Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am going to follow on the presentation of my colleague from Idaho on the issue of judges because it is the pending issue before the Senate. We are on the highway bill, and it is important legislation, but this issue is what has captured the attention of this body, the executive branch, and people across the country: the problem of getting judges approved. My colleague from Idaho well portrayed some of the nominees and what is taking place. I will point out a couple of common issues. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. We have had these individuals in front of us, in some cases, for 4 years. They are well known to this body, to the people here, and they have been fully vetted. The reason they are at this point in getting through is they are extremely well qualified. There may be philosophical differences with them, but if they are allowed to have a vote, they will be confirmed because they are well qualified. If they were not well qualified, if they were outside of the mainstream of judicial thought, they would not be confirmed and we would not be debating this issue. We have the Democratic Party deciding: OK, we are going to stop them. Actually, they are well qualified and we cannot stop them on a majority vote; we are going to stop them on a filibuster and require a supermajority vote. They have taken that tactic. It is unprecedented. They have taken that tactic which is within the rules of the Senate. I want to point out what is going to happen if they persist in that tactic because then they put it back on us or the President to take action in response. We can say we are not going to do anything, we are just going to let an unprecedented filibuster take over, to which a lot of us are saying that is not right, that is not our job. This may force the President to do a whole group of recess appointments, a right he has under the Constitution. He has been waiting for 4 years for some of these nominees. He would rather not do that, I am sure. I have not talked with him, but I am sure he would rather not do that. He can say: If you are not going to let my judges through, you are supposed to give advice and consent, and if you are not going to give advice and consent, then this is the action I have to take. Or it is going to force us to change the filibuster rule on the issue of judges because of the unprecedented use and requirement of a supermajority. What I am pointing out is, while the Democrats can take this tactic, it is going to force a response which would be legal by a Republican majority in the Senate, by the President, but all of which is unsatisfactory and not right. We ought to be voting on these judges. We have seen the numbers. I think if the numbers were not so extreme, we would not feel so forced into a corner, but the numbers are extreme. The Senate has accumulated the worst circuit court confirmation record in modern times, thanks to this partisan obstruction. Only 35 of President Bush's 52 circuit court nominees were confirmed, which is a confirmation rate of 67 percent. In comparison, President Johnson's confirmation record in his first term in office was 95 percent, as were 93 percent of President Carter's nominees. The other side may point to the district court, the trier of fact, level of confirmations. Yes, those are there, but the circuit courts are the ones that get to review and interpret the law, and we are trying to get judges who will interpret and not write the laws. A number of people are willing to allow judges to write laws. I am not one of those. That is our job. That is my constitutional role, that is my constitutional requirement, and the oath I took to the Constitution to write the laws and not to pass them off to the judiciary or to say: Well, it is too tough for us, let's let it pass through there. Plus, what irritates so many people is the use of the judiciary in so many areas that are so personal and deeply felt within this society. People are saying this is not right, this is something that should come in front of legislative bodies. Maybe it will take several election cycles for the body politic to get in a position to resolve these issues, and that is fine, it should take time on these major issues before us. Also, I do not want to just focus on the numbers. We should remember these nominees are not some sort of political prop. These are good people with careers and commitment to public service, the quality and depth of which is enviable. Also, I note that a solid majority of people agree strongly with the President's position that he should pick judges who strictly interpret the law rather than legislating from the bench, what the judges think the law should be. Ignoring this mandate, some in this body, spurred on perhaps by outside interest groups, are threatening yet again to filibuster these judge nominees. We are now embarking on a dangerous area if we talk about changing the role of the judiciary in this society and blocking nominees because they are going to stay with the interpretation of the law and not write law. I think we should be thinking long and hard before we go with judges and give a license for them to be more expansive in their role in the legislating arena. That is wrong. It is not in the Constitution. It is not the division of powers. We should have judges who strictly interpret. That is what these nominees are about and much of the base of this fight is about. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to think about what they will force in response by this tactic, and there will be a response to this tactic. I do not think it is wise for this body to move toward that route. I thank the Chair for this time. I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business on this side?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise with several of my colleagues to speak about the importance of the renewal of the Burma sanctions. I also wish to speak candidly about the Burmese Military Junta's continued oppression of their people through rape, torture and other severe human rights abuses. As the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi continues to inspire the democracy movement and seek support for their peaceful cause. It has been reported that the National League for Democracy has collected more than 300,000 signatures on a petition calling for change in the country. Those who sign are actively putting their lives in danger by publicly stating that they seek democratic change and some 1,400 political prisoners are locked up for supporting human rights and democracy. The human rights abuses in Burma continue daily against ethnic minorities, political activists and others who simply suffer as innocent bystanders. A 2002 Human Rights Watch report found that Burma has nearly 70,000 child soldiers in its army, more than any other country in the world. Up to 2 million people have been forced to flee the country as refugees and migrants and the burning of villages continues in eastern Burma, especially in the Karen and Karenni states. Last year I drew to your attention a report titled ``Shattering Silences'', in which the Karen Women's Organization carefully investigated and recorded the Burmese military regime's use of rape as a weapon of war against ethnic minority women, revealing a shockingly brutal and callous practice. For the past two years, I have joined my colleagues in reauthorizing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which bans mainly textile and garment imports from Burma. When I chaired the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee I held a hearing on this very subject. In that hearing I spoke about the importance of a multilateral isolation policy. I urge my colleagues to consider the strides that have been made in just two years of promoting such a policy. In a major and important move, the European Union, in October 2004, followed the lead of the United States and significantly strengthened its sanctions on Burma, including a ban on investments in enterprises of the ruling regime and a strengthened visa ban. The EU also pledged to join the United States in opposing loans to Burma's regime from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The European Parliament passed a resolution calling ``on the UN Security Council to address the situation in Burma as a matter of urgency.'' Additionally, 289 members of the British parliament tabled a motion calling on the UN Security Council to address the situation in Burma. After both houses of Congress passed resolutions in October 2004 calling on the UN Security Council to address the situation in Burma, the parliament of Australia followed suit. The Australian motion called on the government to, ``support the Burmese National League for Democracy's call for the UN Security Council to convene a special session to consider what further measures the UN can take to encourage democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma.'' Support at the United Nations is growing as well. Burma was one of only a few countries on which resolutions were passed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This was led by the European Union with strong support from the United States as well as support from Japan. The resolution strongly condemned what it called ``the systematic ongoing violation of human rights'' in Burma. There has been unprecedented action on Burma within ASEAN. Whereas in the past ASEAN refused to even comment on what it deemed Burma's ``internal affairs'', many members of the organization are now publicly pressuring Burma to step aside as the chair of the association in 2006. The tough approach maintained by the United States towards Burma, including import sanctions and a possible boycott of 2006 meetings, is for the first time encouraging many Asian nations to rethink whether the Burmese regime should assume the rotating chairmanship. There is widespread belief within the leadership of ASEAN countries that Burma has failed to deliver on its promises to the region. In all of the above-mentioned instances, the strong stand of the United States has influenced countries around the world. The movement at the EU, UN, and within ASEAN is unprecedented. We must keep up the tough pressure by the United States. I urge my colleagues to reauthorize the sanctions as a strong and clear signal that the United States will not support this brutal regime and their continued oppression of activists and minorities.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are voting on the final passage of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. I commend my colleagues, especially Chairman Cochran, for working diligently to see that the Senate act quickly to address the needs of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and emergency humanitarian needs worldwide. Americans everywhere are grateful for the efforts of our troops who fight on the front lines of the war on terror. They have made personal sacrifices for the liberty of all Americans, and we must support them by providing them with the very best equipment. The conference report includes much needed funding for humanitarian assistance in areas of the world devastated by famine, disaster and war. I am especially pleased that we have provided $90 million for international disaster and famine assistance for Darfur, Sudan and other African countries including Ethiopia, Liberia, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The situation in Sudan remains dire and there are several other countries in the region that will also greatly benefit from these funds. The conference report also includes necessary peacekeeping dollars that will address the security needs of millions of oppressed people. First, it provides $50 million in funding for the African Union mission in Darfur. It is the experience of many on the ground in Darfur that atrocities do not occur when AU troops are present, and this funding should facilitate an expansion of their mission. I thank my colleagues, Senators Corzine, DeWine, Durbin, Leahy and McConnell for their tireless work to get this money included in the bill. Security is paramount to ensuring an end to the violence that persists in Sudan, killing an estimated 15,000 people per month. Second, the conference report directs $680 million to general peacekeeping operations in other war-torn areas worldwide. The United States contributions to these missions are important to security and stability on a global level. I commend the inclusion of $5 million for assisting internally displaced persons in Afghanistan and $120.4 million for migration and refugee assistance for worldwide refugee protection and for the President to meet his goals for refugee admissions this year. While all of these earmarks will provide much needed protection and assistance to the world's poorest and oppressed people, I am extremely disappointed that the Darfur accountability amendment was stripped in conference. The amendment which was included by the Senate, would have placed targeted sanctions in the form of a travel ban and asset freezes on individuals who are committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. It would also have directed the administration to pursue certain policies at the U.N., including multilateral sanctions and an arms embargo against Sudan as well as the establishment of a no- fly zone over Darfur. I appreciate my Senate colleagues' support of this measure and look forward to working together to move this as stand-alone legislation in the near future. It is my hope that the administration will publicly address their concerns with this bill so that we may move swiftly to enact the very important provisions that will help alleviate the ongoing genocide. I am also disappointed that such sweeping immigration provisions were included in this bill without adequate debate or scrutiny. What concerned me most of all about the REAL ID bill is that it undermines America's moral authority by turning away legitimate asylum seekers fleeing tyranny. This language was added based on a claim that our asylum system can be used by terrorists to enter the country. This is not the case. However, I would like to thank my colleague Chairman Specter for working diligently to successfully soften some of the harsher language in the asylum provisions. As originally drafted, the REAL ID Act would have created significant and additional barriers for refugees fleeing persecution to obtain asylum. REAL ID would have greatly increased a refugees' burden of proof to establish their eligibility for asylum. At the whim of an immigration judge's discretion, refugees would be required to produce corroborative evidence of their claims of persecution or prove that the central intent of their persecutors was to punish them for their race, religion or political beliefs even in cases where the refugee's testimony was already credible. The facts are quite obvious: persecutors are not going to issue official documents explaining their actions. In addition, proving the mindset of those who carry out killings, torture and other abuse is next to impossible. Even if this were possible, those who flee a country often times don't have time to gather up the proper documentation they may later need in an American immigration court. The incorporated revisions would make an immigration judge take into account the totality of the circumstances when evaluating an applicants claim and would not be able to discard a claim for subjective reasons. I want to clarify that the triers of fact must consider all relevant factors and base any adverse credibility determinations on a consideration of all of those factors. The findings must be reasonable. It would not be reasonable to find a lack of credibility based on inconsistencies, inaccuracies or falsehoods that do not go to the heart of the asylum claim without other evidence that the asylum applicant is attempting to deceive the trier of fact. I also understand that when assessing demeanor, triers of fact must take into consideration the individual circumstances of the asylum applicant, such as his or her cultural background, educational background, gender, state of mind, history of trauma, and other factors. I remain concerned about how the asylum provisions will affect the adjudication of claims by children. Adjudicators cannot realistically hold these children to the same burden of proof and standards of persuasion as adult asylum-seekers. For example, children reasonably cannot be expected to pinpoint a central motive of persecution and provide corroborating evidence of their persecution. I conclude by pointing out that applications for asylum have fallen from 140,000 to just over 30,000 per year, and the numbers of those who are actually granted asylum has fallen to about 10,000 per year. Individuals fleeing persecution must already meet a high burden of proof and undergo intensive security measures to obtain asylum. While I recognize the importance of security in the post-9/11 environment, I am committed to ensuring legitimate asylum-seekers a haven without imposing unrealistic barriers. In addition to the asylum revisions, I am extremely pleased that we were able to secure the repeal of the arbitrary 1,000 annual cap placed on refugees fleeing coercive population control. This, along with the lifting of the asylum adjustment cap, will enable those who have fled persecution, including forced abortions, to become legal permanent residents and enjoy the security and benefits that go along with that status. The importance of the supplemental bill is not to be understated. Our troops are valiantly protecting human freedoms and deserve our support. The humanitarian crises around the world resulting from natural disasters such as the tsunami, and resulting from human rights atrocities such as genocide, cannot be ignored by a country such as ours. I thank my colleagues for working to get this bill to the President. Iraq Security Forces Fund

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise with several of my colleagues to speak about the importance of the renewal of the Burma sanctions. I also wish to speak candidly about the Burmese Military Junta's continued oppression of their people through rape, torture and other severe human rights abuses. As the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi continues to inspire the democracy movement and seek support for their peaceful cause. It has been reported that the National League for Democracy has collected more than 300,000 signatures on a petition calling for change in the country. Those who sign are actively putting their lives in danger by publicly stating that they seek democratic change and some 1,400 political prisoners are locked up for supporting human rights and democracy. The human rights abuses in Burma continue daily against ethnic minorities, political activists and others who simply suffer as innocent bystanders. A 2002 Human Rights Watch report found that Burma has nearly 70,000 child soldiers in its army, more than any other country in the world. Up to 2 million people have been forced to flee the country as refugees and migrants and the burning of villages continues in eastern Burma, especially in the Karen and Karenni states. Last year I drew to your attention a report titled ``Shattering Silences'', in which the Karen Women's Organization carefully investigated and recorded the Burmese military regime's use of rape as a weapon of war against ethnic minority women, revealing a shockingly brutal and callous practice. For the past two years, I have joined my colleagues in reauthorizing the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which bans mainly textile and garment imports from Burma. When I chaired the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee I held a hearing on this very subject. In that hearing I spoke about the importance of a multilateral isolation policy. I urge my colleagues to consider the strides that have been made in just two years of promoting such a policy. In a major and important move, the European Union, in October 2004, followed the lead of the United States and significantly strengthened its sanctions on Burma, including a ban on investments in enterprises of the ruling regime and a strengthened visa ban. The EU also pledged to join the United States in opposing loans to Burma's regime from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The European Parliament passed a resolution calling ``on the UN Security Council to address the situation in Burma as a matter of urgency.'' Additionally, 289 members of the British parliament tabled a motion calling on the UN Security Council to address the situation in Burma. After both houses of Congress passed resolutions in October 2004 calling on the UN Security Council to address the situation in Burma, the parliament of Australia followed suit. The Australian motion called on the government to, ``support the Burmese National League for Democracy's call for the UN Security Council to convene a special session to consider what further measures the UN can take to encourage democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma.'' Support at the United Nations is growing as well. Burma was one of only a few countries on which resolutions were passed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This was led by the European Union with strong support from the United States as well as support from Japan. The resolution strongly condemned what it called ``the systematic ongoing violation of human rights'' in Burma. There has been unprecedented action on Burma within ASEAN. Whereas in the past ASEAN refused to even comment on what it deemed Burma's ``internal affairs'', many members of the organization are now publicly pressuring Burma to step aside as the chair of the association in 2006. The tough approach maintained by the United States towards Burma, including import sanctions and a possible boycott of 2006 meetings, is for the first time encouraging many Asian nations to rethink whether the Burmese regime should assume the rotating chairmanship. There is widespread belief within the leadership of ASEAN countries that Burma has failed to deliver on its promises to the region. In all of the above-mentioned instances, the strong stand of the United States has influenced countries around the world. The movement at the EU, UN, and within ASEAN is unprecedented. We must keep up the tough pressure by the United States. I urge my colleagues to reauthorize the sanctions as a strong and clear signal that the United States will not support this brutal regime and their continued oppression of activists and minorities.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I have introduced a bill with my colleagues, the senior Senators from Louisiana and Oklahoma, called the Eliminate Neglected Disease Act of 2005. Neglected diseases are diseases that don't get much attention but nonetheless account for the vast majority of all deaths in the world: malaria, tuberculosis, acute respiratory infections, infectious diarrhea. For most of these diseases, our bilateral foreign assistance agency, USAID, is not funding direct interventions in communities using known, life-saving tools. The need for our bill could not be more urgent. Given the following, conditions have never been better for the U.S. to apply inexpensive, relatively simple interventions to save lives: 1. We know how to cure and/or prevent these diseases. 2. Interventions, prevention and/or treatment are relatively cheap. Cure for malaria = $2. For TB = $11-15. One year of non-curative treatment for AIDS: $500-1,000. 3. These diseases are responsible for the vast majority of deaths in the developing world, particularly among children and pregnant women. Malaria is the number one killer of kids and pregnant women in Africa, kills between 1-2 million people each year but makes about 500 million sick! Tuberculosis kills about 2 million people each year. Unlike with other diseases, people can not avoid infection with these killers by behavior change. 4. Low-hanging fruit--these diseases are so cheap to control, even the modest budgets we have now could make a huge difference if they were spent wisely. Our bill focuses on the following programmatic reform: 1. Direct interventions: requires funding of activities that have a direct impact on sick people or people at risk of becoming sick. For some programs, this will require a shift of priority in budgets from indirect support and advice-giving consultants to actually funding medical treatment, commodity procurement, and disease control activities. 2. Accountability: programs must measure performance and prove that they are saving lives. The bill establishes mechanisms to revise or terminate contracts that fail to save lives. 3. Transparency: Every dollar that the agency awards to combat infectious diseases must be accounted for on a public web site, similar to the Global Fund's web site. All signed agreements are posted online, as well as progress reports documenting performance on required deliverables and indicators. 4. Scientific and Clinical Integrity: The bill provides that clinical/medical and public health programs are overseen by the agencies of the Federal Government where the core competencies in clinical medicine and public health reside. For programs where the lack of clinical and scientific expertise has been particularly acute, a group of Federal and non-government medical and academic experts will provide scientific and medical oversight. 5. Coordination and Priority-setting: Up to five Federal agencies are currently involved in international malaria and tuberculosis programs. The bill would provide for clearer lines of authority and coordination for these programs, and require a strategic planning process to ensure that programs operate according to a outcome-focused 5-year plan. The world community conquered smallpox. We have nearly conquered polio and guinea worm. When we acted in concert, we stopped SARS in its tracks a few years ago. If these diseases were killing our own citizens at the rates they are killing people in poorer countries, we would put an end to it using the inexpensive, known methods, in short order. African children are just as precious as American and European children. To those who have been given much, much is expected. We will be held responsible for how we responded to this crisis. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I have introduced a bill with my colleagues, the senior Senators from Louisiana and Oklahoma, called the Eliminate Neglected Disease Act of 2005. Neglected diseases are diseases that don't get much attention but nonetheless account for the vast majority of all deaths in the world: malaria, tuberculosis, acute respiratory infections, infectious diarrhea. For most of these diseases, our bilateral foreign assistance agency, USAID, is not funding direct interventions in communities using known, life-saving tools. The need for our bill could not be more urgent. Given the following, conditions have never been better for the U.S. to apply inexpensive, relatively simple interventions to save lives: 1. We know how to cure and/or prevent these diseases. 2. Interventions, prevention and/or treatment are relatively cheap. Cure for malaria = $2. For TB = $11-15. One year of non-curative treatment for AIDS: $500-1,000. 3. These diseases are responsible for the vast majority of deaths in the developing world, particularly among children and pregnant women. Malaria is the number one killer of kids and pregnant women in Africa, kills between 1-2 million people each year but makes about 500 million sick! Tuberculosis kills about 2 million people each year. Unlike with other diseases, people can not avoid infection with these killers by behavior change. 4. Low-hanging fruit--these diseases are so cheap to control, even the modest budgets we have now could make a huge difference if they were spent wisely. Our bill focuses on the following programmatic reform: 1. Direct interventions: requires funding of activities that have a direct impact on sick people or people at risk of becoming sick. For some programs, this will require a shift of priority in budgets from indirect support and advice-giving consultants to actually funding medical treatment, commodity procurement, and disease control activities. 2. Accountability: programs must measure performance and prove that they are saving lives. The bill establishes mechanisms to revise or terminate contracts that fail to save lives. 3. Transparency: Every dollar that the agency awards to combat infectious diseases must be accounted for on a public web site, similar to the Global Fund's web site. All signed agreements are posted online, as well as progress reports documenting performance on required deliverables and indicators. 4. Scientific and Clinical Integrity: The bill provides that clinical/medical and public health programs are overseen by the agencies of the Federal Government where the core competencies in clinical medicine and public health reside. For programs where the lack of clinical and scientific expertise has been particularly acute, a group of Federal and non-government medical and academic experts will provide scientific and medical oversight. 5. Coordination and Priority-setting: Up to five Federal agencies are currently involved in international malaria and tuberculosis programs. The bill would provide for clearer lines of authority and coordination for these programs, and require a strategic planning process to ensure that programs operate according to a outcome-focused 5-year plan. The world community conquered smallpox. We have nearly conquered polio and guinea worm. When we acted in concert, we stopped SARS in its tracks a few years ago. If these diseases were killing our own citizens at the rates they are killing people in poorer countries, we would put an end to it using the inexpensive, known methods, in short order. African children are just as precious as American and European children. To those who have been given much, much is expected. We will be held responsible for how we responded to this crisis. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in light of the upcoming Holocaust Remembrance Day, I want to pay tribute to the men, women, and children who suffered and were murdered at the hands of the Nazis in the death camps across Europe. In 1951, the Israeli Knesset designated an official day on the Hebrew calendar, called Yom ha-Shoah, to commemorate the Shoah or Holocaust. This important day falls on May 5th. ``Shoah'' is the Hebrew word meaning ``catastrophe,'' which speaks to the tragic destruction of nearly the entirety of European Jewry during World War II. Perhaps no other place has been so linked to the Shoah than Auschwitz, the liberation of which was solemnly marked earlier this year. Auschwitz now symbolizes the horror suffered by millions in an expansive network of camps and sub-camps that stretched throughout much of Europe. Millions of people were deported to these camps throughout the war. Many were summarily executed. Others were worked to death. Some were subjected to sadistic medical experimentation. The death camp at Auschwitz was at the heart of the ``final solution,'' the slaughter of innocents for no other reason than that they were Jews. In addition, Poles, Roma and other minorities were transported to Auschwitz and elsewhere for elimination. To put this staggering human suffering into some scale, the equivalent of roughly half the current population of my home State of Kansas was murdered at Auschwitz alone. I have had the privilege of visiting Yad Vashem in Jerusalem to honor the memory of the victims of Shoah. The legacy of the Holocaust encompasses the memory of those that perished as well as those who survived. The testimonies of those who survived Auschwitz and other death camps attest to the capacity of evil. At the same time, the lives of the survivors underscore the resilience of the human spirit and the fact that good can and must prevail over evil. Six decades after the smoldering flames of the Shoah were extinguished, we are still confronted with reality that the embers of anti-Semitism could today be fanned into a consuming fire. As chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am committed to confronting and combating manifestations of anti-Semitism and related violence at home and abroad. I look forward to the upcoming OSCE conference in Cordoba, Spain, as it will assess what measures countries are or are not taking to confront anti-Semitism. As a member of the Senate, I have and will continue to support the vital educational work of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and other institutions. While the world professed shock at the scope of the atrocities and cruelty of the Holocaust, it has not prevented genocides elsewhere, Bosnia, Rwanda, and now Darfur. We I can best honor the memory of those killed during the Holocaust and the survivors by giving real meaning to ``never again.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to oncology nurses. May 1 marks the beginning of the 10th annual Oncology Nursing Day and Month and this year marks the 30th Anniversary of the Oncology Nursing Society. As co-chair of the Senate Cancer Coalition, I know oncology nurses play an important and essential role in providing quality cancer care. These nurses are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side effects patients experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled, kind-hearted angels who provide quality clinical, psychosocial, and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our Nation's cancer care delivery system. I congratulate the Oncology Nursing Society, ONS, on its 30th anniversary. ONS is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 31,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. Since 1975, ONS has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration, and education in the field of oncology. The society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. To that end, ONS honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocate for the public good by providing nurses and health care professionals with access to the highest quality educational programs, cancer-care resources, research opportunities and networks for peer support. ONS has three chapters in my home State of Kansas, which help oncology nurses provide high-quality cancer care to patients and their families in our State. Cancer is a complex, multifaceted, and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. Each year, in the United States, approximately 1.37 million people are diagnosed with cancer, another 570,000 lose their battles with this terrible disease, and more than 8 million Americans count themselves among a growing community known as cancer survivors. Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment. Over the last 10 years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all cancer patients receive care in community settings, including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Treatment regimens are as complex, if not more so, than regimens given in the inpatient setting a few short years ago. Oncology nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment, and they are the front line providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side effects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, provide counseling to patients and family members, in addition to many other daily acts on behalf of cancer patients. I thank all oncology nurses for their dedication to our Nation's cancer patients, and commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 30 years. They have contributed immensely to the quality and accessibility of care for all cancer patients and their families, and I urge my colleagues to support them in their important endeavors.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an amendment we worked on for a long time, a Darfur amendment, $50 million for peacekeepers, $40 million for food aid. It was agreed to but not in the managers' package last night. We do ask unanimous consent this be brought up and we will be asking for a voice vote on it. It has broad bipartisan support.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a joint resolution that seeks to address an issue that has lain unresolved for far too long. That issue is our Nation's relationship with the Native peoples of this land. Long before 1776 and the establishment of the United States of America, this land was inhabited by numerous nations. Like our Nation, many of these peoples held a strong belief in the Creator and maintained a powerful spiritual connection to this land. Since the formation of the American Republic, there have been numerous conflicts between our Government and many of these tribes conflicts in which warriors on all sides fought courageously and in which all sides suffered. However, even from the earliest days of the Republic, there existed a sentiment that honorable dealings and peaceful coexistence were preferable to bloodshed. Indeed, our predecessors in Congress in 1787 stated in the Northwest Ordinance, ``The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians.'' Many treaties were made between this Republic and the American Indian tribes. Treaties, as my colleagues in this Chamber know, are far more than words on a page. Treaties are our word, our bond. Treaties with other governments are not to be treated lightly. Unfortunately, too often the United States of America did not uphold its responsibilities as stated in its covenants with the Native American tribes. Too often our Government broke its oaths to the Native peoples. I want my fellow Senators to know that the resolution I have introduced this week does not dismiss the valiance of our American soldiers who bravely fought for their families in wars between the United States and a number of the Indian tribes. Nor does this resolution cast all the blame for the various battles on one side or another. What this resolution does do is recognize and honor the importance of Native Americans to this land and to our Nation in the past and today--and offers an official apology to the Native peoples for the poor and painful choices our Government sometimes made to disregard its solemn word. This is a resolution of apology and a resolution of reconciliation. It is a first step toward healing the wounds that have divided us for so long--a potential foundation for a new era of positive relations between tribal governments and the Federal Government. It is time--it is past time--for us to heal our land of division, all divisions, and bring us together as one people. Before reconciliation, there must be recognition and repentance. Before there is a durable relationship, there must be understanding. This resolution will not authorize or serve as a settlement of any claim against the United States, nor will it resolve the many challenges still facing Native peoples. But it does recognize the negative impact of numerous deleterious Federal acts and policies on Native Americans and their cultures. Moreover, it begins the effort of reconciliation by recognizing past wrongs and repenting for them. Martin Luther King, a true reconciler, once said, ``The end is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end is the creation of the beloved community.'' This resolution is not the end. But, perhaps it signals the beginning of the end of division and the faint first light and first fruits of the creation of beloved community. In the 108th Congress, I worked with the chairman and ranking member of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Campbell and Senator Inouye, in crafting this apology resolution. I also reached out to the Native tribes as this bill was being formed, and I continue to receive helpful and supportive feedback from them. The resolution I submitted this week, S.J. Res. 15, is identical to the version that was approved unanimously by the Indian Affairs Committee last year. I ask that my colleagues in this Chamber, and those in the House of Representatives, join in support of this important resolution.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague from New Jersey on this amendment. I think by definition a supplemental is about emergency needs and emergency spending. I don't know of a bigger one taking place right now in the world than in Darfur. So it is my hope that within this supplemental we will be able to deal with this issue of Darfur, both in funding and in some language to be able to stop this. This is a completely manmade genocide; it is a completely manmade disaster. It is one that can be stopped with a reasonable number of troops on the ground, with a reasonable engagement strategy. This can stop. Instead of the 300,000 deaths going on up, this can and will stop. They need food aid, and they need allocation of funds for African Union forces. We will have Assistant Secretary Zoellick on the ground in Khartoum. He is going to go to the south, and then to the western part of Sudan after that, to look and to press the situation. The administration is engaged and is pushing. We need to do this in the supplemental. It is important for it to take place. Lest people think this was last year's disaster that we are just putting forward more now and saying wasn't that terrible then, we should have acted, I want to show you pictures from this year. Senator Corzine showed pictures earlier. This is of a village; it was taken by African Union monitors. It is completely burned out, razed. You can still see the smoke smoldering. This was taken by monitors, and they got there just after the village was burned. I have some very graphic pictures I am going to be showing. If people don't want to see them, please turn away. It is the face of genocide. Genocide, by definition, involves the killing of one group of people by another. That is taking place and is taking place now. This is a young child who was shot in the upper right portion of the torso, and it exits here. You can see the gash here. We don't know if this child lived or died. He probably died given the state of health care there. This happened after a raid that took place. This is a child shot in a raid because he was an African child. This is a gentleman who was killed and burned. This is a village that is on fire. Someone in a helicopter took this picture, supported by the African Union. These are all current pictures. This one I believe my colleague showed as well. It is of a gentleman who was tied up, killed, and probably brutalized in Darfur. These are the faces, and this is the picture of genocide. It is continuing to occur, and it is occurring now. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the passage of the amendment Senator Corzine and I and others are putting forward. It is an amended version of the Darfur Accountability Act. It has the wide bipartisan support of 30 members. The amendment calls for several steps to be taken, which my colleague outlined: a new U.N. Security Council resolution with sanctions against the Government of Sudan; an extension of the current arms embargo to cover the Government of Sudan; military no-fly zone over Darfur; expansion of the U.N. mission in the Sudan; and a mandate to protect civilians in all of Sudan, which includes Darfur. It calls on the United States to appoint a Presidential envoy to Sudan and to raise this issue at the highest diplomatic levels in bilateral relations with Sudan, the Chinese, and other governments that can be of assistance. This calls for accelerated assistance to the African Union mission in Darfur and an expansion of the size and mandate of the mission necessary to protect civilians. In addition, I hope the administration will push for a coalition of conscience. My colleagues mentioned a coalition of willing nations to join the efforts and demand an end to the genocide by making a declaration of conscience and backing it by actions if the U.N. Security Council fails to do so. Last week was the 11th-year anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, when we declared and the world declared ``never again.'' We are now seeing it take place yet again. Can we learn from that? This is stoppable, and it is not by a huge commitment. We are not asking for 100,000 U.S. troops to go there. We are not asking for any U.S. troops. We are asking for financial support for the African Union and food aid to be able to maintain the villagers who have been run out of their village. With that, we believe firmly that this can and will stop and that people will be able to return to their villages. Time is of the essence. Every day in this harsh climate in this region is a day that more people die. There simply are not the resources in the area to be able to support the individuals who are involved. My colleague covered most of the points. I plead with my colleagues to pass this amendment in the supplemental. It is an emergency need. It is an emergency that is taking place. With this, we will be able to save lives. Keep it in the conference report so it gets to the President, it gets implemented and the help does come, so when Secretary Zoellick returns from the region, he will have this level of resources to work with, he will have this commitment from the Congress to work with, and we will be able to move forward. If the U.N. fails to act--and I am terribly disappointed in what the U.N. is doing in this situation; they are not doing anything at all-- the United States must press forward with those willing to act so the genocide can stop, so the killing will stop, so we can move forward with peace and people can go back to their lives. I hope people can start to feel and see some of that pain in front of our very eyes that we can stop. We can stop this. I plead with my colleagues to please stop it and support this amendment. I do believe we will get this passed. We need to pass it. I hope it is kept in the bill through the entire process. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I add one postscript on this Darfur Accountability Act. The House has language dealing with Darfur. We did not have as much of it in here. It is two parts: food and military assistance. We are working closely with the committee to try to get this worked through. It will not go over the amount that is in it. It will be offset in other places within the budget. I want to make sure that is clear to my colleagues who are interested in this. They are supportive, but they do not want to bust the supplemental caps. This will be taken from other places we are working on right now. Senator McConnell, Senator Cochran, and other of our colleagues are working diligently with us. It is in two places as far as food aid and its assistance to peacekeepers. These will be African Union peacekeepers. So I want to get the practicalities of it out. I also admonish my colleagues that where we sit as the most powerful Nation on the face of the Earth, we are called on to remember those who are in bondage as if we were in bondage ourselves. That may seem a strange concept, but when others are free, we are free. If others are in bondage, we are going to feel those chains and it will constantly rub against our souls. This is something that is important and it is also historic for us. When we fought against slavery in this country, the issue was that the bondage of others was our bondage and people felt it, they fought against it. It is in the great heritage of this country to fight for freedom for other people, so that when they are in bondage we feel that, but when we can help break that, we will also break bondages on ourselves and make us use the greatness of America for the goodness of the world. It is that goodness that keeps us moving toward greatness. This is not a large sum of money we are talking about, but it is critically important. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Jennifer Pollom, a detailee on the Senate Budget Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 1268.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. This is well- plowed ground. We have been around this issue since 1984, with Ronald Reagan putting this policy in place. The Boxer amendment overturns that policy. This is about taxpayer funding of abortion overseas. We can separate the issue of abortion here altogether and say we are not going to talk about that, but this is taxpayer dollars used to support organizations supporting abortion overseas. We talk about different semantics. That is what it does. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Clearly, 70-plus percent of the American public would be against that. Let's work on foreign policy issues and funding of things on which we have great unity, not ones on which we are divided. I respectfully urge a vote against the amendment of my colleague, Senator Boxer.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. No objection from myself.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will address directly one point, if the Senator does not object. I read from the CRS document May 19, 2003, on this topic: In USAID-issued certification forms, organizations had to state that they would not engage in three types of activities with either USAID or non-USAID funds from the date they signed an agreement to receive FY2000 USAID population funds . . . : Perform abortions in a foreign country, except where the life of the mother would be endangered, or in cases of forcible rape or incest; Violate the laws of a foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or restricted; or Attempt to alter laws or governmental policies concerning circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated, or restricted. As I understand it, USAID is required by the Mexico City language, that in horrific difficulties and circumstances, such as the case the Senator discussed, individuals may work with organizations who provide abortions. But it is on a narrow set of circumstances because the American public does not agree with taxpayer funding of abortions overseas. I submit the report for the Record, and I yield the floor. If my colleague is prepared to yield back time, I am prepared to yield back time, too.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Furthermore, I want to back up to an earlier point that I engaged on with my colleague. We live in a wonderful nation. This is a beautiful land. I have traveled to many of the developing countries around the world. They look up to America. They seek help and support from America. They seek our ideals. When we go there and we push issues such as abortion or are associated with groups that push issues such as abortion, we are reduced as a nation. Actions like this says to developing countries: We have issues such as malaria, we have issues such as HIV/AIDS, feeding our poor people, and you are out here pushing this ideology. Why are you doing that? I go home to my constituents in Kansas. They think the foreign aid budget is about 25 percent of the budget, which it is not. It is about 1 percent. But then if a case such as this comes up, tax payer funding of abortions in developing countries--and they don't say it as much now--they say: We are funding abortions overseas, and we don't like it. I remember in 1994 hearing many people saying things such as that. If we pursue this sort of policy, it diminishes our possibility to go to the public and say: We want to do whatever we possibly can to end poverty, hunger, and alleviate suffering in the world. We can do more and we want to do more. We are out there pushing to do more. If we force policies such as this, it cuts the knees out from underneath all our other efforts because then a number of people say: How are you doing alleviating poverty by funding a group that funds and works for abortion? How is this work alleviating suffering and poverty? It seems as though you are going against the very message you ought to be driving and pushing forward. My colleague and I have come together to discuss and work on many important issues, but we disagree sometimes. We have different views on the point of life. But, from my work, I know that there are great groups of people in this country and a pretty strong majority that says we need to help more overseas. But it has to be sensible help. There have to be ways we can feed more people and ways we can take care of sickness, where we can end the fighting in places such as Darfur, where we can move forward in economic development, in ways such as the Millennium Challenge Account Program is structured to do. Amendments such as this have a harmful overall impact on the body politic of this country, disrupting a chance to do something that is very noble and good. I understand my colleague is putting it forward as a noble cause. I don't think it is being received or can be viewed in that way. With all due respect to my colleague and her heart for her goodness to do the right thing, this amendment is not helpful on many levels. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in an effort not to belabor this too much, there is a set of semantics being argued back and forth. I invite my colleague to submit suggestions on regulatory changes to the USAID to try to address this narrow point, if that is, indeed, the case. I hope we do not, in focusing on a particular very narrow tragic issue and circumstance--and nobody is celebrating that tragedy--I hope we do not lose focus of the broader issue of taxpayer funding of abortions overseas. We can focus in on this very narrow point of view--and it is a tragic circumstance, I will concede that to my colleague. Maybe we can negotiate a regulatory change to address these important concerns if these words do not do it. I think we are arguing semantics here. Let's not lose sight of the fact, which is that this amendment would send taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank young very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues for discussing this important issue and I appreciate Senator Boxer's concern. This is well-plowed ground that we have traveled over several times. We have been over this issue a number of years. The Mexico City Policy was first introduced by Ronald Reagan. It is a commonsense policy that President Reagan first put forward in 1984, based in part on his belief that U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize or support organizations that perform or promote abortions through international family planning programs, period. President Reagan, as was typical in his way, looked at the root of the issue and said: I understand we have an enormous debate in America and around the world about the issues surrounding the questions ``when does life begin? Does it begin in the womb or not?'' There is an enormous debate about these important questions--and I am going to set that debate aside, President Reagan said, but I am going to say as well, the American public has very clearly defined itself on the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion. The people are saying: We may debate back and forth about the life issue, but we do not want taxpayer funding to provide for abortions, particularly overseas. That is just a bridge way too far for me to cross, too far from the very fundamentals of the debate, for now the country is a pro-life country and generally people are opposed to abortion taking place. That was the 1984 decision put in place by Ronald Reagan, later overturned by President Clinton, later put back into place by President Bush. One of George W. Bush's first acts in office was to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. The Mexico City Policy simply prohibits provision of Federal taxpayer funds to organizations that ``perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.'' It is a very simple issue. It is a very direct, straightforward issue. I want to say as well, that when individuals try to frame this debate by saying this is about women's rights and issues, and a lack of our support of them on the international level, I want to step aside for just a minute and point out the record of the Bush administration on women's rights, on issues in Afghanistan where women are now voting and actively participating in politics and society, is just tremendous. Senator Boxer and I both put forward a bill about women's rights in Afghanistan, and, in addition, the Bush administration is implementing and remedying concerns for women in Iraq who are now voting and are now proudly waving their fingers with the ink stain upon them. Brave women are demonstrating their rights and standing up to defend their rights around the world. This administration, on a very practical level, is putting forth and implementing programs in great strides to assure women's rights around the world, and they should be congratulated for that and thanked for all their efforts. Now, you can try to tie this question of taxpayer funding for abortions oversees back into that issue, but I do not think that is a fair point of the debate. The fair point of the debate is, it is taxpayer dollars. It involves the very difficult, sensitive issue of ``when does human life begin?''--a question which we have failed to resolve in this country as of this moment. Should American taxpayers be funding abortions in many countries all around the world? People say: Well, there is more family planning now. The dollars do not go directly for abortion. The money is fungible. It can go into an organization and be used to replace dollars that can then be used for abortion. Why should we put that sort of ideology forward on another country when we have not resolved it ourselves? I think the Bush doctrine, formerly the Reagan doctrine, the Mexico City Policy, should stand for good reason. It stands with the American public. We should not be using Federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas. That is the view of 75 to 80 percent of Americans. Many Americans do not like the way we handle foreign assistance now anyway. I personally think we should be generous in our foreign assistance and in some cases do substantially more to alleviate poverty. But if you frame the debate into these sorts of issues alone, you start to drive away people's support for foreign aid and for supporting the good that is taking place in other countries. That is not a good thing to do, particularly when we have been given so much as a nation. I would hope we could help more overseas, but it has to be in a sensible way that the American public agrees with. So while I appreciate being able to work with my colleague from California on many issues, this is one where we will have to part company. I really think President Reagan got this principle right, and the continuation of the Mexico City Policy by President Bush is right as well. Respectfully, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Boxer amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could have 1 minute. How much time remains?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, responding to a couple of the comments of my colleague from California, I would like to cite and include in the Record a Congressional Research Service report on international family planning, the Mexico City policy. This report is dated April 2, 2001. And then another one, an updated one on population assistance and family planning programs, issued for Congress, May 19, 2003. In the 2003 report, I want to cite this briefly because we are getting involved in a discussion about what the wording of the Boxer amendment does and what it does not do. I contend that clearly what could take place with the passage of the Boxer amendment, is that money could go to a foreign organization that performs abortions. These organizations can't use the money directly for abortions, but they can move private money to do abortions while using the government money for advocacy. That is what I am saying. My colleague is giving the illustration of this tragic situation that has occurred where there has been a rape in Nepal and this is a heart-rending example of these types of cases right before us now. Regardless of how you view life, and when human life begins, we are going to set that issue aside but I hope we get to debate that issue one of these days. In this CRS report dated 2003, USAID issued additional guidelines on the implementation of the Mexico City Policy and stated that organizations could not ``perform abortions in a foreign country except where the life of the mother would be endangered or in cases of forcible rape or incest.'' So where my colleague is talking about a case of forcible rape taking place and a choice of an organization having to choose between performing an abortion or losing their funding, the USAID policy says that performing such an abortion is a specific exemption from this Mexico City policy that is squarely on point in this CRS report. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record selections from the two CRS reports that I have mentioned.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I congratulate and honor two young Kansas students who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Nicole Wayant of Topeka, KS, and Cormac O'Connor of Prairie Village, KS, have just been named State Honorees in The 2005 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on only one high school student and one middle-level student in each State, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Ms. Wayant is being recognized for creating a youth health council to promote the benefits of an active, healthy lifestyle among the students in her school district. Mr. O'Connor is being recognized for implementing an intergenerational arts program that brought senior citizens and at-risk children together for classes in visual arts, movements, theater and jazz. In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it is vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions these young people have made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. Wayant and Mr. O'Connor are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. The program that brought these young role models to our attention-- The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995 to impress upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past 10 years, the program has become the Nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, with more than 170,000 young people participating since its inception. Ms. Wayant and Mr. O'Connor should be extremely proud to have been singled out from such a large group of dedicated volunteers. As part of their recognition, they will come to Washington in early May, along with other 2005 Spirit of Community honorees from across the country, for several days of special events, including a congressional breakfast on Capitol Hill. While here in Washington, 10 will be named America's top youth volunteers of the year by a distinguished national selection committee. I applaud Ms. Wayant and Mr. O'Connor for their initiative in seeking to make their communities better places to live, and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others. I also salute the other young people in my State who were named Distinguished Finalists by The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards for their outstanding volunteer service. They are Shawn Bryant of Leavenworth, KS; Brad Harris of Saint Paul, KS; Amanda Knox of Clifton, KS; and Creighton Olsen of Larned, KS. All of these young people have demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world and they deserve our sincere admiration and respect. Their actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in their communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I recently introduced S. 609, the Prenatally-diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act, with my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts. This bill will accomplish the following: One, ensure that pregnant women facing a positive prenatal test result will be more likely to receive up-to-date, scientific information about the life expectancy, clinical course, intellectual and functional development, and prenatal and postnatal treatment options for their child; Two, provide pregnant women referrals to support services such as hotlines, Web sites, information clearinghouses, registries of families willing to adopt babies with disabilities, and parent-to-parent programs where people with children with disabilities meet with the newly diagnosed family to provide support and real-world information; Three, improve epidemiologic understanding of prenatally-diagnosed conditions, within a strict set of confidentiality protections; Four, support health care providers who perform prenatal tests and deliver results; and Five, authorize a study of the effectiveness of existing health care and family support services for children with disabilities and their families. The need for this legislation and the public dialogue I hope it encourages could not be more urgent. Medical science has provided the opportunity to obtain a massive amount of information about our own bodies and health and that of our children. But I am concerned that our ethical dialogue has not kept pace with new ethical challenges. We have been able to screen for certain conditions in the womb for quite some time now, but I am concerned that we don't have a great track record for handling that information very well. For some conditions that can be detected in the womb, such as Down Syndrome, we are aborting 80 percent or more of the babies who test positive. The effect of this sort of ``weeding out'' represents a sort of new eugenics, a form of systematic, disability-based discrimination. Worse, trends suggest that this atrocity doesn't just end in the womb. The Netherlands has recently enacted policies that make it acceptable for doctors to end the lives of terminally ill children up to age 12, resulting in about 100 cases of pediatrician-induced homicides of children with severe handicaps each year. Belgium is considering similar policies. Unfortunately, these policies are starting to trickle into our own country. In Texas, a court recently upheld a hospital's decision to remove life support from a 6-month-old handicapped baby, against his mother's wishes. It sounds too crazy to be true, but it is not just fringe thinking-- leading so-called ethics experts have supported the killing of children with disabilities, such as Princeton Professor Peter Singer, who wrote in 1993 in his book Practical Ethics, ``killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person . . . sometimes it is not wrong at all.'' These ideas echo back to Nazi Germany, and, unfortunately, there is a tragic history, even in our own country, of abuse of institutionalized people with disabilities, only a few decades ago. Once one goes down the path of valuing some lives more than others, of saying that people with disabilities don't have the same dignity and right to live as others, there are very few means that don't justify the so-called ``worthy end'' of a disability-free society. When I see beautiful children with Down Syndrome, spina bifida and other differences, I can't imagine why our society would ever condone this sort of unnatural selection. We don't want a world where parents feel driven to justify their children's existence. In addition to the many abilities that people with disabilities have which are equivalent to others, these individuals so often have a perspective the rest of us don't have. We learn compassion, heroism, humility, courage and self- sacrifice from these special individuals, and their gift to us is to inspire us, by their example, to achieve these virtues ourselves. Published surveys suggest that our legislation is desperately needed. A survey of 499 primary care physicians delivering a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome to expectant parents found that 10 percent actively ``urged'' parents to terminate the pregnancies, and 13 percent indicated that they ``emphasized the negative aspects of Down Syndrome so that parents would favor a termination.'' This bill offers support to ensure that prenatal testing need not be a negative experience for those whose children are diagnosed with a condition like Down Syndrome. For instance, some pregnant women might choose to carry their child to term if they knew there were waiting lists of families willing to adopt children with Down Syndrome. Some parents might be reassured about keeping their children if they were able to spend some time talking with a family that has a special needs child about their real-life experience. Some parents would be helped by hearing a positive message about the potential and joy of living with children with disabilities, while also being presented with a realistic assessment of the challenges. There are many people to thank for helping prepare this bill for introduction, and I hope they will continue to help us as we move this bill towards the President's desk. In particular, I am honored to have my friend the senior Senator from Massachusetts as a lead Democrat on this bill. Senator Kennedy is an incredible champion for people with disabilities. As we have worked together, he has educated me about some of the challenges faced by families with children with disabilities. In particular, I want to thank Connie Garner on Senator Kennedy's staff, whose tireless advocacy for the dignity and rights of people with disabilities has been an inspiration to me and my staff. Many thanks to our partners in the House of Representatives, who I hope will speedily pass the companion version of this bill, especially lead sponsor Chairman Sensenbrenner. Key House support has also come from my friend Congressman Pete Sessions and Congressman John Hostettler. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation and I look forward to working with my colleague from Wyoming, the Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the majority leader, to speed Senate passage of this important legislation.