Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 27, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the technical amendment that is at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Joe Tilghman has served the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, in a senior field leadership position in a career spanning nearly the entire period of enactment of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Mr. Tilghman is retiring on January 3, 2005 after 37 years of distinguished Federal service. Mr. Tilghman assumed leadership of CMS' Kansas City regional office in 1994, following nearly 15 years as the deputy regional administrator. As regional administrator, he has been responsible for the Federal administration of the Medicare and Medicaid programs to approximately 4 million beneficiaries residing in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. Prior to joining CMS, then the Health Care Financing Administration, in 1978 he worked in Social and Rehabilitative Services and the Bureau of Health Insurance. During Mr. Tilghman's tenure as regional administrator, he led many CMS efforts that impacted the lives of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries nationwide. Of particular note, Mr. Tilghman: Lead CMS' Flu 2000 Campaign from 1993 to 1999; Lead CMS' Screening Mammography Campaign from 1999 to the present, exceeding Government Performance and Results Act, GPRA, targets in each of these years; Established the CMS field National Medicare Education Program, NMEP, operation; Enforced the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, insurance provisions nationally in all States that are not in substantial compliance; Conducted and was personally involved in a credit ``CMS 101'' course at the University of Kansas, the only one its kind in the Nation; and Participated in a town hall meeting in Liberty, MO with President Bush to promote the new Medicare prescription drug cards. In recognition of his many significant contributions, Mr. Tilghman received the Meritorious Executive Rank Award in 2000. This award may be received by only five percent of those persons in career Senior Executive Service, SES. Mr. Tilghman served his country admirably as an Army pilot in Vietnam where he reached the rank of captain as a fixed wing and helicopter pilot. He married JoAnne Hardy in 1966 and is currently planning many travel adventures with her in his retirement. Mr. and Mrs. Tilghman have two daughters, Stephanie and Abigail, and are the proud grandparents of Ethan and Holly. Mr. Tilghman enjoys reading history books, hiking in the Colorado mountains, white water rafting, canoeing and skiing. He recently fulfilled a life-long dream by climbing to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Mr. Charles W., Bill, Sedgwick is retiring after more than 40 years of celebrated service with the Food and Drug Administration. His career began on June 7, 1964, as an investigator for the Kansas City district. From beginning to end, Bill sharpened his skills through work performed in a variety of locations; Kansas City, Omaha, Washington DC, Dallas, and Cincinnati. His dream was fulfilled, with the help of countless mentors and friends, as he began as the Kansas City district director in June of 2000. Highlights of his work include cases involved with filth and quack drugs; instruction presented on Law and Evidence to the Southwest and Southeast Regions; work on criminal cases involving illegal distribution of steroid and other enhancement drugs; work with other Federal agents and the U.S. Attorney to prepare search warrants and collect undercover evidence for presentation to the grand jury; development of significant case laws which permitted not just FDA, but other Federal agencies to charge defendants with defrauding the Government; a commissioner's commendation for critical work performed with State partners to improve FDA's relationship working particularly in Texas and New Mexico; criminal investigative work in Cincinnati that resulted in the indictment, prosecution and prison terms of seven defendants involved in a major criminal enterprise which produced over 200 million pounds of phony orange juice; receipt of the FDA Award of Merit, 2002, and the ORA Quality of Worklife Award, 2003, for his leadership in Kansas City. After his retirement, Bill intends to spend time with his family, doing anything his wife, Suzanne, tells him to do. He plans to oversee church construction projects, remodel old houses and travel with his wife.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague from the great State of Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, and introduce the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act. I appreciate the Senator's hard work and passion on this bill. Likewise, I commend Representative Jim Ryan who authored this bill in the House of Representatives who, like Senator Roberts and I, worked tirelessly to pass this bill last Congress. And finally, I would like to thank Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senator Thomas, Subcommittee Chair, National Parks, for working with me in the 108th Congress. Through their hard work and the work of their staff, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act passed the Senate. It is my hope that we will once again be able to see this bill pass the Senate but also pass the House of Representatives in the 109th Session. The great story of Kansas can be summed up in the, State motto, ``Ad Astra per Aspera,'' to the stars through difficulties. Though only a short phrase comprised of four words, the meaning and passion behind the Kansas State motto are as profound as they are descriptive of a State that though smaller than some, was a catalyst for racial equality in this Nation. From inception, Kansas was born in controversy--a controversy that helped to shape a nation and end the egregious practice of chattel slavery that brutalized an entire race of individuals in this country. I cannot think of a more noble or more important contribution provided to our Nation--though arguably it was one of the most turbulent and darkest hours of our history. Without this struggle however, the battle to end persecution and transform our country into a symbol of freedom and democracy throughout the world would not have been realized. Last year, 2004, marked the sesquicentennial of the signing of the Kansas-Nebraska bill which repealed the Missouri compromise, allowed States to enter into the Union with or without slavery. This piece of legislation, which was passed in May 1854, set the stage for what is now referred to as, ``Bleeding Kansas.'' During this time, our State, then a territory, was thrown into chaos with Kansans fighting passionately to ensure that the territory would inter the Union as a free State and not condone or legalize slavery in any capacity. At the end of a very difficult and bloody struggle, Kansas entered the Union as a free State and helped to spark the issue of slavery on a national level. However, Kansas' contributions to the realization of freedom in this Nation did not stop with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Keeping true to our motto, to the stars through difficulties, Kansas opened up her arms to a newly freed people after the Civil War ended. Many African Americans looked to Kansas for solace and prosperity when the South was still an uncertain place. Perhaps one of the best examples of Ad Astra per Aspera was the founding of a town in Kansas by African Americans coming to our State to begin their life of freedom and prosperity. Founded in 1877, Nicodemus, which was named after a legendary slave who purchased his freedom, is the most recognized historically black town in Kansas. Nicodemus was established by a group of colonists from Lexington, KY, and grew to a population of 600 by 1879. However, Nicodemus is not the only Kansas contribution that shaped a more tolerant Nation. Kansas was also one of the first States to house an African American military regiment in the 1800s, the Buffalo Soldiers. The Buffalo Soldiers were, and still are, considered one of the most distinguished and revered African American military regiments in our Nation's history. One of those regiments, the 10th Cavalry, was stationed at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In July 1866, Congress passed legislation establishing two cavalry and four infantry regiments that were to be solely comprised of African Americans. The mounted regiments were the 9th and 10th Cavalries, soon nicknamed ``Buffalo Soldiers'' by the Cheyenne and Comanche tribes. Lt. Henry O. Flipper, the first African American to graduate from the United States Military Academy in 1877 and commanded the 10th Cavalry unit where he proved that African Americans possessed the quality of military leadership. Until the early 1890s, the Buffalo Soldiers constituted 20 percent of all cavalry forces on the American frontier. Their invaluable service on the western frontier still remains one of the most exemplary services performed by a regiment in the U.S. Army. These are just a few examples of why I am pleased to join with my colleague from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, today and introduce the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act, which will not only serve to educate Kansans but the Nation on the important contributions--and in many cases the sacrifices--made in order to establish this proud state. The creation of this heritage area will ensure that this legacy is not only commemorated but celebrated on a national level. Specifically, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act will designate 24 counties in Kansas as the ``Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area.'' Each of these counties will be eligible to apply for the heritage area grants administered by the National Park Service. The heritage area will add to local economies within the State by increasing tourism and will encourage collaboration between interests of diverse units of government, businesses, tourism officials, private property owners, and nonprofit groups within the heritage area. Finally, the bill protects private property owners by requiring that they provide in writing consent to be included in any request before they are eligible to receive, Federal funds from the heritage area. The bill also authorizes $10,000,000 over a 10-year period to carry out this act and states that not more than $1,000,000 may be appropriated to the heritage area for any fiscal year. Kansas has much to be proud of in their history and it is vital that this history be shared on a national level. By establishing the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area, we will ensure that this magnificent legacy lives on and serves as a stirring reminder of the sacrifices and triumphs that created this Nation--a Nation united in freedom for all people.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business and I have about 18 minutes; is that accurate?

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague from the great State of Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, and introduce the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act. I appreciate the Senator's hard work and passion on this bill. Likewise, I commend Representative Jim Ryan who authored this bill in the House of Representatives who, like Senator Roberts and I, worked tirelessly to pass this bill last Congress. And finally, I would like to thank Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senator Thomas, Subcommittee Chair, National Parks, for working with me in the 108th Congress. Through their hard work and the work of their staff, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act passed the Senate. It is my hope that we will once again be able to see this bill pass the Senate but also pass the House of Representatives in the 109th Session. The great story of Kansas can be summed up in the, State motto, ``Ad Astra per Aspera,'' to the stars through difficulties. Though only a short phrase comprised of four words, the meaning and passion behind the Kansas State motto are as profound as they are descriptive of a State that though smaller than some, was a catalyst for racial equality in this Nation. From inception, Kansas was born in controversy--a controversy that helped to shape a nation and end the egregious practice of chattel slavery that brutalized an entire race of individuals in this country. I cannot think of a more noble or more important contribution provided to our Nation--though arguably it was one of the most turbulent and darkest hours of our history. Without this struggle however, the battle to end persecution and transform our country into a symbol of freedom and democracy throughout the world would not have been realized. Last year, 2004, marked the sesquicentennial of the signing of the Kansas-Nebraska bill which repealed the Missouri compromise, allowed States to enter into the Union with or without slavery. This piece of legislation, which was passed in May 1854, set the stage for what is now referred to as, ``Bleeding Kansas.'' During this time, our State, then a territory, was thrown into chaos with Kansans fighting passionately to ensure that the territory would inter the Union as a free State and not condone or legalize slavery in any capacity. At the end of a very difficult and bloody struggle, Kansas entered the Union as a free State and helped to spark the issue of slavery on a national level. However, Kansas' contributions to the realization of freedom in this Nation did not stop with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Keeping true to our motto, to the stars through difficulties, Kansas opened up her arms to a newly freed people after the Civil War ended. Many African Americans looked to Kansas for solace and prosperity when the South was still an uncertain place. Perhaps one of the best examples of Ad Astra per Aspera was the founding of a town in Kansas by African Americans coming to our State to begin their life of freedom and prosperity. Founded in 1877, Nicodemus, which was named after a legendary slave who purchased his freedom, is the most recognized historically black town in Kansas. Nicodemus was established by a group of colonists from Lexington, KY, and grew to a population of 600 by 1879. However, Nicodemus is not the only Kansas contribution that shaped a more tolerant Nation. Kansas was also one of the first States to house an African American military regiment in the 1800s, the Buffalo Soldiers. The Buffalo Soldiers were, and still are, considered one of the most distinguished and revered African American military regiments in our Nation's history. One of those regiments, the 10th Cavalry, was stationed at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In July 1866, Congress passed legislation establishing two cavalry and four infantry regiments that were to be solely comprised of African Americans. The mounted regiments were the 9th and 10th Cavalries, soon nicknamed ``Buffalo Soldiers'' by the Cheyenne and Comanche tribes. Lt. Henry O. Flipper, the first African American to graduate from the United States Military Academy in 1877 and commanded the 10th Cavalry unit where he proved that African Americans possessed the quality of military leadership. Until the early 1890s, the Buffalo Soldiers constituted 20 percent of all cavalry forces on the American frontier. Their invaluable service on the western frontier still remains one of the most exemplary services performed by a regiment in the U.S. Army. These are just a few examples of why I am pleased to join with my colleague from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, today and introduce the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act, which will not only serve to educate Kansans but the Nation on the important contributions--and in many cases the sacrifices--made in order to establish this proud state. The creation of this heritage area will ensure that this legacy is not only commemorated but celebrated on a national level. Specifically, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act will designate 24 counties in Kansas as the ``Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area.'' Each of these counties will be eligible to apply for the heritage area grants administered by the National Park Service. The heritage area will add to local economies within the State by increasing tourism and will encourage collaboration between interests of diverse units of government, businesses, tourism officials, private property owners, and nonprofit groups within the heritage area. Finally, the bill protects private property owners by requiring that they provide in writing consent to be included in any request before they are eligible to receive, Federal funds from the heritage area. The bill also authorizes $10,000,000 over a 10-year period to carry out this act and states that not more than $1,000,000 may be appropriated to the heritage area for any fiscal year. Kansas has much to be proud of in their history and it is vital that this history be shared on a national level. By establishing the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area, we will ensure that this magnificent legacy lives on and serves as a stirring reminder of the sacrifices and triumphs that created this Nation--a Nation united in freedom for all people.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I have an introduction of a bill I wish to talk about, but first I want to express our sympathy to the families of those who were lost in Iraq within the last 24 hours. There was a helicopter crash that took place. As I understand from the early news, 31 marines were killed in that helicopter crash. There were several other deaths in the last 24 hours leading up to this election in Iraq that takes place on Sunday. If we recall, there has been an increased level of violence taking place. We don't know the cause of this helicopter crash that took place, but we do know there was significant loss of life. Our hearts and our prayers go out to the lost soldiers who stand in harm's way as we seek democracy, liberty, and freedom for the people of Iraq. Our heartfelt sympathies to the families, and our deepest dedication and devotion to those who continue to serve who are in harm's way. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that it be in order for us to take a moment of silence and prayer for those who have just lost their lives in Iraq.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, these are difficult times but they are also times of opportunity. We will face on Sunday, with the vote in Iraq, difficulty, but also a time of opportunity for people to know democracy and freedom who have never known it before. Freedom, however, always comes at a price. We are paying for this opportunity for freedom with loss of life from our own country. Yet democracy and freedom is something for which we have fought for over 200 years. I rise today to speak about something else we need to fight for. I speak of one of the most difficult debates we have had to discuss in this country: it is the debate on the issue of life and the moment that life begins. I am introducing today, with over 30 cosponsors, a bill that speaks to this critical issue. It is S. 51, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. It has 31 cosponsors. This legislation, I believe, is strongly pro-woman, pro-child and pro-life, and it will help in the creation of a culture of life in America. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is about empowering women with information. It is also about respecting and treating the unborn child more humanely. This legislation is, at heart, an informed consent bill, which would do two simple things: First, it would require abortion providers to present medical, scientific information to a woman, who is seeking a late-term abortion, about what is known regarding the development of the unborn child inside of her womb. Second, should the woman desire to continue with the abortion after being presented with this information, the legislation calls for her to be given the opportunity to choose anesthesia for the unborn child in order to lessen its pain. No abortion procedures would be prohibited by the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. It is an informed consent bill. I do not believe that anyone in this esteemed chamber thinks that women should not be fully informed. I believe, along with a majority of Americans, according to all the polls of which I am aware, that women have the right to know what their unborn child experiences during an abortion. Most Americans believe that women are capable of processing information, even when faced with a crisis pregnancy. In fact, according to a Wirthlin Worldwide poll conducted after the November election, 75 percent of respondents favored: laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion. After being presented with the medical and scientific information on the development of the unborn child 20 weeks after fertilization, the woman is more aware of the pain experienced by the child during an abortion procedure, and more equipped--at the very least--to make an informed decision. It is simply not fair for a pregnant mother to be uninformed. In the proposed legislation, we have settled on a 20-week benchmark because there is a strong medical and scientific knowledge that unborn children feel and experience pain by 20 weeks after fertilization. Looking over the data--and I am certainly not a doctor--but it seems reasonable to me that unborn children actually feel pain weeks earlier, but we chose the 20-week benchmark as a point on which more scientists and doctors can agree. At some point, perhaps Dr. Coburn--a new member who is a physician who has delivered thousands, of babies, one of this bill's cosponsors--might further enlighten us on this subject based on his extensive experience. How do we know that unborn children can feel pain? We know that unborn children can--and do--feel pain thanks to great advances in medical technology. Unborn children, experience pain as evidenced by anatomical, functional, physiological and behavioral indicators that are correlated with pain in children and adults. We have Dr. Sonny Anand's Expert Report for the Partial-Birth Abortion trials, that were made part of the Federal Court record. Of course--though perhaps less scientific--any mother can tell you her unborn child can feel. The little unborn child most certainly feels and responds to stimuli from outside the womb. Sometimes a voice will cause the unborn child to stir. And usually, at some point in the late second trimester, even the father can feel and see the unborn child's movements. And if you push the unborn child's limb, the limb may push back. I have happy memories of this with my wife and our children. All along, women have been able to feel the child inside of them, but now, science is telling us exactly what the child inside of his or her mother can feel. We now know that unborn children can not only feel, but that their ability to experience pain is heightened. The highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero from 20 to 30 weeks gestation. Think about the pain that unborn children can experience, and then think about some commonly used abortion procedures. Of course, we have heard about Partial-Birth Abortion, but also consider the D&E abortion. During this procedure, commonly performed after 20 weeks when there is medical evidence that the child can experience severe pain, and we have a chart of this that I will show, the child is torn apart limb from limb. Think about how that must feel to a young human. We would not allow an animal to be treated this way. Yet, the creature we are talking about is a young, unborn child. Women certainly have a right to be given the facts about the baby growing inside of them. Armed with these facts, women then have the opportunity to make a more informed decision. Should the woman continue with the late-term abortion, she ought to have the option of anesthetizing the unborn child before it undergoes a painful termination of its young life. This should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. This should be a human issue. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act offers us a rare chance to transcend the traditional political boundaries. It is a matter of human decency. It is my hope that this bill will offer us a chance to work across political divides to forge new understandings in this Chamber. I think that we can all support giving women more information when they are making life-altering decisions. A recent Los Angeles Times--December 23, 2004--article offers a glimmer of hope in this regard. The article notes that: [Democrats] are looking at ways to soften the hard line [support for abortion-rights], such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Adoption and parental notification for minors are issues, on which I hope we can work together. Perhaps we can begin with this measure: The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is not a ban on late-term abortions, but it is a measure that would provide a wonderful opportunity for us to work together on an issue that is pro-woman, pro-child, and pro- life. It is creating a culture of life. I want to take a few of the minutes I have to describe a procedure that takes place on a post-20-weeks-of-age gestation child, described here on this chart. There may be people who may not want to look at this. I would offer that they not, if they choose not to, but I think it is important they have this information. We are talking about a D&E procedure at 23 weeks performed on an unborn child. It is important to note that the legislation that I have introduced today does not ban this procedure or limit it in any way; this legislation simply says that a woman needs to be informed about the pain the child in her womb would experience if she undergoes that procedure, and be given the option to offer the child in the womb anesthesia in the procedure of the child being pulled out of the womb, as you can see in this diagram. I want to get some expert testimony that was provided at the partial- birth abortion trials. This was information submitted by Dr. Sonny Annand at the trial about the nature of the pain the child experiences. I held hearings in the Senate Commerce Committee about in utero surgery. The surgeon talked about having to chase the child around in the womb somewhat to give it its shot to anesthetize the child because the child didn't want the needle to go into its buttock. He described how the child was constantly moving around to avoid the needle. That made perfect sense to me, having children who do not like to get shots. I don't like shots. And the child would move around. But it also heightened my awareness--that if you go through this abortion procedure, what does the child feel at that point in time? It doesn't want to get a shot in its rear end. What does it feel when it goes through a procedure like this? This was reported by the Associated Press at the trials last year, April 4, 2004. Dr. Sonny Annand said: Abortion would cause severe and excruciating pain to 20- week-old fetuses. There is now scientific information about the increase in the heart rate of the child when a procedure like this is taking place, the increase in the physiological trauma that indicates somebody going through excruciating pain. And while you can't hear the child in the womb--it can't scream--it has a silent scream, nonetheless it is showing all the time the physiological nature of going through excruciating pain. I have another chart to put up here to illustrate this point as well. This is from the same physician. Dr. Annand says: The fetuses show increased heart rate, blood flow and hormone level in response to pain. This is how you and I, adults, respond to pain, although the difference for us is we have less pain receptors per square inch, and we also have developed a part of the brain that holds down or suppresses pain. So actually we feel less pain because of the way our brain is further developed. But the child feels more pain. This issue is something I think most of us would probably choose to ignore, if we could, and say ``let's just not talk about it.'' But when this is going on and you know about it, how can you ignore it? It would be like us saying, about some of the tragedies in our history, I just do not want to know about it. Just do not tell me about it. I would rather be ignorant. Yet today we cannot deny the scientific information. Here is a picture of a child in the womb. I do not know the age of this child. But can you deny the humanity of this child? I have a coin given to me yesterday from a Croatian, a gentleman from Croatia that I want to show you has the same picture of this unborn child imprinted on this coin minted in Croatia. They just ask basically on the coin, as you can in the picture, how can you deny the humanity of this child? If that is the case--and if you dismember this child in a late-term abortion, how can you deny the humanity of this child and the pain it experiences? We know physiologically because of the scientific advances taking place what this child experiences. How can you ignore scientific evidence and say it is simply not taking place, or I just do not want to see it, which was unfortunately typically done too often in our past. But the facts seem too horrific for us to look at. We have seen recently in places around the world the horrific suffering. Many times we just want to say: Don't show it to me. I don't really want to see it. Yet it can't be denied. It must be confronted. The sooner it is talked about, the sooner it will be addressed. Let us have a lively debate. If people don't believe the child is experiencing pain, come forward with the scientific information. It would be counter to all common experience of women in pregnancy at that 20-week stage or later. It would be counter to all the current scientific information. Bring it forward. Let us have a lively debate about this. This bill does not ban any abortion procedure. It simply is an informed consent bill that women deserve to know about. It is my hope that once a woman receives this information she would decide to go ahead with the pregnancy and have the child. If she looks at her situation and believes it is just too difficult to continue to care for the child, she could put the child up for adoption. There are millions of families who would love to provide a loving home for a child. No matter what the difficult circumstance, they would love to adopt; but perhaps she would choose to make her child go through this procedure. What if she decided to go through the procedure, and then later found out through scientific evidence that she put her child through this pain and had to live with that in her life. We have women coming forward now in the Silent No More Campaign--women who have had abortions who have for years afterwards--decades afterwards--struggled with the thought of having an abortion. They say: My goodness. How could I do that to my own child in the womb? They are saying women deserve better. They have struggled with this for years and are now coming out with it; receiving the sympathy which they deserve for having gone through something at a very difficult time in their lives. This bill will be introduced in both Chambers today. It is an important piece of legislation. It is one which I hope we can move forward with aggressively. If there is evidence on the other side, I would welcome it coming forward. Let us have this debate, but let us not ignore it any longer. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar. I have had an opportunity to work with him in the years I have been in the Senate on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is an outstanding Member and such a good colleague and so knowledgeable on so many issues. It is quite wonderful to have his work and the things he has done, particularly the incredibly important Nunn-Lugar, or I call it the Lugar-Nunn Act on Nuclear Proliferation, getting rid of some material in the Soviet Union. I have seen that bill in action and that has been a powerful good to possibly reduce the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. I thank my colleague. I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice for the position of Secretary of State. While it is regrettable that we are continuing to debate this nomination after 2 days of hearings, I believe it will only confirm what the President has done in making such a great choice. As the first woman to hold the key post as the President's National Security Adviser, she has had a distinguished career already in Government, as well as in academics. I still recall her wise and learned comments made nearly a decade ago about how systems failures were occurring at that time in the Soviet Union that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. It wasn't seen at the time. Yet she was able to look at the disparate situations that were happening, saying how systems failures in the Soviet Union presaged a place none of us thought possible to fall. And she was seeing that--observing that as an astute observer years ahead of her time. That kind of judgment and foresight will be critical in the months and years ahead for the United States. It is a complex job, Secretary of State. I believe she has the necessary talent and experience and is, without doubt, one of the most qualified people in the world for this job. Like Secretary Powell, who has done an outstanding job and whose humanity and professionalism and dedication will be sorely missed, she recognizes the deep personal commitment necessary, and this Nation is grateful for someone of her stature who is willing to serve in this position. The Secretary of State serves as the President's top foreign policy adviser and in that capacity is this Nation's most visible diplomat here and around the world. It is a position that demands the full confidence of the President, and in Dr. Rice, we know the President trusts her judgment. That relationship is critical when one considers the state of the world in which Dr. Rice will work. According to a recent National Intelligence Council report: Not since the end of World War II has the international order been in such a state of flux. During the past 3 years, we have seen terrorists kill thousands of people in this country and around the world. While terrorism will continue to be a serious threat to the Nation's security as well as many countries around the world, genocide--even after Bosnia and Rwanda and even Auschwitz-- continues to this day in Darfur. This proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among rogue regimes continues apace. Meanwhile, in the East, the rise of China and India promises to reshape familiar patterns of geopolitics and economics. Still, there is great reason to be encouraged by the world that Dr. Rice will face. Freedom is on the march in places some had written off as potentially unsuitable for democracy. Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution, Serbia's Democratic Revolution, and successful elections in Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian Authority demonstrate the longing for democracy that embraces the most diverse cultures. Iraq will continue to pose challenges even after the elections at the end of this month. The new Secretary of State will have to engage the United States and our allies in working closely with the Iraqis to seize the opportunities that lie before them to forge a nation that is free of the past and that is ultimately and uniquely Iraqi. The only exit strategy for the United States and the coalition forces is to ensure that Iraqis are in control of their own destiny. The new Secretary of State must devote her time and resources to achieving a settlement in the Arab-Israeli conflict by clearly articulating the robust vision of peace in the Middle East. We must not only come to grips with nuclear proliferation issues in Iran and North Korea, but we must have the moral courage to bring attention to the human rights abuses in both of these countries that sustain these nuclear ambitions. Similarly, we must confront the regime in Khartoum where crimes against humanity must be brought to justice so that urgent humanitarian assistance can continue in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan. There are many actions we can take and must take, especially after we have had the bold initiative to clearly call Darfur for what it is--it is genocide that is happening there. If we are to maintain our credibility in this area, we must act decisively. In addition to the humanitarian efforts in the Indian Ocean region and elsewhere as a result of the tsunami, I am certain that the new Secretary will maintain our commitment to the global fight against AIDS and other infectious diseases. But to do so with the kind of prudent and result-based efforts that have been so successful in past efforts, we have to maintain a focus and an effort to be able to get things done. Last week, President Bush laid down a marker by which we would define what it means not to just be an American but a citizen of the world. Declaring in his inaugural address that our liberty is increasingly tied to the fate of liberty abroad, he placed the United States on the side of democratic reformers and vowed to judge governments by their treatment of their own people. President Bush's vision draws on the wellsprings of our Nation's spirit and value. I believe Secretary-designate Rice possesses the skills and talents necessary to turn the President's visionary goals into a reality. In her statement before the Foreign Relations Committee, she said, ``The time for diplomacy is now.'' Her qualifications to carry that prescription into practice will be indispensable. She combines a big- picture mindset born of academic training with a wealth of hands-on experience at the highest level. Perhaps most importantly, she can always be sure of having the President's confidence and ear. Finally, Dr. Rice's own biography testifies to the promise of America. Born and raised in the segregated South, her talent, determination, and intellect will place her fourth in line to the Presidency. She has often said to get ahead she had to be ``twice as good''--and she is that and more. Her childhood shaped her strong determination of self-respect, but it was her parents' commitment to education and her brilliant success at it that defined her style. She managed to work her way to college by the age of 15 and graduate at 19 from the University of Denver with a degree in political science. It was at Denver that Dr. Rice became interested in international relations and the study of the Soviet Union. Her inspiration came from a course taught by a Czech refugee. That background will become increasingly important as we deal with the changing dynamics and challenges posed around the world. In short, I am moved to think that she will soon be confirmed as our 66th Secretary of State, and it will be time for us to move forward. She is already well known to the world. Dr. Rice will now become the face of America's diplomacy. We need to support her in every way we can. She can be assured of my support. As the newly appointed chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I look forward to working with her and other officials at the State Department to further promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. Charged with the responsibility for monitoring and promoting implementation of the Helsinki Final Act in all 55 signatory countries, the Commission has been and will continue to be a force for human freedom, seeking to encourage change, consistent with the commitment these countries have voluntarily accepted. As President Ford remarked when signing the Helsinki Final Act on behalf of the United States: History will judge this Conference . . . not only by the promises we make, but the promises we keep. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the historic occasion this year, a number of Helsinki signatories seem determined to undermine the shared values enshrined in the Final Act and diminish the commitment they accepted when they joined the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is imperative that the United States hold firm to the values that have inspired democratic change in much of the OSCE region. Dr. Rice in her confirmation testimony referred to the potential role that multilateral institutions can play in multiplying the strength of freedom-loving nations. Indeed, the OSCE has tremendous potential to play even a greater role in promoting democracy, human rights, and rule of law in a region of strategic importance to the United States. I look forward to building upon the partnership forged between the Helsinki Commission and the State Department as we stand with oppressed and downtrodden people wherever they are in the world. I urge my colleagues to support Dr. Rice for the position of Secretary of State. I wish her good luck and Godspeed. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. About 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak in behalf of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. I hope the chairman would yield to me such time as I might consume.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to recognize National Adoption Day which is this Saturday, November 20. National Adoption Day is a collaborative effort to raise awareness about the thousands of children in foster care waiting to be adopted. There are an estimated 542,000 children in foster care in the United States, and over 126,000 of them are waiting to be adopted. This day is meant to celebrate and honor all those loving parents who adopt children and to bring attention to the children in foster care waiting to be adopted. On Saturday, an unprecedented number of courts throughout the nation will finalize the adoption of thousands of children from foster care. For the last 4 years, local adoption agencies, courts, and advocacy organizations have come together on National Adoption Day to help children in need of a permanent home. The number of children in foster care has nearly doubled since 1987, and the average time a child remains in foster care is 3 years. Sadly, almost 20,000 children in foster care age out of the system each year without ever being placed with a permanent family. If only one out of every 500 Americans adopted, all foster children would be placed in homes. As a father of two adopted children, I know the love and joy that comes from adoption. I commend the National Adoption Day partners for their efforts and their dedication in working toward a day when all children will have a permanent, loving family to call their own.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of National Bible Week 2004. During the week of November 21-28, communities and churches across the United States will participate in this annual celebration by reading and reflecting on the teachings of the Bible. In doing so, they recognize the Bible's importance in our daily lives. I am thankful for the opportunity to serve as Senate Co- Chairman of National Bible Week this year, and I commend the National Bible Association for its sponsorship of this yearly tradition. The first National Bible Week, organized in 1941, was created as a way to extend comfort and hope to our nation during the tumultuous days of World War II. Today, our country is again in a time of difficulty. As our brave men and women of the Armed Forces continue to fight the War on Terror, I call on my fellow Americans to look to God's Word for its great inspiration, spiritual guidance, and strength. I pray that all Americans, particularly our soldiers and their loved ones, would receive ``the peace of God, which transcends all understanding'' (Philippians 4:7). I believe Americans of all religions and faith backgrounds can find wisdom and understanding in the Holy Scriptures. Indeed, the Bible and its teachings have greatly influenced my own life. I encourage all Americans to read the Bible and consider the wisdom, lessons, and traditions that have come to us from it. I congratulate the National Bible Association for its dedication to the celebration of the Holy Bible.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would like to ask the chairman to address one final point. As the chairman knows, an amendment added to the Senate bill during floor debate temporarily reversed a Tax Court decision, affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, concerning the limitation of business deductions for personal entertainment use of a business aircraft. This provision was drastically expanded and made permanent in the conference report. I am very concerned that this provision will have a substantial negative impact on the sales of new aircraft because, much of the business deduction for a new aircraft in its first few years is depreciation. In the same bill that Congress extends the period to place an aircraft in service and still qualify for bonus depreciation, Congress also reverses current law and limits depreciation and other business deductions, even when an employee has income imputed to him for any personal use of the aircraft. I can understand that the facts of the tax court case that was intended to be reversed involved a high percentage of nonbusiness use. However, it would seem to me that some sort of de minimis amount of personal travel treated as taxable compensation should be allowed without reducing otherwise applicable business deductions. I can also understand limiting deductions for incremental operating costs incurred for a personal flight, but the aircraft depreciates whether it is in the air or on the ground. I do not see the rationale for this extraordinary provision in the conference agreement far beyond the scope of the original Senate provision. The section which the conference report amends concerns entertainment facilities such as hunting and fishing lodges which have no other use than for business or personal entertainment. An aircraft is purchased by a business because they have a business need to be served. It is not the same thing as a hunting lodge. It is difficult for me to believe that, if a court addressed the specific question of whether a business aircraft were an ``entertainment facility'' under present law, that it would rule against the taxpayer. I hope that the chairman would be willing to consider a de minimis rule or other modification to limit the scope of this limitation in future tax legislation to allow occasional personal use without limiting otherwise deductible business expense deductions relating to the ownership and use of a business aircraft. Mr. GRASSLEY: I appreciate the Senator's concerns and will keep them in mind in the future, although I would not anticipate repeal of the full provision included in this conference report. section 422

Mr. BROWNBACK. The effective date of the placed-in-service-extension, section 336 of the conference report, states that the amendments ``shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by section 101 of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.'' I believe that this means only that, if a purchaser orders a plane for delivery in 2005, the limitations on the amount of the deposit, time for construction and purchase price must be met. It does not mean that taxpayers who did not or will not take delivery and place the aircraft in service after December 31, 2004, would retroactively be subjected to these limitations. The limitations apply only if a taxpayer wishes to take advantage of the extended placed-in service period. Does the Chairman agree with this interpretation?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask the chairman for a further clarification. Section 336 of the conference report includes amendment of clause (iv) of Internal Revenue Code section 168(k)(2)(A) to apply the additional year to place an asset in service to assets described in subparagraphs (B) and (C). Subparagraph (B) of the Code applies to certain property having longer production periods. Section 336 of the bill adds subparagraph (C). I would like to be sure that, by using the word ``and'', the conferees did not intend that a business aircraft would have to be described in both the existing subparagraph (B) and the new subparagraph (C) in order to qualify for the additional year to place the aircraft in service. As the chairman knows, the standards for qualification are substantially different under the two subparagraphs.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance, as well as the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee, Mr. Thomas, and all the conferees on H.R. 4520, for retaining the provision allowing business aircraft purchased this year to qualify for bonus depreciation if the aircraft is delivered and placed in service in 2005. This provision is important to the hard-working Kansans who build these aircraft. Provisions such as this will help to further bolster our rebounding economy with respect to expensive and complicated equipment like business aircraft. Without bonus depreciation, there is a risk of a shortage of orders for delivery next year with a resulting impact on employment. It would have been better if this legislation had been enacted earlier this year, but, even now, this provision will allow manufacturers several extra weeks to take orders for delivery by the end of 2005. That should help to ensure that there will be planes to build in 2005. I ask the chairman a technical question on the effective date of this provision.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks commending Dr. Jim Marks, who will be leaving the Department of Health and Human Services in December. Dr. Marks has directed the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1995. During Dr. Marks' tenure, the CDC has had a significant impact on the lives of all Americans through programs to prevent and promote cancer's earliest detection. Under Dr. Marks' direction and with the support of Congress, the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control has grown from approximately $123 million to over $313 million. This growth has afforded CDC the ability to provide national leadership in the cancer prevention and control. Dr. Marks was instrumental in leading efforts to partner with States, territories, tribal organizations as well as national, State and local partners to monitor cancer trends; conduct research and evaluate cancer prevention and control activities; apply scientific advances and develop strong cancer control programs; and to educate public health professionals and the public about cancer prevention and control. Some specific accomplishments during Dr. Marks' tenure include: the total number of woman ever served by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program NBCCEDP, reached 1.9 million in 2003. Under Dr. Marks' guidance, the NBCCEDP has helped uninsured and underinsured women gain access to lifesaving screening and diagnostic testing programs for the early detection of breast and cervical cancer. To date, the program has: provided over 4.6 million screening examinations; diagnosed 17,009 breast cancers; 61,474 precancerous cervical lesions; and 1,157 cervical cancers. Expansion of the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) to cover 96 percent of the Nation's population. The cancer information gathered by the NPCR serve a key role in determining cancer patterns among various populations; monitoring cancer trends over time; guiding State planning and evaluation of cancer control programs; assisting States in setting priorities for the allocation of resources; and, advancing clinical, epidemiologic, and health services research. The data gathered through the NPCR coupled with information from the National Cancer Institute and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries was combined to produce official Federal statistics on cancer incidence in the report entitled, U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2000 Incidence. Development and expansion of the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program to 61 programs in States, territories and tribes. CDC support permits the respective health agencies to establish broad-based Comprehensive Cancer Control, CCC, coalitions, assess the burden of cancer, determine priorities for cancer prevention and control, and develop and implement CCC plans. Development of A National Action Plan or Cancer Survivorship: Advancing Public Health Strategies, 2003 in collaboration with the Lance Armstrong Foundation and national experts in cancer survivorship and public health. The action plan charts a course for how the public health community can more effectively and comprehensively address cancer survivorship and focus on improving the quality of life for survivors. Dr. Marks' leadership and direction in CDC's cancer control and prevention efforts helped Americans lead more productive and healthier lives.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and the time I use to be considered against the pending cloture motion.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to address a couple of topics that have come up this afternoon, and then address a couple that are pending in front of us. No. 1, on the FSC/ETI bill, there are a lot of things in the bill that I think are very positive. There are some things I disagree with in the bill. One thing I am going to draw to the attention of some of my colleagues in this bill that is very helpful in my State is a particular provision extending the bonus depreciation allowance for civil aviation aircraft. That is something about which I know the Presiding Officer is interested. These are small manufacturers of airplanes. These are not the big airliners but general aviation manufacturers that have extended bonus depreciation. You may ask, what am I interested in that for? That bonus depreciation has brought back an industry that was on its knees, that was crushed after 9/11. They were selling no aircraft. By having the bonus depreciation in there, they started selling aircraft. In fact, they quadrupled their sales of aircraft, particularly Cessna, Bombardier, Learjet. This hits Raytheon, the whole industry, much of which is concentrated in my State but has fingers around much of the country. It is a fabulous industry, great productivity of workers. There are really good people associated with it. It was on its knees after 9/11. The bonus depreciation was put in the first tax cut bill that really revived it and brought it back. They started hiring people again instead of laying off workers, but then they were hitting up against the time deadline of that bonus depreciation, so their sales orders starting going back down again. With it in this bill and by passing this bill, we are going to be able to bring sales back to that industry. You can say that is a pretty narrow provision, that it doesn't cost anything, that it actually scored at zero, but the point being the reason this FSC/ETI bill is called a jobs bill is because it creates jobs. Here is a bill that creates a number of jobs. By doing this, there are going to be people working in Wichita, throughout my State, throughout the region, building general aviation aircraft products. The chairman has done a good job in working on this particular provision. Most of this bill contains provisions that create jobs so people can work. They can continue their work. They are not laid off from their work. There are provisions in it which I don't agree with. There are things which I wish we could have had more of in it. The Senator from Louisiana made a speech saying there was something that should have been in it. It would have been nice to be in it, but it didn't make it in. The bill has provisions in it that will create jobs and continue jobs, such as this bonus depreciation extension on general aviation manufactured products. This is a good thing that needs to happen. It is the right thing to do. It is the sort of thing we need for this country, particularly in these areas of manufacturing jobs which have so much difficulty and so much competition overseas for these jobs. Here is an area where we can do it. We need a little bit of benefit. It is in the bill. I applaud the Chairman, Senator Grassley, particularly for putting that provision in the bill. There is a second thing which hasn't had the notice and which happened this week. It is not in the bill, but it is another job creator. This week, the U.S. Trade Representative in the Office of the President announced that they will be withdrawing from the 1992 civil aviation agreement with the European Union. The issue here is that Airbus has stolen by Government subsidies a huge market share from Boeing and other manufacturers, primarily from Boeing and large-scale aircraft. Since 1992 when the agreement was entered into, Airbus has gotten somewhere between 8 to 15 percent of the market share. With Government subsidies, Airbus now has a majority of the market share in the large airline manufacturing business. It has gotten that through Government subsidies in Europe. What type of Government subsidies? It is a subsidy where the European Governments say to Airbus, you want to make this new airliner, you want to be able to sell it to United Airlines, you want to sell it to Lufthansa and other airlines around the world; we will provide you with the money. We will loan the money to create this new aircraft to sell to these major airlines. And if you sell the product and if it works, you will have to repay the loan. But if it doesn't work, if people do not buy the aircraft, you don't have to pay back the loan. There are a number of countries in the world that would love this deal. As such, you never have to bet the company on a new product. You can go out and say we think there is a market for a 600-seat airliner. If it makes it, great; you have to repay the loan. If it doesn't, the Government is going to pick up the tab. That is what is taking place, billions of dollars of direct subsidies on putting these aircraft into the manufacturing system that have subsidized the takeover of Airbus over Boeing and the majority of aircraft manufacturing in the world today. If it were a fair competition between Airbus and Boeing, that would be another matter. But these sorts of subsidies are wrong. It is wrong for us to allow Europe to continue to do that. I am delighted that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is withdrawing from this 1992 protocol, saying to the Europeans we are going to start consultation and take this to the World Trade Organization to have you stop the subsidization of aircraft manufacturing and stealing jobs from America. What does that have to do with this bill? Again, it is about jobs and fighting for jobs. Boeing itself has lost nearly 60,000 jobs since 9/ 11. We have been losing market share. We have had difficulty in the economy. Here is something to say we have to start fighting back aggressively, pull out of this agreement, start the consultation, bring the World Trade Organization into it, and if we have to subsidize to be able to get back into market share to compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis for Europe, I think we have to look at that as well. Here is the administration through the USTR fighting for manufacturing jobs that have been lost because of a bad agreement in 1992 on airliners being subsidized and made by Airbus. I am delighted the administration is doing this. I wholeheartedly support it. I have a resolution which I put in here asking my colleagues to support, saying this is the right way for us to reclaim manufacturing jobs that are being stolen by Europe providing these subsidies to Airbus. Another issue which is coming up in some of the debate on the floor is the discussion about the war in Iraq. For all of us, this is a very sensitive issue. We have lost American lives. We have lost a number of American lives. We have lost a number of Kansans in this war in Iraq. They are fighting for freedom. They are fighting to spread democracy in a part of the world that has not known it. They are fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against a government that has harbored terrorists. They are fighting against a government that was identified by us for a number of years as being a state sponsor of terrorism--one of only seven countries in the world. Abu Nidal operated out of Iraq. There has been and continues to be, and was continued under Saddam Hussein, a connection between terrorism and his regime. It becomes quite fashionable, it seems to me, to criticize this war in Iraq. Certainly there are things there to criticize. But I want to caution my colleagues. When I visit with soldiers coming back from Fort Riley, or leaving from Fort Riley to go over, officers who have been over and back, and Fort Leavenworth, or I see them here, they want to know that America continues to support them. It gets to be a real dissidence for a lot of people. OK, I support the troops but I don't support this effort in conflict. I think a number of people look at this, saying what you mean is you don't support this conflict and does that mean we are going to be pulling out and are we not going to complete the job? Are we not going to make the turn to democracy in Iraq? This is a very difficult attempt we are making. Once it is done, it will spread throughout the region. But getting there is going to be very difficult. I want to caution my colleagues, when you are being critical of this war--and everybody has their right to put their opinion forward--how that is heard by our troops. I say that from the practical experience in talking with a number of troops who have come back to my State. They want to know and want to make sure that the country still supports them. People will have different opinions on the war, but they want to know they are supported. Once we are in, they want people to stand behind them and with them. I hope we let our troops know that, yes, we have not found weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't mean their efforts have been in vain, or what they have done has been wrong. We have spread a message of democracy and hope. We have pushed Libya to the point now where they have given up WMDs, and are opening up their society. We have pushed them to the point they opened up the Dr. Kahn nuclear network. That has made the world safer on nuclear weapons. We are not completely safe, but it has made us safer in the process. Their effort has not been in vain. They are opening their society, bringing schools and opportunity to people who have not known it. We have gotten rid of a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. There are thousands of people buried in mass graves. That is not a vain effort. Yes, they are having difficulty. We are losing blood on a regular basis, but we have to continue and we need to speak strongly that we support the war and we support the troops. In our efforts to have vigorous political debate here, I don't want to take the wind out of the sails of our troops who fight so hard and who put their lives and their families on the line for our safety. Finally, I want to address an issue that we thought we were going to be able to get with the Department of Defense authorization bill; that is, raising of the fines for indecent material in public over-the-air broadcasts over the radio and television. We have had broad bipartisan support for this effort. There is the Janet Jackson bill, for lack of better terminology, at the Super Bowl last year in the event with her and Justin Timberlake. It spawned a lot of complaints going to the FCC about indecent material on public over-the-air broadcasts. I remind those watching, the issue is that the airwaves used by radio and television broadcast are public airwaves. They are licensed from the public to radio stations and must be used for the common good. There is a level of material that has been deemed as indecent if you have this license. It is not so much about the first amendment, although the first amendment is protected. It is about abiding by your license agreement to use public property. It is like going to a national park. A national park is owned by the public. Visitors have to abide by the rules in the national park when they go in. They cannot start a fire just anywhere in that national park. Everyone has to abide by the rules. If you are going to go into this, the property is owned by the public, and there are rules to follow. If you are going to use a license, the property is owned by the public, the airwaves, and you have to abide by the requirements. One of those requirements is you cannot put on indecent material. That has been defined. We have had several broadcast violations. As a matter of fact, the company that broadcast the Super Bowl was fined heavily for that Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake episode. But their fine amounted to one- fourth of the value of a 30-second ad on the Super Bowl. So the total fine CBS received was the equivalent of a quarter of the price paid for a 30-second ad at the Super Bowl. It was not even commensurate. It is the cost-of-doing-business type of fine. Within the bill that passed, the amendment that passed 99 to 1, was to increase these fines. We increased fines substantially so there would be a penalty to the companies broadcasting the indecent material. The FCC would be given the authority to fine up to $500,000 per violation with a $3 million cap per 24-hour period per station group. However, the FCC has to consider a number of factors in deciding whether to put that level of fine forward. Broadcasters do not make $2 million per 30-second ad on every show, and many broadcasters in small markets, particularly in my State or in other States, do not make near that kind of money. So we give the FCC a top figure they can use in big instances, but we give them a series of factors to consider such as ability of the company to pay in assessing the fine. We also have included fines for performers. If it is the performers who choose to do this and the companies broadcasting did not have clearance ahead of time, then the performers themselves need to be held responsible. That was included. We also required an annual report that the FCC would have to give to the Congress on what they are doing on indecency complaints and violations. This had broad bipartisan support. It was pulled out of the Department of Defense authorization bill because there were other issues associated with it, such as media ownership and a provision for family-hour viewing of violent television programming that had some controversy so it did not make it through. We brought this issue back and we have put it today in a House bill that is at the desk numbered 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, which we are attempting to move through the Senate in the final hours of this session so we can get what has been agreed to, what has been passed by this Senate 99 to 1, what has passed through the House by an overwhelming majority as well, and have it as a stand-alone bill. It is being held by some Members on the other side of the aisle. I am pleased my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in particular, is a cosponsor on this individual bill. We are trying to have it cleared. It has cleared the Republican side and has not cleared the Democratic side. It has bipartisan support. I am hopeful we can get any holds lifted from this particular bill. It is an important provision. The public is fed up with the amount of the indecent material on television, particularly during prime time when families are watching. They want the FCC to have tools that are real, that can be used against the broadcast companies willing to put forward this sort of material that families do not want in their living room. I applaud the FCC for fining CBS for the Super Bowl incident. But, my goodness, that fine wasn't much because that was the maximum amount they can be fined under the old fine structure. We need to get this new fine structure in place. We have this House-passed bill. It is at the desk. It is amended with a House-Senate agreement that was part of the Department of Defense authorization bill. We are hopeful to get through that, and we are working to get this through the Senate. The House stands ready to pass that if we can get it cleared through the Senate. The broadcast decency bill, the bill that is at our desk, sends the message that indecent and obscene material will not be tolerated on the public airwaves during the hours in which children might be in the audience. Along with licensed use of the public airwaves for a period of time comes a set of responsibilities that need to be taken seriously. I am hopeful, as we are here for a couple of days on these votes, that we can get this matter cleared to send it to the House, we can get it passed to the President and take care of something that has broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues if they are holding this bill to consider this is something that they have probably already supported. It would be important as a step forward in trying to present airwaves to the public the way the public wants them to be presented, as the public does own these airwaves. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. No objection.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their work on intelligence reform. I want to make a few remarks on the intelligence reform bill. I am supportive of the overall efforts of the Governmental Affairs Committee, what my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, and my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, are doing as well on intelligence reform, and I want to support this overall effort. Before I proceed, it is important to underscore why this is such an important debate in the United States, especially when it is so deeply engaged in many places around the world and particularly in the Middle East and Iraq. In the context of the underlying bill, we need to make sure we clearly understand this. There is some public uncertainty regarding these issues. As the debate showed last night, we have fundamental differences even between President Bush and Senator Kerry. But both agree, in my opinion, why the U.S. commitment to Iraq is absolutely essential and why we must not fail in Iraq or in this effort to reform our national intelligence. For purposes of discussion, I recommend a rereading of Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the Americans. He issued this in 1998. It is in the 9/11 Commission Report and it is chilling, but it tells you what is at stake in this debate. He says this, and this is a direct quote from that declaration of war: The Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that the explosions at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by cowardly terrorists. bin Laden continues: We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk could induce a grieving mother to laughter! And it shows the fears that have enveloped you all. Where was this courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place in 1983 . . . You were transformed into scattered bits and pieces: 241 soldiers were killed, most of them Marines. bin Laden continues: When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the street of Mogadishu, you left the area in disappointment, humiliation, and defeat, carrying your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You had been disgraced by Allah and you withdraw; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. As bin Laden had explained earlier in the declaration: Efforts should be concentrated on destroying, fighting, and killing the (American) enemy until, by the grace of Allah, it is completely defeated. The task is stated quite simply by bin Laden: Killing Americans. In June 2002, bin Laden spokesman, Suleiman Abu Gheith, placed this statement on the al-Qaida Web site: We have the right to kill 4 million Americans--2 million of them children--and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. He said that: We have the right to kill 4 million Americans--2 million of them children. . . . What can we do to forestall these promised attacks? According to bin Laden, if we follow what he says, we can forestall these promised attacks if ``America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture,'' for according to bin Laden, ``It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.'' That is what we fight, and that is what we must stand strong against and be as strong and as organized as we possibly can and have as good intelligence as we possibly can to fight these fanatics. These terrorists are fanatics. They are wrong about America, and America will fight. They may be fanatics--and they are--but James Schlesinger reminded us earlier this year in the Foreign Relations Committee that they are deadly serious and thoroughly persistent. We have to therefore anticipate we will be engaged in this global war on terrorism for years to come and we must not waiver in this effort. As Osama himself has said: When the people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally gravitate towards the strong horse. Therefore, we as a nation and as a body must do everything within our means to demonstrate that we are not the weak horse. That is why retreat before we have successfully stabilized Iraq is not an option. Nothing was more dramatically visible throughout the Middle East and elsewhere of our retreat than were those earlier retreats cited by Osama bin Laden. The debate over Iraq will continue, even after the election, regarding the timing of our move into Iraq, but that is a moot issue. We are there now and our soldiers are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances. We will bring them home, but make no mistake about the fact that we are anything but united in our determination to persevere and to prevail in Iraq. Success is the only acceptable course of action. How then are we to be successful in sustaining order and stability in Iraq and bringing order to the chaos that the terrorists can potentially produce around the world? Only by embracing certain fundamental realities. First and foremost, establishing reasonable security is the prerequisite for achieving the goals of political stability. We are doing that in Iraq and we are doing that in Afghanistan. It is slow going and it is difficult, and there will be bumps along the way. Second, neither the American nor the coalition forces can by themselves impose security on Iraq. Iraqis themselves must provide indispensable support and their own security. Only Iraqis can gather the intelligence to identify the regime remnants and foreign terrorists who must be largely neutralized before adequate security can be assured. Moreover, it will be essential for Iraqi security forces to be the principal elements in rooting out terrorists and destroying their cells, with the coalition military increasingly in a supporting role. Similarly, America must take charge of its own security in a way that is consistent with the changed realities in our post-9/11 world. This legislation we are debating, the first major overhaul of the intelligence system, is a major step in that direction. We have the capability, the ability, and the motive--our national security--to do this now and to do it right. As my colleague Senator Kyl from Arizona said yesterday, the problem before 9/11 was not due to too much intelligence. The problem obviously arose because we did not have enough intelligence, smart intelligence, creative intelligence. We could not gather enough information in a timely way to put together all of the possibilities in order to connect the dots, in order to predict that a particular kind of attack was going to occur on that day. We have had a lot of good, constructive suggestions, from many places, from the 9/11 Commission, from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the great work of its chairman and my colleague Senator Pat Roberts from Kansas, from the administration, from the work of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Rockefeller also on the Intelligence Committee, from other commissions in trying to understand why we did not have enough intelligence and why we could not put it all together ahead of time. Many of the recommendations of the Commission and legislative solutions in the proposed bill try to correct that problem of not having enough good intelligence and knowing precisely what we need to do with the intelligence once we have it. Most importantly, we need to find a way of bringing the creativity and imagination back into the intelligence business. For too long, the system has been hampered by bureaucracy that by design is risk averse and unwilling to take the offensive. As Senator Kyl mentioned the other day, if we look back at President Clinton's directives to the intelligence community, he tried to be forward leaning, especially with regard to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. But even though the President himself seemed to say we have to do everything we can to try to get these guys, he ran into bureaucratic barriers. Repeatedly, efforts were made to bring to his attention operations that would have either improved our intelligence or operationally deal with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, but they were shot down by various portions or places within the bureaucracy or lawyers within the system. If someone tried to do something, somebody else said this is too risky, we cannot do it. We have to change that mentality. That was why the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and many other observers have said we have to get out of this paralyzing risk-averse environment where people are afraid somebody is looking over their shoulders, is going to jump on them if they do anything that is the least bit out of the ordinary or risky. We have to get this bureaucratic mindset out because our very security depends on it. I thank the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins, for her great work on this, and the ranking member, Senator Lieberman. I appreciate the important work of my colleagues Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller, and I hope that we will speedily get to a resolution so we can pass this important bill soon and change the dynamic and make a safer America. I yield the floor.