Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of H. Con. Res. 344, which is at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, on Thursday the Senate will resume consideration of the disclosure bill at 9:30 a.m. Under the previous order, there will be closing remarks on the bill with a vote on final passage to occur at approximately 9:40 a.m. Under the order, a vote in relation to the Frist amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill will immediately follow the disposition of the disclosure bill. As a reminder, there is a finite list of amendments to the Labor appropriations bill. Those Senators who have amendments on the list should work with the bill managers on a time to offer their amendments during tomorrow's session. Final passage on the bill is expected to occur by midafternoon.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2808 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the reason for me to speak this evening is to comment about an amendment that Senator McCain and myself, along with two other Members have as well, that is pending on the DOD authorization bill. I am not raising the amendment tonight, but I want to talk about it because it has been one of some controversy. I want to put forward the issues of why I am so concerned about this issue. It is an amendment that Senator McCain, myself, and two other Members sponsored, Senator Edwards and Senator Voinovich. It is about college gambling--specifically, legalized gambling in America on college athletics, college sports. We have currently in the country, banned everywhere in America betting on college sports, except one State--in Nevada it is allowed. There is legalized betting on college sports. If someone wants to bet on a University of Missouri football game, if they want to bet on a University of Kansas basketball game, there is a legal scoreboard, there is a game spread on it, and there is money laid on the table. It is all legal. The handle is about $1 billion in Nevada each year betting on schools such as the University of Kansas, Kansas State University football, the Final Four. It takes place every year. That has been growing substantially at the level of the handle, and it is going to keep on growing. The problem is it is tarnishing our amateur athletics. It is giving a black eye to college sports. We are getting more and more young people hooked into gambling because one of the key gateways to starting gambling is sports betting. A high number of young people start betting on college sports. Our athletes are being sucked into it, and we have seen more cases of point shaving in the decade of the nineties by college athletes than the entire record of the NCAA before that. The famous case about Northwestern University that broke during the Final Four 2 years ago was a point shaving case. We had at a press conference Kevin Pendergast, a former Notre Dame placekicker, the mastermind who orchestrated the shaving case. He stated he would never have been able to pull off this scheme without the ability to legally lay a large amount of money on the Las Vegas sports books. He said: If I do not have that, I have to pull off two shams. I have to get the athletes to shave the case, and I have to sham some bookie as well. This way, if I can get the athletes to line up and not lose the game--the point is not to lose the game, just do not make the spread. If it is a 10-point spread, just do not make it. It is easy to do. A player does not have to miss a shot. Unfortunately, we have been learning a lot about it. Where they usually do it is on defense. Let your man beat you: He got by me, coach; I didn't mean to. You do not stand at the foul line and look at the shot and say: I am throwing a brick up there, when you do not normally. This is getting pretty sophisticated now. The player lets his opponent slip by, he jukes you one way, off you go: He scored on me, coach; I didn't mean for it to happen. The points were not made, the money is shaved, and away we go. Not only is it our athletes, but it is also our referees. This really should upset some people. Listen to this. I watch games and a lot of times I do not think the refs get it right. I would not want to have their job, but I get pretty irritated, particularly when it is my team and the call goes against it. A study conducted by the University of Michigan found that 84 percent of college referees said they had participated in some form of gambling since beginning their careers as referees. Nearly 40 percent also admitted placing bets on sporting events and 20 percent said they gambled on the NCAA basketball tournament. It gets worse. Two referees said they were aware of the spread on a game, and it affected the way they officiated the contest. Some were asked to fix games they were officiating, and others were aware of referees who ``did not call the game fairly because of gambling reasons.'' Several weeks ago, newspaper articles from Las Vegas and Chicago detailed how illegal and legal gambling are sometimes connected. Even our referees are being pulled into this gambling situation. This legislation by the four sponsors was a recommendation of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission that met for 2 years on the impact of gambling. They said this seedy influence should not be allowed to persist in college sports and on our athletes. The Commerce Committee held hearings on this. I said at least provide a State opt-out; allow a way for the University of Kansas, Kansas State University, Wichita State University to get off the board so they can petition you so you do not bet on them. Currently, no one can bet on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. It is illegal in Nevada to bet on a Nevada college team. They said it might be unseemly or it might appear to be too much influence, to which I thought: All right. That sounds like a legitimate reason to me. Allow me to get the University of Kansas and Kansas State University off. They said: No, we are not going to do that. We will not allow your legislatures to petition; we will not allow your Governors to petition or your presidents to petition; we are going to leave them on the book because if you want out, there will probably be others who will want out as well. We do not want to let you out of this. This is a $1 billion handle for us, and we get a lot of business. The problem is, it has given a black eye to college sports. Listen to what some of the coaches are saying about this. I ask unanimous consent that a letter Senator McCain and I received and a list of organizations supporting this legislation be printed in the Record. They include, among others, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the National Council on Education.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Wisconsin. I agree, innocent lives should not be killed. We should be looking at every possible degree of evidence we possibly can. I wonder if we could also consider all the young, innocent lives that are killed at the same time, and somehow put together a blue ribbon commission to determine when life begins, and say we are not going to allow that to take place anymore, either. I was just calculating. Across the country, we have every year about 1.2 million abortions that take place. So today there have been over 3,000 abortions. I agree that innocent life should not be killed and we should do everything we possibly can to review that evidence, look at DNA evidence, anything we can. We should remove any sort of barriers to time limits on tests for DNA evidence. That is an important and good thing we should do. But can't we also consider at the same time, when does that innocent life begin? I think those are valid points that we should both pause and consider at this time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, one of the key coaches was Coach Calhoun from the University of Connecticut, U. Conn. He stated, while this legislation does not solve the problem, ``it is a good starting point.'' That is exactly what the legislation is, a beginning that will send a clear message to our communities and, more importantly, to our kids that gambling on student athletics is wrong and threatens the integrity of college sports. We are asking for a simple amendment on this authorization bill. We would agree to an hour of debate equally divided between both sides. I am willing to start tonight. I am willing to go through the night. I am willing to go tomorrow, Saturday to bring this issue before this body. It is an important matter, and it needs to come before this body. We seek an up-or-down vote on it. Some people have raised questions about it. This is the time and place to do it. We are ready. It is time to do it. It was voted through the Commerce Committee with only two dissenting votes. Let's bring it up. That is why Senator McCain and I are pressing so aggressively to get this amendment considered on the DOD authorization. We will do it in a limited amount of time, whenever, an up-or-down vote. Let's just press this issue through and see what the will of the body is.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

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. on Friday, June 23. I further ask consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 4577, the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill, with Senator Bond to be recognized to offer his amendment regarding community health centers.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate convenes tomorrow, it will resume the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Senator Bond will offer his amendment regarding community health centers. Further, amendments are to be expected to be offered and debated throughout tomorrow's session, with any votes ordered to be stacked to occur at a time to be determined next week. Senators should be aware that votes may also occur in relation to the Department of Defense authorization bill early next week. Senators are encouraged to work with the bill managers as early as possible if they intend to offer amendments to the Labor appropriations bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following amendment transmitted to the Senate on June 22, 2000, by the President of the United States: Amendment to the Montreal Protocol (``Beijing Amendment'') (Treaty Document No. 106-32); I further ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the United States to provide non military education and anti corruption assistance to countries, and their governments, that are not on the terrorism list, and that are denied U.S. assistance or are under U.S. sanctions. Let me just reiterate that this amendment is not applicable to countries on the terrorism list or which are major producers or traffickers in illegal drugs. This provision is specifically intended to enable the U.S. Government to conduct a broad range of rule of law programs, as well as other programs (e.g. setting up elementary schools, high school exchanges, health education, economic reform measures; tax reform, tariff regulation, developing rational and transparent budgeting procedures, privatization, or drafting a commercial code, etc.), so long as there is some component of the program that includes educating or providing information to persons. Mr. President, the United States has been working for a long time to try to find ways to help the most vulnerable populations around the world. Allowing the United States to continue to provide assistance in education and anti corruption training is something which ultimately is in our own interests. In many parts of the world, we are up against elements like the Wahhabis, the Saudis, the Iranians and the likes of Bin Laden and others, who are pouring money into the poorest regions of the world to set up schools which are dedicated to teaching children anti-Western attitudes, as well as how to carry weapons. In many countries, because of the dire poverty, such schools are the only game in town. And the single common element which allows these schools to flourish is poverty and ignorance. There is no other option for many people. The poverty and the lack of education leads to radicalism, and violence, often directed first against women, and a host of problems which every one on this floor can list. The growth of this radicalism comes back and haunts us and affect American lives and American security. The popularity of Bin Laden for example, and the anti-Western fervor which is rampant in the Middle East and South Asia can too often lead to terrorism and attempts to destabilize developing countries that are trying to remain secular and pro-west. Ultimately, this is a threat to U.S. security. This lack of education also leads to tragic global phenomena like the trafficking in women and children: Education would substantially increase awareness regarding the insidious practice of international sex slavery. This involves forcing women and children into prostitution against their will, who are held in slavery-like conditions, having been transported into a strange country. There is a general sentiment in the Congress these days that sanctions have gone too far, that they don't work and that we should remove all of them. I do not share this view, I believe sanctions have a role to play and are appropriate in certain situations. But denying ourselves the opportunity to provide education in a variety of fields in certain parts of the world is counterproductive. We are only hurting ourselves. Instead of being able to implement education programs which would help bring a secular alternative to the lack of education, or the types of schools I mentioned earlier, we find our hands are tied when assistance is denied to a country or when general sanctions are imposed on a country--including sanctions on countries that for one reason or another default on their loans. Yes, we should be able to take political action against countries that are doing bad things; but we should not be put in a situation where programs in education or in anti corruption training is involved. We shouldn't be mandating sanctions in an area, like education, which are of long term assistance to the United States. We sit and complain about such things as corruption or lack of environmental awareness, or lack of democracy, or child labor, or trafficking in women and children. Education could help make a dent in such things, from helping to set up elementary schools, having exchanges at higher school levels, to such things as providing information to people in such areas as economic reform, equitable distribution of wealth, growing their economies, implementation of tax reform and tariff regulation, development of rational and transparent budgeting procedures, development of rule of law and democratic institutions, and privatizing or drafting a commercial code. And yet we occasionally find ourselves in the position of having to deny assistance in the very area which would help fix these problems. That is why I am introducing this amendment today. Denying U.S. assistance to a country is a right we should preserve, but we shouldn't be cutting our ability to influence countries at such a basic level as education and we certainly should do what we can to combat anti- corruption. The most effective way to overcome the anti democratic threats and the lure of terrorism is to go to the root of the problem and to encourage the development of civil society.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending Sessions amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment for consideration at this time.

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

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to spend some time discussing what this amendment is about. I think at the outset, the best way to capture it is to compare it to what is taking place in the news today. This is an amendment about lifting economic sanctions on India. The administration has the authority--we provided it last year and the year before--for them to lift the economic sanctions this country has against India. Those sanctions were automatically put in place after India tested nuclear weapons. We have been providing them the authority and flexibility to be able to deal with India broadly. The administration was provided that waiver authority last year and it has chosen not to use it. So currently this country, the United States of America, has economic sanctions against India, another democracy in the world. In today's newspaper, the administration is stating they will lift economic sanctions against North Korea. This is the country that has the most weapons proliferation taking place anywhere in the world, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is a country on the terrorist list. It is on the big 7 terrorist list of state sponsors of terrorism. This is the country that has a number of different violations, a country where we have been at war. There have been some different things taking place in North Korea. I am not saying I am opposed to the administration doing this. I am just saying it is quite odd, and very striking, that at the time the administration is proposing to lift economic sanctions, they continue to insist on economic sanctions against India, the second most populous nation in the world, soon to be the most populous nation in the world; a nation we trade with, a nation that is a democracy, a nation that has a free press, a nation that I think, in the future, stands to be a very strong strategic critical ally of the United States. That is India. They will be a partner of ours, working to hold stability in south Asia. Not that they don't have problems, not that we don't have issues associated with that, but this is a democracy with a free press, with capital markets, that has a number of similar aspirations to those of the United States. At the same time we are lifting economic sanctions against North Korea, this administration is going to leave them on India. My amendment is simple. It would suspend economic sanctions against India--suspend them. While we provided the administration with the waiver authority so they could do it, they have chosen not to. By this amendment, we, the Congress, would be lifting these economic sanctions against India. I want to say as well what this amendment does not do. My amendment does not suspend any military or dual-use technology assistance to India. The President has national security waiver authority for military-related sanctions, but we are not dealing with military- related sanctions. He has authority to waive the prohibition on sales of defense articles, but we are not doing that here. We are not dealing with defense services, foreign military financing, or dual-use technologies. If the administration really wants to get to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with India and say we want to force you to sign the CTBT, wouldn't it be better to use the military set of sanctions rather than economic sanctions that the administration is currently using? Plus, if you think about this for a moment, is it likely we are going to force India, by economic sanctions, to sign CTBT? They are a democracy. How will their people react if their leaders are seen as capitulating to U.S. economic pressure to sign something their leaders are saying they needed to do? Is that a way we are actually going to be able to force India to do this? I think not. Plus, this is a much bigger country with much broader issues than simply the U.S. issue of CTBT. We have a broad array of issues with India. We need to grow this relationship rapidly. To hold the entire relationship hostage to one issue is bad foreign policy on our part. It is hurting us. I think it will hurt India and hurt our ability to shape things in that part of the world. I was hopeful that during the President's recent trip to India, he would use that chance to remove the economic sanctions on India. He was there for a number of days and had the opportunity to do that. It would help set up the atmosphere for a more aggressive, broad-based relationship with India. This was a way to leapfrog this relationship forward. This trip did improve relations with India, but he could have done so much more that he failed to do. A number of us were terribly disappointed that he did not make more use of the broad waiver authority he now has. He used it very sparingly. This was waiver authority that I fought last year to give him. There should be no more economic sanctions on India, period. The United States should not do that. Yet the Clinton-Gore administration continues to hold up international financial institution loans which are destined for infrastructure projects which would help sustain the economic activities in rural areas where the bulk of India's poor population lives. More than a third of India's population lives in poverty today. U.S. opposition to development loans to India impedes the growth of vital infrastructure, employment, and living standards in the poorest parts of India. That is not the way to improve U.S.-India relations. These loans are being held up by the administration until India signs the CTBT. The President of the United States has more appropriate carrots, as I mentioned at the outset, particularly in the noneconomic area, and particularly those associated with military functions, which could be used rather than these sanctions which hit the poorest people in India. Nuclear proliferation is a vitally important issue, but it should not be the only issue on which we deal with a country such as India, the largest democracy in the world. This is all the more outrageous in view of the news I mentioned about lifting the economic sanctions on North Korea, a country which is run by one of the world's most notorious dictators, a country on the state sponsorship of terrorism list, as I mentioned, a country developing nuclear weapons and which is a direct threat to the United States and our east Asian allies. Think about this for a moment. We are considering right now putting up a missile defense system, putting it in Alaska, and part of the reason is because of what we are fearing from North Korea. Yet we are going to lift economic sanctions there, but we are not going to do it against India? The contrast here is outrageous. There are even recent newspapers reports out that I want to submit for the Record about the development of nuclear material. This was in a newspaper in Japan, about North Korea's secret underground facility producing uranium for use in its weapons programs. These are weapons programs. They are the largest proliferator around the world. I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The U.S. has real, legitimate political and economic security interests with India. We need to engage India on all levels as soon as possible. In fact, seizing the opportunity we have to build greater ties should be one of our main foreign policy goals. That is one that is not taking place. We are, after all, the two most populous democratic nations in the world. Our relationship should be based on shared values and institutions, economic collaboration including enhanced trade and investment, and the goal of regional stability across Asia. I ask the President and other Members to take into consideration how we treat India versus China as well. In China, we are on a very aggressive relationship economically. We will be considering later in this body normalizing permanent trade relations with China. We are saying we need to be engaged with them on a number of different issues. With India we then say no, we are going to put economic sanctions against you, whereas with China we are trying to open up. And China is the one that has missiles pointed this way, that threatens Taiwan, that has weapons proliferation. Religious persecution itself takes place on that continent. I myself have visited with Buddhists who have fled out of Tibet into Katmandu, a number of them walking over the Himalayas in the wintertime to get to freedom. Yet look at how we treat China. We are going to do everything favorable for China, but for India we are going to put on economic sanctions. The contrast is stark. Again, as a major foreign policy objective, we should be looking to India over the next several years to build up this strategic relationship in some respects as an offset to China and what China is doing in South Asia and what China is aspiring to around the world. I do not think anybody is sanguine about where China is heading today. We are going to need partners, and India is a key one for us to look at. It is tough for us to convince them of that if we are going to leave economic sanctions on them. One of the ways to reduce our dependency on China economically is to lift economic sanctions on India and try to build up that relationship even more. These are the key reasons that I put forward this amendment. The differences are so stark as to how we treat China and North Korea versus India. Ask yourself why. I fail to see the reasons for this policy of seeking to reward China, a country that has openly and continually challenged United States interests and values, while at the same time ignoring and punishing India. As the example of North Korea which I mentioned earlier, the inequity of this situation is striking. Why reward a country that is aggressively working against everything for which we stand and, at the same time, punish and blackmail a country with which we share basic values and interests? We should be engaging India as the strategic partner it can become. To do so, we should not be maintaining economic sanctions which serve only to impede the development of this relationship. Maintaining economic sanctions on India which affect the poorest parts of the country is not the way to go about this. The Prime Minister of India, I understand, will be in Washington this fall. I believe it is incumbent upon us to lift these sanctions, and if the administration will not do it, which they have shown to date they will not, then we should. Amendment No. 3493 Withdrawn

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand there is a rule XVI problem with the amendment I have put forward. While I would dearly want to have a vote on the amendment on this bill, I understand it will be a problem. Therefore, reluctantly and regrettably, because I do think this body should take up this issue, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for leading this debate against this amendment. I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment. On February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 was signed into law by President Clinton with a provision to prevent DOD medical treatment facilities from being used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape or incest. That is the public law. This provision reversed a Clinton administration policy instituted on January 22, 1993, permitting abortions to be performed at military facilities. Previously, from 1988 to 1993, the performance of abortions was not permitted at military hospitals except when the life of the mother was in danger. That is a bit of the history around this issue. The Murray amendment which would repeal the pro-life provision attempts to turn taxpayer-funded DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics. Fortunately, the Senate refused to let the issue of abortion adversely affect our armed services and rejected this amendment last year by a vote of 51-49, and we should reject it again this year. It is shameful that we would hold America's armed services hostage to abortion policies. Using the coercive power of government to force American taxpayers--American taxpayers, that is who we are talking about here--to fund health care facilities where abortions are performed would be a horrible precedent and would put many Americans in a difficult position--using my taxpayer money to fund abortions. When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was first promulgated, military physicians as well as nurses and support personnel refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire civilians to do abortions. Therefore, if the Murray amendment were adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand but resources would be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so abortions could be performed. In fact, according to CRS, a 1994 memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs says this: Direct[ed] the Military Health Services System provide other means of access if providing prepaid abortion services at a facility was not feasible. One argument used by supporters of abortion in military hospitals is that women in countries where abortion is not permitted will have nowhere else to turn to obtain an abortion. However, DOD policy requires military doctors to obey the abortion laws of the countries where they are providing services, so they still could not perform abortions in those locations. Military treatment centers which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life--healing and nurturing life, that is what this is about; in other words, what we should be about-- should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent of all human life, that of the unborn. As I speak of this, I ask forgiveness for our country, for the Nation, for the killing of this most innocent of life, the unborn. I urge my colleagues to table the Murray amendment and free America's military from abortion politics and from performing these abortions at taxpayer-funded facilities. If passed, this amendment will effectively kill the DOD authorization bill, and on that ground as well, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I think we must get down to the very basics on this, as happens so often when it comes to these sorts of issues, and that is: Should we use taxpayer-funded facilities to perform abortions, making them abortion clinics? Is that something our citizens would want us to do, whether they were pro-life or pro-choice? I think the vast majority would say, no, we don't want it to take place in our facilities and this is a bad precedent for us to set. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for leading this difficult and very important debate. I yield back the time reserved for our side on this issue.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3474

Mr. BROWNBACK

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.