission should remain clear in our minds. We should have enough charity in our hearts to realize the world around us that does not enjoy the freedom we do, and be willing to push the borders of liberty beyond the comfortable world in which we occupy. Seven countries are now eagerly awaiting the advice and consent of this body. I ask unanimous consent to print the following document in the Record.