Sam Brownback

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.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I join my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Florida to talk about Terri Schiavo's case, and to the names of the people around the world who are praying for Terri Schiavo, a lady they have never known. They have seen pictures of her on television, but something is just striking at them, saying, this woman deserves to live. She deserves to have another review. The covenant with death needs to be broken, and will be. This body has spoken tonight in a bipartisan, unanimous fashion to work on this. There are a lot of opinions on the factual and legal issues surrounding it, but we came together unanimously to give her that right to have one more review by a Federal court. I thank Senator Reid from Nevada, who was very helpful in working this, Senator Wyden, who worked on things for his State, and Senator Levin. A number of people helped to make this move forward, and Senator Martinez carried the freight with Senator Santorum. This is a fine moment for this body, but it should not end here. I plead with those people involved directly, the courts directly involved in this, let this process move forward. Don't pull the tubes out tomorrow. We passed one bill in the House and one bill in the Senate. That should be extraordinary enough that they say this deserves one more look. Why wouldn't we give one more look? This is a purely innocent life we are talking about. The lengths we will go to for people who are convicted of a crime--we give much further review by a court of law. Here is a purely innocent life. Tomorrow, this could all end. But it shouldn't. It must not end that way. We have some differences between the House and Senate version. Frankly, for myself, I think the House version is good. We could not move that through. We will keep meeting here. I met with the House leadership and chairman in the House with concerns, feeling theirs is a better approach. That is accurate. That is the way to go. We are at a point in time where we should no longer have debate. We have to try to come together and plead with the court to hold this off so we can get moving. And more than that, a moral code in America right now is being discussed and is being acted upon through one person's life. It is so critical this be done right and be done thoughtfully and every chance for final review be given for an innocent life. A purely innocent life is at stake. I am confident we can come forward with that. We must come forward with that for the sake of Terri Schiavo and for the sake of this country and for its message around the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the past few years I have been advancing a concept that embodies fiscal responsibility, a concept that--if enacted--would be a sure sign to hard-working Americans that the Federal Government is serious about fiscal discipline. Federal spending is at an all time high, now topping $20,000 per household, and that does not include spending from state and local taxes. This is the highest level of federal spending since World War II. The Federal Government is now spending $2,292,000,000 per year on discretionary and mandatory spending, including Social Security. Mr. President, $2.292 trillion is a lot of money. My Kansas constituents often say: ``I don't mind paying my taxes, but make sure my hard-earned money gets spent wisely.'' Does Federal spending need to be so high? We would all agree that the Federal Government has an essential role to play in various capacities, but are taxpayers getting the most out of every dollar sent to Washington? Again, I ask, does the Federal Government really need $20,000 per American household in order to operate? And what real safeguards do we have in place to ensure that these $2.292 trillion are being spent wisely? I am proud to have been elected to serve my constituents on a platform of reducing wasteful Federal spending and reforming Government. After 10 years though, I can testify that it takes a great deal of effort to keep a positive attitude. Balancing the budget, reducing Federal spending and returning taxpayer dollars to the families that earned them is hard work. The reason for the difficulty in achieving success, in what would seem to be an obvious thing to do--reducing government waste and prioritizing spending--is that the specific interests trump the general interest on Capitol Hill. For instance, there is a general interest to discourage smoking, and we spend many taxpayer dollars both to this end and on the treatment of lung cancer; however, taxpayer dollars are also still spent to subsidize tobacco because there is such specific interest pressure to keep tobacco subsidies alive. The budget we are debating cuts the deficit in half in 5 years. I think we should balance the budget in seven years, but to be effective, we must work within the parameters of the system. Systems matter, and to get solid reform accomplished you must have an approach that recognizes this reality. The problem with our current system--with the specific interest crowding out the general--is that it makes reform very difficult. Former Senator Phil Gramm taught me this truth in the Senate. I believe that we need a new systematic approach to spending in Congress. This whole week, amendment after amendment has been offered on the Senate floor; generally speaking, each one of these amendments has the voice of a particular specific interest behind it. After all of the specific interest issues are raised, I will be happy if we can just cut the deficit in half in five years. We need to create another mechanism, which will allow for the general interest to overcome the specific. Therefore, I put forward a new systematic approach. Over the last few years, I have developed the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA Act, which is a systematic approach. Last year, we had a bipartisan hearing on the measure, in which all witnesses supported this new concept. In this year's version of the bill, we are incorporating some of the suggestions made at that hearing. CARFA would take all of the Federal Government agencies and programs and put them under the review of a bipartisan commission--the members of which are appointed by both Congress and the White House. The commission would review Federal agencies and programs, and present draft legislation to the Congress to realign or eliminate duplicative, wasteful, outdated, and failed agencies and programs. Each house of Congress would get one vote on the bill--up or down-- without amendment. For example, if the commission finds 563 programs that are duplicative, wasteful, or already have accomplished their purpose and recommends their realignment or termination, then the Congress would vote--up or down--without amendment to realign or eliminate all of them or keep all of them. And you get only one vote--one vote in the House and one vote in the Senate--to send it forward to the President. It is a systematic approach to address the specific interests dominating the debate in Washington. The CARFA approach tries to get at the issue and create a systematic approach by giving the general interest a voice in the system. So now you have these 563 or 284 programs, and people come up to me and say: ``Well, what if you've got an agriculture program that has some benefit to Kansas, that you want to help and keep?'' Then, I look at the program and see that it does help Kansas, but I only get one vote and there are all of these other programs that I really do think need to be eliminated. And it makes the overall goal of balancing the Federal budget more achievable. I am pleased that, once again this year, the chairman of the Budget Committee has seen the need for this measure and recognized how vitally important it is, as he has included a sense of the Senate calling for a commission along the lines of CARFA. It is my hope that we will be able to work with the leadership this year and see the new CARFA systematic approach become a reality.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Brownback- Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act, which we introduce today. The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act remains the only effective ban on human cloning. This legislation has passed the U.S. House of Representatives twice by large margins. This bill would also bring the U.S. into conformity with the recent vote at the United Nations, where the General Assembly called on all member states ``to prohibit all forms of human cloning'' by a strong 84 to 34 margin. President Bush has also spoken eloquently on the Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act, when he ``wholeheartedly'' endorsed the legislation. The President said: ``Human cloning is deeply troubling to me, and to most Americans. Life is a creation, not a commodity. ``Our children are gifts to be loved and protected, not products to be designed and manufactured. Allowing cloning would be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beings are grown for spare body parts, and children are engineered to custom specifications; and that's not acceptable. . . . ``I strongly support a comprehensive law against all human cloning. And I endorse the bill wholeheartedly endorse the bill--sponsored by Senator Brownback and Senator Mary Landrieu.'' The President could hardly have been clearer. We should take a stand against those that would turn young human beings into commodities and spare parts. We should not use human life for research purposes. The legislation introduced by Sen. Landrieu and myself, along with over one quarter of the Senate, answers that human life should not be used for research purposes. Let there be no doubt. Science affirms that the young human, at his or her earliest moments of life, is a human. It is wrong to treat another person as a piece of property that can be bought and sold, created and destroyed, all at the will of those in power. The issue of human cloning--and specifically how we treat the young human--will determine the kind of future we will give to our children and grandchildren. The essential question is whether or not we will allow human beings to be produced, to preordained specifications, for their eventual implantation or destruction, depending upon the intentions of the technicians who created them. Will we create life simply to destroy it? I firmly believe that human life should be cherished and that human dignity should be protected. I also firmly believe that ethically-sound research should proceed in the search for cures. The legislation that we introduce today takes a very thoughtful approach and is careful not to ban or interfere with gene therapy, IVF practices, or DNA, cell or tissue cloning--other than with cloned embryos. Now, some of our colleagues will tell you that they oppose `reproductive cloning,' but then turn around and call for `therapeutic cloning' or `SCNT.' Whether intentional or not, to argue that there are different types of human cloning creates a distinction that simply does not exist. All human cloning is `reproductive.' The question is simply: What do you do with the young, cloned human? Do you implant it and bring it to birth--like the sheep Dolly--or do you research on and kill the young human being, as advocates of so-called `therapeutic' cloning would have us do? Any other so-called human cloning bans, outside of the Brownback- Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act, are not enforceable. Once the young human has been cloned, you cannot distinguish it from any other human embryo produced by IVF or embodied sexual intercourse. If so-called `therapeutic' human cloning proceeds--and there are no laws in the U.S. against it--one of these human clones will be implanted, and there is nothing we can do to stop human cloning once we reach this point. Even if we detected a clonal human pregnancy, nothing could be done about it. Any remedies or punishments would be highly unpopular and unenforceable. As I have already stated, over a quarter of all U.S. Senators have agreed to be original cosponsors of this bill, and it is our intention to press for a clean vote in the Senate during the 109th Congress.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, many innocent human beings are forced from their homes and separated from their families because of war and civil strife. We are seeing it right now in Darfur, Sudan where over 2 million have been displaced from their homes due to the conflict and ongoing genocide. It is frightening to think that some of those people are still susceptible to persecution just for being a woman or a child. I have heard stories that the refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) are still not safe from being persecuted by their attackers. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will save the lives of some of the world's most vulnerable populations. The Widows and Orphans Act of 2005, similar to the one I introduced last Congress, will benefit women and children fleeing war and civil strife, who are often vulnerable and in grave danger. They may not be fleeing political persecution--something that would allow them to apply for refugee status--but they may nevertheless be subjected to violence or exploitation. When a culture does not recognize female heads of households, when a young child loses his or her family structure, or when a woman's home community will not allow her to return at the end of hostilities, abuse and exploitation often follow. For example, a widow fleeing an armed conflict risks being raped, being sold into sexual slavery or becoming a victim of violence. In another example, a child who loses his or her parents when fleeing a conflict is in grave danger of sexual exploitation and forced servitude. The child could even be forced into service as a child soldier, as we have seen happen to scores of children in Northern Uganda. Even within a refugee camp--a place that might otherwise be thought of as safe--women and children face forced prostitution and involuntary servitude. U.S. and international law does not currently provide refugee protection for age and sex-based violence. The Widows and Orphans Act of 2005 is much-needed legislation which would fill this void by admitting as special immigrants children and females at risk of harm. Under this bill, government officials, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and appropriate non-governmental organizations will be able to identify vulnerable women and children for consideration as special immigrants who then can gain permanent residence in the United States. This legislation will allow officials in the field--those monitoring armed conflict and civil strife and those in refugee camps--to identify women and children who face harm because of their sex or age and refer them for consideration as special immigrants. The bill will essentially speed up the acceptance process by allowing officials with first-hand knowledge of cases to step in and identify those in dire need. With reliable security measures, it will also help eliminate fraud and abuse from those who wish to do us harm. For widows and orphans, abuse and exploitation are immediate dangers. This legislation provides officials at the grass-roots level the ability to prevent further harm from coming upon those who have already faced terrible situations. More than 80 percent of the world's displaced people are women and children, and thousands of them are waiting patiently for the OK to enter our country. While they wait, they are often victimized; some even die waiting. We must not stand by as they are left to die.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, many innocent human beings are forced from their homes and separated from their families because of war and civil strife. We are seeing it right now in Darfur, Sudan where over 2 million have been displaced from their homes due to the conflict and ongoing genocide. It is frightening to think that some of those people are still susceptible to persecution just for being a woman or a child. I have heard stories that the refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) are still not safe from being persecuted by their attackers. Today, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will save the lives of some of the world's most vulnerable populations. The Widows and Orphans Act of 2005, similar to the one I introduced last Congress, will benefit women and children fleeing war and civil strife, who are often vulnerable and in grave danger. They may not be fleeing political persecution--something that would allow them to apply for refugee status--but they may nevertheless be subjected to violence or exploitation. When a culture does not recognize female heads of households, when a young child loses his or her family structure, or when a woman's home community will not allow her to return at the end of hostilities, abuse and exploitation often follow. For example, a widow fleeing an armed conflict risks being raped, being sold into sexual slavery or becoming a victim of violence. In another example, a child who loses his or her parents when fleeing a conflict is in grave danger of sexual exploitation and forced servitude. The child could even be forced into service as a child soldier, as we have seen happen to scores of children in Northern Uganda. Even within a refugee camp--a place that might otherwise be thought of as safe--women and children face forced prostitution and involuntary servitude. U.S. and international law does not currently provide refugee protection for age and sex-based violence. The Widows and Orphans Act of 2005 is much-needed legislation which would fill this void by admitting as special immigrants children and females at risk of harm. Under this bill, government officials, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and appropriate non-governmental organizations will be able to identify vulnerable women and children for consideration as special immigrants who then can gain permanent residence in the United States. This legislation will allow officials in the field--those monitoring armed conflict and civil strife and those in refugee camps--to identify women and children who face harm because of their sex or age and refer them for consideration as special immigrants. The bill will essentially speed up the acceptance process by allowing officials with first-hand knowledge of cases to step in and identify those in dire need. With reliable security measures, it will also help eliminate fraud and abuse from those who wish to do us harm. For widows and orphans, abuse and exploitation are immediate dangers. This legislation provides officials at the grass-roots level the ability to prevent further harm from coming upon those who have already faced terrible situations. More than 80 percent of the world's displaced people are women and children, and thousands of them are waiting patiently for the OK to enter our country. While they wait, they are often victimized; some even die waiting. We must not stand by as they are left to die.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the people of Romania and newly elected President Traian Basescu on the success of their recent national elections, and to encourage them in their efforts to consolidate democracy in Romania. In the 15 years since the overthrow of the brutal Communist dictatorship which ruled that country for decades, Romania has undertaken four successful national elections and peaceful transfers of power, and has made important strides in building democratic institutions and the rule of law. I was recently appointed chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--the Helsinki Commission--and have followed events in Romania for many years. In that capacity, I look forward to working with the government and the people of Romania on the challenges confronting both of our countries. Romania is a good friend of the United States and a strong partner in the war on global terrorism. I thank the Government of Romania for its steadfast support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, where a battalion serves on the ground, and for its support of the U.S.-led military action in Iraq. More than 700 Romanian soldiers contributed to the efforts that supported the people of Iraq in their historic ballot. Romania is our NATO ally and anticipates accession to the European Union in 2007. President Basescu has recognized that endemic corruption and the poverty it breeds are a threat to Romania's national security, and his government is already taking steps to combat this scourge and to institute effective government reform. We commend the President's efforts and stand ready to assist him as he shines the light of transparency across Romania. President Basescu's focus and determination give me hope that progress can also be made on a number of matters that have been of concern. In 2001, Romania imposed a moratorium on all international adoptions under pressure from the European Union, and amid allegations of ``baby selling.'' This moratorium was extended several times pending development of comprehensive child protection legislation to include new rules on adoption. The new legislation came into effect in January of this year and limits international adoption to the grandparents of the Romanian child--effectively ending international adoption. More than 200 U.S. families were in the process of adopting Romanian children when the moratorium was established, and the Government of Romania indicated that it would proceed with those adoption requests that were ``already in the pipeline.'' However, to date, these cases remain unresolved. This total ban on international adoptions is regrettable and means that many children in Romania will now grow up without permanent families. I am particularly concerned about the over 200 adoption cases which were already being processed for U.S. parents, and I urge the Government of Romania to resolve these cases quickly, so these children can be placed with the families as promised. I also urge President Basescu to consider revising existing law to allow the resumption of international adoptions with appropriate safeguards. The Government of Romania enacted a comprehensive antidiscrimination law in 2000 and has in place a national action plan on Roma. Yet the great majority of Roma and Sinti in Romania remain marginalized, living in abject poverty due to severe discrimination in employment, housing, and education. President Basescu should take bold and concrete steps to ensure that Romani citizens have full opportunity to participate in the civil and political life of Romania. The establishment of a fund to implement school desegregation would be an important step toward achieving that goal and would make the Romanian government's participation in the Decade of Roma Inclusion truly meaningful. Following decades of denial, the Government of Romania has made great strides in the past year in recognizing Romania's role in the Holocaust. I commend the government for taking steps to examine this dark and painful chapter in the country's history. The International Commission for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania, led by Elie Wiesel, officially issued its findings last November in Bucharest. In addition to the establishment of a national Holocaust Remembrance day, which Romania marks on October 12, the Commission's recommendations include the construction of a national Holocaust memorial and museum in Bucharest, the annulment of war criminal rehabilitations, and the establishment of Holocaust education curricula and holocaust courses in secondary schools and universities. The government should move quickly to implement that Commission's recommendations. In a related matter, I hope that the Government of Romania will finally bring to closure the rehabilitation and honoring of World War II dictator, Marshall Ion Antonescu, Hitler ally and war criminal condemned for the mass murder of Jews and Roma. During the past 3 years, government officials publicly condemned efforts to honor Antonescu and removed from public land three statues that had been erected in his honor. One statue remains on public land in Jilava, the site of Antonescu's execution, and important streets in the cities of Cluj, Targu Mures, and Campulung Muscel continue to be named after him. I urge the Government of Romania to remove these remaining vestiges honoring the former dictator. The process of providing restitution or compensation for property confiscated by former regimes in Romania has been slow, complicated, and difficult. Government records indicate that more than 200,000 claims for property restitution have been filed by individuals, and more than 7,000 claims have been filed by religious denominations and communal groups. The plight of Romania's Greek Catholic Uniate Church, which was banned by the Communist government in 1948, is particularly troubling. More than 2,500 churches and other buildings seized from the Uniates were given to Orthodox parishes. The government decree that dismantled the Greek Catholic Church was abrogated in 1989, however, of the thousands of properties confiscated from the Greek Catholics, fewer than 200 have been returned. I hope that this government will finally take significant steps toward the restitution of Greek Catholic property as well as that of other religious denominations. Romania's failure to return religious properties to their rightful owners 15 years after Communist rule is inexcusable and, in my view, a destabilizing element in Romanian society. Trafficking in human beings will continue to challenge the new government. Romania is a source and transit country primarily for women and girls trafficked for sexual exploitation. While the Romanian Government has made tremendous progress in its antitrafficking initiatives in the past several years, there are still some areas of concern including corruption within the law enforcement community, light penalties for those convicted of trafficking, and proposals to legalize or regulate prostitution. Greater accountability is needed among members of the law enforcement community in view of allegations that officials have assisted traffickers in obtaining false passports, facilitated illegal border crossings and accepted bribes to tamper with witnesses' testimony. Traffickers are increasingly likely to be prosecuted for their crimes in Romania, however, the penalties imposed by judges are still too low--usually 1 year or less in prison. Penalties should be severe enough to reflect the heinous nature of the crime and to serve as a deterrent to other prospective traffickers. Finally, it is important for the government to take a firm stance against all efforts to legalize or regulate prostitution. Legalized and regulated prostitution is a magnet for human trafficking and provides a shield behind which traffickers hide. While many challenges remain on the road ahead for President Basescu, his new government, and the people of Romania, I am convinced that, working together, they will move toward a bright and prosperous future. I stand ready to assist our friends in Romania in any way I can.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, held a hearing last week that examined the close relationship between Russian Federation and Syria. The Commission heard testimony detailing their intricate financial and military dealings that began in the earliest days of the Cold War and continue to this day. This relationship allows Syria to continue to support numerous terrorist groups, groups that have terrorized Lebanon for the past three decades and fuel the insurgency in Iraq. In addition, we heard details about Syria's support of terrorist organizations who operate around the world. Finally, we heard from both Lebanese and Syrians committed to freedom and democracy who have become victims of the Assad regime and are now languishing in the prison cells of Damascus. The Commission's concern regarding Russia's involvement with Syria--a country that has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979 by the State Department--rises from the Helsinki commitments that Russia has freely accepted as a participating State of the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe OSCE. The OSCE Charter on Preventing and Combating Terrorism was agreed to at the Porto Ministerial in 2002. Russia then committed to refrain from instigating or providing active or passive support or assistance to, or otherwise sponsoring terrorist acts in another state. Russia also committed to reducing the risk of terrorists gaining access to weapons and materials of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Russia's support for the terrorist regime in Damascus flies in the face of these commitments. Russia is an active enabler of the Assad regime, whose Ba'ath Party was described by one of our witnesses as the richest terrorist organization in the region. The Syrian regime has received untold amounts of military hardware, much of which are currently being used by terrorists in Iraq against our American troops and our allies. Additionally, Syrian intelligence supports terrorist units in Iraq, composed not only of Syrians, but including Egyptians, Sudanese, Moroccans, and other Islamic mujaheddin. Even more alarming is Russia's plan to sell an unknown number of Igla SA-18 shoulder-held missiles to Syria. Such a sale to this terrorist state is more than criminal. This sale will put in the hands of terrorists some of the most sophisticated shoulder-held missiles in the Russian inventory, and increases the likelihood that they will get into the arsenals of other terrorist organizations around the world. Despite Russia's denials, indicators are that this sale will go forward soon, putting at risk every airline flight, every military flight, with the potential for massive loss of life and the shutting down of modern transportation around the world. We must focus on the fact that, while there is no apparent direct Russian involvement in Iraq, this direct support of Syrian military and intelligence operations, coupled with Syria's support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and the long list of evil deeds coming out of Damascus, cast Russia as a suspicious party to these terrorist activities. We should not sit idly by and allow this to transpire without comment. We must call upon President Bush and Secretary Rice to reiterate U.S. demands that Russia disengage from its support of Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism. It is not enough to stop the sale of the missiles. Complete cessation of financial and military support to this rogue regime is necessary. On the eve of the Helsinki Commission hearing, a courageous group of human rights activists and pro democracy reformists held a demonstration in Damascus, a daring display of dissent quickly broken up by the security forces. One of the protesters held up at banner that read: ``Freedom for Prisoners of Opinion and Conscience.'' According to the Syrian Human Rights Committee, the Assad regime in Damascus has executed nearly 17,000 Syrian and Lebanese prisoners. Additionally, there are over 600 prisoners of conscience in Syrian jails, champions of human rights, accountability and transparency who are still languishing under horrible conditions. I would like to highlight a few of these prisoners of conscience whose names were submitted to us by one of the witnesses and call for their immediate release: Riad Seif, member of parliament; Aref Dalilah, economist; Maamun al-Homsi, member of parliament; Abdul Aziz al-Khayer, physician; Habib Issa, lawyer; Walid al-Bounni, physician; Mohammad Bashir al-Arab, student leader and doctor; Muhanad al-Debs, student leader; Mahmoud Ammo, activist; Mahmoud Abou Sader, activist; Mazid Ali Al-Terkawi, businessman; and Fawaz Tello, engineer. I was pleased to hear of Syria's promise to a U.N. envoy to withdraw its troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon, but as the counter- demonstrations yesterday against Syria demanded, Damascus must follow through with actions as soon as possible. I am hoping that details of the withdrawal plan from U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen after his talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Lebanese President Emile Lahoud will allow the people of Lebanon to hold their parliamentary elections in May without any interference from the Syrians and to do so in a manner that is free, timely, and transparent. What would be unacceptable is the kind of warning issued by Prime Minister-designate Omar Karami that polls may have to be postponed if the country's political opposition fails to enter a dialogue with the government. Such an effort will surely ignite the kind of violence that the Lebanese people have been yearning for so many years to avoid. It is time for the international community to lend support for the slogan that defines the people's revolution in Lebanon and in the region: ``Kifaya,'' which means ``enough.'' Let's listen to what the people in Lebanon are saying for what they are saying is now being heard not only in Beirut but in Damascas, in Cairo, and in Riyahd: enough of autocrats, enough of the corruption, and enough of the repression.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 8, 2005. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 8 at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 179, to provide for the exchange of land within the Sierra National Forest, California, and for other purposes; S. 213, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain federal land to Rio Arriba County, New Mexico; S. 267, to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other purposes; and S. 305, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to recruit volunteers to assist with or facilitate the activities of various agencies and offices of the Department of the Interior; S. 476, to authorize the Boy Scouts of America to exchange certain land in the state of Utah acquired under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; and S. 485, to reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Terrorism and the EMP Threat to Homeland Security,'' on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Panel I: Dr. Lowell Wood, Commissioner, Congressional EMP Commission, Livermore, CA; Dr. Peter Pry, Senior Staff, Congressional EMP Commission, Washington, DC; Dr. Peter Fonash, National Communications System Deputy Manager (Acting), Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. on ``Judicial Nominations.'' The hearing will take place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The tentative witness is attached. Agenda: PANEL I: Senators. PANEL II: Thomas B. Griffith, of Utah, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing to examine and discuss S. 271, a bill which reforms the regulatory and reporting structure of organizations registered under Sections 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the Black Sea Strategy.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Physician- Owned Specialty Hospitals: In the Interest of Patients of a Conflict of Interest?''

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 8 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing, entitled Power Generation Resource Incentives & Diversity Standards, is to receive testimony regarding ways to encourage the diversification of power generation resources. Issues to be discussed include: Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) efforts among states and the cost and benefits of a federal RPS program. New approaches to promoting a variety of clean power resources, such as wind, solar, clean coal technology and nuclear power, will also be considered.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2005, at 5 p.m., in closed session to receive a classified briefing regarding current operations in Iraq.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony from unified and regional commanders on their military strategy and operational requirements, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Alison Thompson, a Marine fellow on Senator Dole's staff, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume from the Republican side of the agenda. I thank my colleagues for this good debate on an important issue that does not belong on this bill. There are several key reasons, clear reasons why this amendment of the Senator from New York should be rejected. This is an important piece of legislation, the bankruptcy legislation. This amendment brings the most difficult social issue we have of our day into this debate. It does not belong here. It is not the right place to do this. We have plenty of pro-life issues to come before this Senate, and not to tie the bankruptcy bill up would be an important thing to do. The membership opposes this amendment because, as we learned in previous Congresses, it is a poison pill. The amendment is meant to kill the overall bankruptcy reform bill. I would hope that is not what the author's intent is. But that is the effect of this amendment. It kills the bill. If the author of this amendment wants bankruptcy reform to move forward, it is something that needs to move forward. I have voted against bankruptcy reform in the past because I didn't think it was proper. I thought particularly we have problems on homestead provisions that we have been able to get worked out over the years we have been considering this legislation. Now we have that worked out as many other pieces have been refined over the 6 years this has been considered. Now is not the time to add this most contentious issue into the debate. It is not the proper place, and it is time that we move the bill forward, move it to the House and to the President for signature. Bankruptcy reform is an important matter. It would be my desire for my colleague not to offer the amendment so that we can focus on the particular critical issue facing our Nation in the form of the need for fundamental bankruptcy reform. Aside from the abortion issue, I am deeply concerned about what I believe to be a lack of fairness and justice embodied in this amendment. There is a fundamental fairness issue involved with this amendment. No one in this Chamber condones violent crime. I am certain that everyone believes violent crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. While the pending amendment is presented as a way to address violent crime, it would primarily and inappropriately intimidate and harm peaceful protesters. In fact, were the Schumer amendment to become law, no crime would even be necessary to trigger its sanctions. Merely violating a Federal or State civil statute, such as a minor trespass, would be enough to place a violator in financial jeopardy. Historically this legislative body has fashioned criminal and bankruptcy penalties in a manner proportional to the gravity of the offense and the degree of injury and culpability. If enacted, this amendment would be a radical break with this tradition of prudence and fairness. For example, under current law, there are only a few extreme cases where a debtor is prevented from seeking discharge of his or her debts through bankruptcy protection. For example, instances in which discharge of debt is prohibited include intentional financial wrongdoing, such as fraud and embezzlement, or cases where the debtor has created a grave unjustifiable risk to human life, such as injury caused by drunk driving. Those are appropriate. The Schumer amendment would put a peaceful pro-life protester who, in the course of exercising his or her first amendment rights, simply steps in the wrong place--trespassing--on a par with embezzlers or drunk drivers. Should the price of constitutional freedom be the risk of financial ruin? Amazingly, this amendment says yes. The amendment says that people who protest and who do no physical harm, have no malicious intent should be singled out for harsh treatment. While I make no excuse for violations of the law, I have to ask again: Should not the gravity of the punishment correspond with the offense? I don't think that is at all the case in this particular amendment. A literal reading of the Schumer amendment would strip a peaceful protester of bankruptcy protection should he or she simply step in the wrong place while leafleting or even praying the rosary. Whether the fine involved is $10 or $1 million, we are talking about a peaceful individual and families with young children who should not be forced to risk paying this price simply for doing what the Constitution permits. Fairness and the great tradition of our first amendment freedoms counsel against the adoption of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. It kills the bankruptcy bill. It is against fundamental fairness and freedom for people to exercise their right of free speech. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a truly heroic Kansan, CPL Travis Eichelberger. Corporal Eichelberger, a member of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Marine Division, was one of the thousands of valiant young men and women who fought for the cause of liberty in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Sadly, in March 2003, while lying in a shallow foxhole in the sand, a 67-ton Abrams tank rolled over him, crushing his pelvis and severely damaging his lower body. Corporal Eichelberger, a native of Atchison, KS, returned home to the United States for rehabilitation and, in April 2003, was awarded a Purple Heart for his war injuries. Recently, the Marine Corps realized their terrible mistake. While this brave young man's wounds occurred in a combat zone, he was not injured by hostile fire, a necessary qualification for the Purple Heart. For the sake of the award and all those who have been honored by it, the Marine Corps decided to revoke Corporal Eichelberger's Purple Heart. GEN Michael W. Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, has appropriately personally offered his apologies to Corporal Eichelberger. I, too, extend my sincere sympathies to Corporal Eichelberger and his family during this trying and confusing time. This error has caused significant embarrassment to my fellow Kansan, as well as to the Marine Corps, and we must take care that it is never repeated. After speaking with Corporal Eichelberger, I sense that his is a resilient spirit--and no one can doubt his courage. Corporal Eichelberger's service and dedication will long be remembered and honored. His unwavering commitment to our great Nation is a badge of honor he can proudly wear for the rest of his life. I commend Corporal Eichelberger for his distinguished service and sacrifice. second lt. richard b. ``brian'' gienau

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's 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 unity 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, ten 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, over the course of the last few months, we have witnessed dramatic events in one of Europe's largest countries, Ukraine. The Orange Revolution has clearly shown that people power can bring about peaceful democratic change some thought was not possible in a former Soviet state. As a result, and with the support of the United States, Europe and international organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSCE, Ukraine is on the path to freedom and democracy. Notwithstanding the formidable challenges that remain to overcome the legacy of the past, Ukraine now has a real chance at consolidating its democracy and further integrating into the Euro-Atlantic community. Unfortunately, the news out of Belarus, Ukraine's neighboring fellow eastern Slavic country to the north stands in stark contrast to the encouraging news coming out of Ukraine. Secretary Rice, in her confirmation testimony, characterized Belarus, along with North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Burma, and Zimbabwe as an outpost of tyranny and asserted that America stands with oppressed people on every continent. Belarus, under Alexander Lukashenka's now 10-year repressive rule, has the worst human rights record of any country in Europe. Lukashenka's regime has increasingly violated human rights and freedoms and has made a mockery of commitments that Belarus freely undertook when it joined the OSCE in 1992. Nothing has changed for the better since last October's fundamentally flawed parliamentary elections and rigged referendum allowing Lukashenka unlimited terms as president. In November, Lukashenka appointed Viktor Sheiman as head of the powerful Presidential Administration, despite credible evidence linking Sheiman to the disappearances of opposition leaders and a journalist in 1999 and 2000. The harassment and persecution of civil society has intensified. A top opposition figure, Mikhail Marinich, was sentenced in late December on the charge of stealing, of all things, U.S. government property--in this case, computers--despite the fact that the U.S. Embassy in Minsk makes no claims against Marinich. Clearly, Lukashenka wants to eliminate Marinich as a potential candidate for the 2006 presidential elections. Other opposition leaders--Valery Levaneuski and Alyaksandr Vasilyeu-- continue to serve terms in a minimum security colony after having been found guilty of ``public slander'' of the Belarusian leader. Their crime? Distributing leaflets urging people to take part in an unauthorized rally. The leaflets contained a satirical poem about Lukashenka. Another example of Belarus' reluctance to promote human rights is the recent refusal to grant a visa to former OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Chairman and Romanian Foreign Minister Adrian Severin, who now serves as the UN Human Rights Commission's Special Rapporteur on Belarus. The Belarusian regime has also clamped down on independent NGOs and prodemocracy political parties with Kafkaesque legal requirements and has mounted a full-fledged assault on independent trade unions. Problems are being experienced by religious communities attempting to operate freely. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, charged with monitoring and encouraging compliance by all 55 participating States with OSCE agreements, I call upon the Belarusian authorities to live up to their freely-undertaken commitments with respect to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Last October, President Bush signed into law the Belarus Democracy Act, which had been introduced in the Senate by then Helsinki Commission Chairman Senator Campbell and in the House by commission co-chair Chris Smith, stating: We welcome this legislation as a means to bolster friends of freedom and to nurture the growth of democratic values, habits, and institutions within Belarus. The fate of Belarus will rest not with a dictator, but with the students, trade unionists, civic and religious leaders, journalists, and all citizens of Belarus claiming freedom for their nation. It is essential that we in the Congress, together with the administration and the OSCE, keep faith with the courageous people of Belarus struggling to ensure freedom and democratic values for their long-suffering country.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, last month, the Prime Ministers of eight Central and Southern European countries met in Sofia, Bulgaria, for their first meeting in what has been dubbed ``the Decade of Roma Inclusion.'' This initiative is designed to spur governments to undertake intensive engagement in the field of education, employment, health and housing with respect to Europe's largest, most impoverished and marginalized ethnic minority, the Roma. The Open Society Institute, the World Bank, the European Commission and the United Nations Development Program--all supporters of this initiative--hope that this effort will result in meaningful improvements over the course of a 10- year period. In December, a donors' conference pledged $42 million for a Roma Education Fund. But the real goal is to get governments to give more help to their own people from their own budgets, as well as to make better use of the funds already available from organizations like the EU. The fact is, Romani riots in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, in 2002 and in eastern Slovakia last year should be a wake up call for governments with significant Romani communities. These countries cannot afford to ignore the crushing impoverishment and crude bigotry that so many Roma face on a daily basis. The Decade of Romani Inclusion is all well and good, and I commend the governments that are participating in this initiative. But much more needs to be done to truly advance Romani integration. It must start with a message of tolerance and inclusion from the highest levels of government. Unfortunately, too often the voices that are heard are those spreading crude stereotypes and inter-ethnic hatred. I am particularly alarmed by what appears to be an increase in anti-roma statements in Bulgaria. Last summer, the head of one of Bulgaria's leading trade unions, Konstantin Trenchev, broadly characterized all Roma as criminals--and then called for the establishment of vigilante guards to deal with them. More recently, Ognian Saparev, a Member of Parliament from the Bulgarian Socialist Party, dismissed the significance of reports that the Mayor of Pazardzhik has trafficked Romani girls for the benefit of visiting foreigner diplomats. Saparev reportedly claimed that the statutory rape of these girls shouldn't be considered a crime because Romani girls are ``mature'' at age 14. Significantly, Saparev also gained headlines last year for publishing an inflammatory article about Roma in which he argued they should be forced to live in ghettos. Even worse statements have come from Russia. Yevgenii Urlashov, a city official in Yaroslavl, recently characterized all Roma as drug dealers and called for them to be deported. Not to be outdone, fellow municipal legislator, Sergei Krivnyuk, said, ``residents are ready to start setting the Gypsies' houses on fire, and I want to head this process.'' Although nongovernmental human rights groups have condemned this anti-Romani rhetoric, other leaders in Bulgaria and Russia have largely remained silent. But it is critical that public leaders, from all walks of life, speak out against such hate mongering. Speaking on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Polish President Kwasniewski noted that ``complete extermination was also [intended] to be the fate of the Roma community.'' It will not do, 60 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, to stand by in silence while Roma are crudely caricatured as criminals, just as they were by the Nazis. And we must not stand by in silence when a member of Parliament dismisses the criminal act of trafficking of children, simply because they are Romani.