Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. We have studied this question thoroughly. I and a number of my distinguished colleagues have held extensive hearings on the importance of protecting and strengthening the institution of marriage. Traditional marriage is a boon to society in a variety of ways, and government has a vital interest in encouraging and providing the conditions to maintain as many traditional marriages as possible. Marriage has economic benefits not only for the spouses but for the economy at large. Even in advanced industrial societies such as ours, economists tell us that the uncounted but real value of home activities such as child care, senior care, home carpentry, and food preparation is still almost as large as the ``official'' economy. Not least of the reasons heterosexual marriage is a positive social good is the fact that, in the married state, adults of both sexes are vastly healthier, happier, safer, wealthier and longer lived. It is ironic, then, that the very governments that stand to benefit in so many ways from intact, traditional unions have, in recent years, seemed determined to follow policies that have the effect of weakening marriage. If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already-vulnerable institution. It is possible to lose the institution of marriage in America. And that is precisely the hidden agenda of many in this cultural battle: To do away with the traditional definition of the family entirely. An influential organization of lawyers and judges, the American Law Institute, has already recommended sweeping changes in family law that would equalize marriage and cohabitation, extending rights and benefits now reserved for married couples to cohabiting domestic partners, both heterosexual and homosexual. Once the process of ``defining marriage down'' begins, it is but a short step to the dissolution of marriage as a vital institution altogether. It is incumbent on this Senate to protect the institution of marriage from this vast social experiment to redefine it out of existence. I urge my colleagues to vote for this constitutional amendment and to do so now. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on this proposed amendment, constitutional amendment to protect marriage. I am an original cosponsor. I support the Allard amendment. He has done an absolutely fabulous job of bringing this forward. I will articulate those reasons for my colleagues and for others. This is a critical battle. We are at a critical stage in the culture of the United States. What happens on this particular issue will have a profound impact on the future of the United States of America. It is that which we are actually debating today. I have no doubt it is imperative we act now by means of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. As some of my distinguished colleagues have already pointed out, this action has been made necessary not by election year politics but by the reckless actions of a judiciary bent on radical social experimentation. Let there be no mistake, the stakes in this battle of the future of our culture are enormous. This attempt by the judiciary to radically redefine marriage is both a grave threat to our central social institution and a serious affront to the democratic rule in our Nation. On our reaction to this threat hinges the future of marriage and our future as a self-governing people. Both are at stake. Most Americans believe homosexuals have a right to live as they choose. They do not believe a small group of activists or a tiny judicial elite have a right to redefine marriage and impose a radical social experiment on our entire society. Let us be clear, this is not a battle over civil rights; it is a battle over whether marriage will be emptied of its meaning in contradiction to the will of the people and their duly elected representatives. We are a democracy, not a people ruled by a judicial dictator. In order to reach a predetermined outcome with regard to marriage, judges such as the five judges responsible for the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts are disregarding thousands of years of custom and experience, the laws of every society, and the beliefs of every major religious tradition. Unless action is taken by Congress to protect marriage by means of a constitutional amendment, the marriage laws of 50 States will be at the mercy of Federal judges, and marriage itself will be redefined out of all recognition. The Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress in 1996 is not enough. Without a constitutional amendment, Federal judges will likely rule DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, unconstitutional under the doctrine of full faith and credit, and marriages recognized in one State will be required to be recognized in all. As several of my distinguished colleagues have noted, challenges to DOMA are already making their way through the courts. This radical attempt to redefine marriage also highlights the need to rein in an increasingly reckless judiciary. When activist judges show no regard for legal intent or precedent, using their positions to achieve policy goals, they must be resolutely opposed. In fundamentally altering the definition of marriage and changing duly approved marriage laws, these judges show contempt for the democratic process itself. The choice is clear: Either we amend the Constitution and protect the rights of the people to self-determination in this process or the Constitution will be amended, in effect, by the edict of judges. The time has come to act. If we continue to let activist judges determine the fate of marriage, the battle may be lost and we could lose the institution of marriage. Marriage can be lost. It is important to take a step back from the heat of this controversy in order to understand why defending the institution of marriage is so important to the Nation's future. America's political system is framed around a particular understanding of human freedom, an understanding of freedom not as mere license but as something that must be guided and governed by a fundamental internal moral code. In keeping with human nature, the direction is toward both the individual good and the common good. Our great experiment and freedom as a nation has not been without its difficult moments of trial when we have struggled with our very identity as a people as we attempted to resolve the tensions inherent in the responsible exercise of freedom. The attempts to grapple with the evils of slavery in the 19th century and civil rights struggles of the 20th century are primary examples. In the long view of history, it seems likely we will look back at the social changes identified with the decline of marriage and the family, which began to make cultural inroads in the 1960s, and conclude that this vast cultural experiment has been a very harmful one, particularly harmful on children. That experiment, of course, continues today, but there are indications America is beginning to reevaluate that experiment, to assess where it is heading, and whether, as a people, we need to correct course. A vitally important part of this assessment is to study the social science data regarding what happens when sexuality and children are taken outside of the context of marriage and what happens when marriage declines as an institution as a result of a culture in which divorced or out-of- wedlock births, cohabitation, and single parenthood have become a social norm. One of the central questions before our society right now is whether this course is desirable and, if not, what can be done to avert it. Particularly important is what the social science evidence has to tell about how children have been affected by the weakening of the institution of marriage over the last 40 years. It is incumbent upon those who deal with public policy issues to investigate this trend and its consequences on society. A very wise man who served in this body for a number of years, the late Democratic Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was a great cultural commentator. He once wrote this: [T]he central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself. I think we see both truths in action in this debate. Senator Moynihan also wrote: [T]he principal objective of American government at every level should be to see that children are born into intact families and that they remain so. The ``principal objective,'' according to the late-Senator Moynihan. I have no doubt about what the outcome of this debate over an amendment to protect marriage would be if more of us in the public policy arena adhered to this principle, because seeing to it ``that children are born into intact families and that they remain so'' is, in a nutshell, what this whole debate is all about. And the only way to achieve that laudable aim is to protect the traditional meaning of marriage as the union between one man and one woman and prevent rogue judges from defining marriage out of existence. The costs to our society, should Federal judges force the States to recognize the legal equivalence of same-sex unions, would be significant--even disastrous--when measured in terms of the effects on our central social institution, the family. Marriage is at the center of the family, and the family is the basis of society itself. The Government's interest in the marriage bond, and the reason it treats heterosexual unions in a manner unlike all other relationships, is closely related to the welfare of children. Government registers and endorses marriage between a man and a woman in order to ensure a stable environment for the raising and nurturing of children. Social science on this matter is conclusive: Children need both a mom and a dad. Study after study shows children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father, and the Government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children. The social costs of not doing so are tremendous. Child Trends, a mainstream child welfare organization, has noted: [R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low- conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabitating relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents. Giving public sanction to homosexual ``marriage'' would violate this Government responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by placing individual adult desires above the best interests of children. There is no reliable social science data demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples do as well as children raised by married, heterosexual parents. Redefining marriage is certain to harm children and the broader social good if that redefinition weakens Government's legitimate goal of encouraging men and women who intend on having children to get married. If the experience of the last 40 years tells us anything, it is that the consequences of weakening the institution of marriage are tragic for society at large. While it has become fashionable to champion a wide variety of ``alternative family forms,'' it is abundantly clear that children are much less likely to thrive in the absence of their biological father. Children who grow up without their fathers are two to three times more likely to fail in school, and two to three times more likely to suffer from an emotional or behavioral problem. They can achieve, but it is a much more difficult route. I have a series of charts to share with my colleagues to make this point. Developmental problems are less common in two-parent families. To show where this goes, they are five times more likely to be poor. Nearly 80 percent of all children suffering long-term poverty come from broken or never-married families--80 percent of all children suffering long-term poverty. I want to show this chart to my colleagues. Eighty percent of children suffering long-term poverty come from broken or never-married families. The crisis of child poverty in this country is, in large degree, a crisis of marriage. The percentage of children in intact families living in poverty is very small compared to those in families where the father is not present. I want to show another chart to my colleagues: Percentage of children in poverty in 2000. You can see across the chart, for children in never-married families, 67 percent of the children are in poverty. If you go down on the chart to those children in families where the parents are in their first marriage, where the parents stay in that union, less than 12 percent of the children are in poverty. Marriage has the effect of lifting families and children out of poverty. After the birth of a child out of wedlock, only 17 percent of poverty-level income mothers and children remain poor if the mother marries the child's father. More than half of those mothers and children remain poor if the mother remains single. That is shown on this chart. If the mother remains single, over half remain below the poverty level. If she gets married, less than 17 percent remain below the poverty level. Divorce, on the other hand, impoverishes families and children. It has been estimated that the average income of families with children declines by 42 percent after divorce. This is the impact of divorce on the income of families with children. As this chart shows, you can see, after divorce, the income level of that average family declines 42 percent. Divorce is a key contributor and creator of child poverty. Children who grow up fatherless are also at a much increased risk of serious child abuse. A child whose mother cohabits with a man who is not the child's father is 33 times more likely to suffer abuse than a child living with both biological parents in an intact marriage--33 times more likely to suffer child abuse. You can see the child abuse levels in families: with married biological parents, comparative rates of abuse, 1 percent; biological mother cohabiting, 33 percent. Indeed, one of the most dangerous environments for a child today is in a home with a mother cohabiting with someone to whom she is not married. It is an incredibly dangerous situation overall--not for everybody and not in all circumstances, but the numbers just go up dramatically. Married mothers are also half as likely to be victims of domestic violence than mothers who have never been married. As teenagers, fatherless children are more likely to commit crime, engage in early and promiscuous sexual activity, and to commit suicide. It is clear that both children and society as a whole pay an enormous price in fatherless homes. The American people realize this. A Gallup poll from several years ago showed almost 80 percent of the public agrees with the proposition that ``the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home.'' It is a problem that requires urgent attention in our country. Nearly 25 million children today reside in a home where the father is absent. Half of these children have never stepped foot in their father's home. Less than half of all teenagers currently live with their married biological mothers and fathers. That is what this chart shows us. Less than half of all teenagers live with their married biological mothers and fathers. This year, approximately 1 million children will endure the divorce of their parents and an additional 1.2 million will be born out of wedlock. Altogether, the proportion of children entering broken homes has more than quadrupled since 1950. You can see this chart goes from 1950 up until about the year 2000. This shows children born out of wedlock, children born in previous years whose parents are divorced, and you can see that trend line and what that has done in America since 1950. This is a crisis for both our children and our country, the fact that so many children are growing up without fathers. It has been exacerbated by the decline of the institution of marriage. According to the Census Bureau, the number of cohabiting couples has increased from a half million to almost 5 million in the last 30 years. The number of households with neither marriage nor children present has gone from 7 million in 1960 to just under 41 million in 2000. All this is not to say that good children cannot be raised in other family settings. They can. Many healthy children are raised in difficult circumstances. Many single parents struggle heroically and successfully to raise good children. Still, social science is clear, the best place for a child is with a mom and a dad. Both are needed. Traditional marriage is a social good because it dramatically reduces the social costs associated with dysfunctional behavior. Supporting and strengthening marriage significantly diminishes public expenditure on welfare, raises government revenues, and produces a more engaged, responsible citizenry. There is a real question about the future of societies that do not uphold traditional marriage. Once a society loses sight of the central importance of marriage in raising children, the institution can go into a tailspin. If marriage begins to be viewed as the way two adults make known their love for each other, there is no reason to marry before children are born rather than after. And if it is immaterial whether a couple should be married before the birth of a child, then why should they marry at all? In Europe, many parents have stopped marrying altogether because they no longer view marriage as having anything to do with parenthood or children. The legalization of same-sex marriage has been instrumental in working this change in perspective, leading most to think of marriage as simply the expression of mutual affection between two consenting adults. As a result, couples are marrying later and later after children are born, or simply foregoing marriage altogether. Rates of parental cohabitation have skyrocketed, and family dissolution has become endemic. The experience of other nations demonstrates that the imposition of same-sex ``marriage'' and civil unions leads to a weakening of marriage. As scholar Stanley Kurtz has shown, in Scandinavia, the system of marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships established in the late 1980s has contributed significantly to the ongoing decline of marriage in that region. In The Netherlands, same-sex marriage has increased the cultural separation of marriage from parenthood, resulting in a soaring out-of-wedlock birthrate. Kurtz warns that same- sex ``marriage'' could widen the separation between marriage and parenthood here in the United States, and perhaps undo the progress we have made in arresting the once seemingly inexorable trend towards higher rates of illegitimacy among some communities in the United States. And Stanley Kurtz is not alone in pointing to the negative effects these developments have had on marriage in The Netherlands. I think it is important to go into this point at some length, because we have a case study of what can happen to the institution of marriage when it is redefined to include same-sex relationships. We have a case study. We know what happens when you redefine it. It has happened in The Netherlands. In a letter released just last Thursday addressed to ``parliaments around the world debating the issue of same-sex marriage,'' a group of Dutch scholars raised concerns about gay marriage's negative effects on the institution of marriage in The Netherlands. In a letter published in the July 8 edition of a Dutch paper, five Dutch academics suggested that ``there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands.'' The letter's signatories came from several academic disciplines, including the social sciences, philosophy, and law. The scholars caution against attributing all of the recent decline of Dutch marriage to the adoption of same-sex marriage, but they did say, ``There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors.'' However, they conclude, ``At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.'' In recent years, they note, there is statistical evidence of Dutch marital decline, including ``a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births.'' By creating a social and legal separation between the ideas of marriage and parenting, these scholars warn, same- sex marriage may make young people in The Netherlands feel less obligated to marry before having children. The publication of the letter of warning in this Dutch paper was accompanied by a front page news story and an interview with two of the signatories. In the interview, Dutch law professor M. van Mourik said that ``the reputation of marriage as an institution [in Holland] is in serious decline.'' According to Mourik, the Dutch need to have a national debate on how to restore traditional marriage. The decision to legalize gay marriage, said Mourik, should certainly never have happened. ``In my view that has been an important contributing factor to the decline in the reputation of marriage.'' One of the letters' other signatories, Dr. Joost van Loon, is a Dutch citizen who heads a research unit on culture and communication at Britain's Nottingham Trent University. Van Loon has done comparative studies of family life and sexual attitudes in The Netherlands and Britain, and is also acquainted with research on American marriage. Van Loon believes that gay marriage has contributed to a decline in the reputation of Dutch marriage. He says, it's ``difficult to imagine'' that the Dutch campaign for gay marriage did not have ``serious social consequences,'' said Van Loon, citing ``an intensive media campaign based on the claim that marriage and parenthood are unrelated.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter and background documentation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the proposed marriage amendment for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. In the essay, President Reagan lays out the great cultural issues surrounding abortion. In one place, he notes: We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life. Embryo, fetus, infant, child, and adult are categories of human development, and they are all human life. Whether one is physically healthy or ill, emotionally healthy or ill, these are categories of human beings, and thus deserve protection. We should heed the words of President Reagan. All human life, no matter how it is categorized, should be esteemed and valued. In his essay, President Reagan correctly argues that: [A]nyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. This, again, a direct quote from President Reagan on the Reagan Cultural Doctrine. Then the President turns to discuss the real issue of the day. The President commented: The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? That question remains today. When President Reagan said, and those of us in the pro-life movement say, that human life begins at conception, we are speaking about biology, not ideology or belief. I am concerned that there may be some confusion on this point today, perhaps as a result of misinformation being disseminated by those who favor destructive research on the youngest forms of human life. A human embryo, an unborn child, or human fetus is, biologically speaking, a young human life. To assert that it is not a life or that it is so- called potential life is not a scientific statement. To assert a human embryo is not a human life is a belief not supported by the facts, much in the same way that to say the Sun revolves around the Earth is a belief not supported by the facts. Science is about the pursuit of truth in the service of mankind. Science tells us that the unborn child, from the moment of conception, is a human life. That is why, in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, I continue to assert we must address the fundamental question of law: Is the young human embryo a person or a piece of property? Our country has gotten this issue wrong before--notably, the 1857 Dred Scott case--but our system gives us an opportunity to rectify past wrongs. I suggest we base our laws on what science tells us, which is that the young human embryo is indeed a human life. Anybody watching now was, at one point in time, a young human embryo. And if you were destroyed then, your life would not exist today. Those are the facts. Unfortunately, not everyone in this debate is looking at biology. But once both sides acknowledge the scientific truth, that the young human embryo or unborn child is a human life, then we can start to address what Reagan posited as the real question: ``What is the value of a human life?'' In ``Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation,'' President Reagan lamented the case of Baby Doe, who was legally starved to death because he was mentally handicapped. In more recent times, we have the case of Terri Schiavo, who was saved from starvation. In that case, the American public, along with Florida Governor Jeb Bush, let their voices be heard that life is worth living. Those voices proclaimed that life-- even if not the ``quality of life'' many would deem acceptable--still has incredible value. The value of every human life must be defended without exception. To deny that a human embryo is a human life is to disregard what science tells us. It is to live willfully in ignorance. In addressing his critics through the essay, President Reagan wrote: Obviously, some uninfluential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status as a ``human being.'' . . . Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the ``quality of life'' ethic. President Reagan concluded his essay with these words: My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. ``Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation'' was written by a man who was fully committed to the unalienable right to life from the moment of conception. And that man was President Reagan. However, President Reagan did not stop at ``Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation.'' He had to withstand much political pressure to maintain his stance in defense of life. A Reagan aide recalled the President's 1987 meeting with leaders of the pro-life movement. He wrote: In January 1987 the subject of parental consent for abortion came up as the groups met with the President in the Roosevelt Room. As you know, Ronald Reagan was a prodigious letter writer during all phases of his life and career, but he was also a prodigious letter reader and keeper. If a letter's contents appealed to him or struck a chord, he would keep it, use it in speeches, quote it to the media, etc. The letter he received from the young boy asking him if he was going to do his speech to the Congress ``in his pajamas'' after his recovery from the assassination attempt was one such example. Ronald Reagan loved to read samples of mail from the American people and called Anne Higgins to ask for it on Fridays if for some reason it was later than usual in getting to him. Meeting with the pro-life leaders that January day, he pulled from his left-hand jacket side pocket and read a letter he said he had held onto for many years. It was from a California mother who had written to him about the parental consent issue when he was governor in the early 1970's. Ronald Reagan read the letter to the entire group. The mother described her own family and the daughters she had raised, the sweat she had expended, the clothes she had washed and folded, the hurt knees she had bandaged, etc. She wrote that now the opponents of parental consent for abortion were telling her that they had a right to perform surgery on those daughters without so much as letting her know. ``Who do they think they are?'' went her refrain. The letter went on in this vein with other examples of the worries and stresses of loving parenthood, and the abrupt dismissal of that sacrifice by the [abortion providers] who think they know better when a child gets in trouble. Ronald Reagan read the letter through, folded it and put it back in his pocket, and said softly, ``Who do they think they are?'' You could have heard a pin drop. The record could hardly be clearer. President Ronald Reagan vigorously worked to promote a culture of life, which included consistent opposition to destructive research on human embryos. It was and it remains the Reagan Cultural Doctrine. Witness after witness affirms this. It is important that the great moral stance President Reagan took be reaffirmed and boldly declared. When we think of the great Presidential doctrines of the past, we think immediately of the foreign policy doctrines of Presidents Monroe and Truman--and, yes, Ronald Reagan. These doctrines have been and continue to be significant in defining American interests. On January 14, 1988, President Reagan declared a new doctrine: the Reagan Cultural Doctrine. This doctrine is not about foreign policy; it is about something that especially defines us as a people. This doctrine speaks volumes, in the sense that it makes clear who we are and what we stand for as a people. It reaffirms the Declaration of Independence and the founding values that have been the source of America's greatness. It is my hope President Bush will reissue the Reagan Cultural Doctrine on ``the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,'' and that the Congress will reaffirm the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by passing laws that will guarantee the right to life to every American conceived within the boundaries of this life-loving and freedom-loving land. That is the Reagan Cultural Doctrine. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a topic called the Reagan Cultural Doctrine. Presidents are noted for foreign policy doctrines which they articulate and put forward. President Reagan had his own noteworthy and very successful foreign policy doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine, involving the confrontation with communism that led to its ultimate demise. President Reagan is to be credited and given great praise for it. But President Reagan had another doctrine I want to speak about today, the Reagan Cultural Doctrine, which I think it would be fitting for us to acknowledge and press forward to its successful completion. President Reagan respected each and every human life at whatever stage of that life and wherever it was located. This was a unifying theme that lay behind some of his most significant policy choices and movements. It led him to insist that the Soviet empire was evil and to demand of the new Soviet leaders that they ``tear down this wall.'' It was what led him to note that ``until and unless someone can establish the unborn child is not a living human being, then that child is already protected by the Constitution which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us.'' That is a direct Reagan quote. Toward the end of his Presidency on January 14, 1988, President Reagan took the opportunity to clearly articulate the Reagan cultural doctrine, a very simple yet profound Presidential Declaration. President Reagan proclaimed and declared ``the inalienable personhood of every American from the moment of conception until natural death.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of President Reagan's January 14, 1988 Presidential declaration on the inalienable personhood of the unborn be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, our Nation cannot be the ``shining city upon the hill'' without the respect and recognition of the inalienable personhood of every American from the moment of conception until natural death. Reagan realized and declared this. The Reagan Cultural Doctrine is synonymous with the culture of life. President Reagan's commitment to the culture of life was evident from the first days of his Presidency. In recent days, some have implicitly questioned President Reagan's commitment to the inalienable personhood of every American by suggesting that destructive embryonic stem cell research should be conducted in President Reagan's name. And here we are not talking about adult stem cell research or umbilical cord blood which are supported by virtually everybody and are producing true results--here we are talking strictly about destructive embryonic stem cell research which results in the death of a young human embryo after its conception. To suggest that this should be conducted in President Reagan's name is a completely contrary view of the Reagan Cultural Doctrine. It is a misappropriation of President Reagan's legacy, and it is damaging to the culture of life that President Reagan was so steadfast in defending. It is an assault on the Reagan Cultural Doctrine. As former Reagan National Security Adviser and Interior Secretary William Clark noted in the New York Times recently, Ronald Reagan's record reveals that no issue was of greater importance to him than the dignity and sanctity of all human life. ``My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land,'' he said in 1983. ``And there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.'' One of the things he regretted most at the completion of his Presidency in 1989, he told [William Clark], was that politics and circumstances had prevented him from making more progress in restoring protection for unborn human life. Continuing in his New York Times piece, Clark then addressed Reagan's early efforts to protect innocent human life through halting Federal efforts on destructive research involving human embryos. Here we find that President Reagan himself pushed to stop destructive human embryonic research. Clark says: Reagan consistently opposed federal support for the destruction of innocent human life. After the charter expired for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's ethical advisory board--which in the 1970s supported destructive research on human embryos--he began a de facto ban on federal financing of embryo research that he held to throughout his presidency. I ask unanimous consent a copy of William Clark's June 11, 2004, New York Times op-ed piece titled ``For Reagan, All Life Was Sacred,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I mean no disrespect to anyone in addressing this important issue, but we are talking about innocent young human life. Someone must speak for those who have no voice and for the great pro-life legacy of President Reagan now that he is no longer with us. I would like to share the stories and memories of some of the Reagan revolutionaries who were privileged to interact with the President on this particular vital issue. Just 2 days after his January 20, 1981, inauguration as President of the United States, Ronald Reagan made his personal commitment to pro- life issues clear. At a time when hundreds of people were waiting to meet the newly elected President in order to seek positions in his administration, the President made time for an unrelated meeting with pro-life leaders in Congress and the nonprofit sector. Senators Richard Schweiker and Jesse Helms were present at that meeting, as were Representatives Henry Hyde and Bob Dornan. This meeting, which was to become an annual policy meeting on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, was tremendously significant. By 1980, the pro-life movement had been largely marginalized by previous administrations. But President Reagan's willingness to hold these meetings and to annually address the March for Life meeting by phone took the pro-life movement into the mainstream. One participant in that first meeting noted that the President's personal conviction on the right to life for unborn children was obvious. The participant said: President Reagan's deep commitment to pro-life issues was very evident when he spoke of viewing an inutero sonogram while he was Governor of California. It was moving to watch him speak. Clearly, he understood the life issue; it could be seen in his body language. The quote continues: There we were, two days after his inauguration. He didn't have to meet with us or do anything. Yet, he turned our 15 minute meeting into a 45 minute meeting. President Reagan truly had great zeal for pro-life causes. I share in the sentiment made by long-time Reagan aide Michael Deaver, who made this observation in his political memoirs. Deaver noted the President's zeal in the section of his book dedicated to the March 30, 1981, assassination attempt on President Reagan. This was in reference to a meeting soon after with the late Cardinal Terrence Cooke of New York. Deaver overheard the President's final words of this meeting with Cardinal Cooke. Reagan said this: I have decided that whatever time I may have left, is left for Him. ``Him,'' referring to God. Anyone who knew Reagan has to acknowledge that this statement was from the heart. It summed up his subsequent involvement in the great moral issues of the day. Deaver concludes this section with his own thoughts after the death of Cardinal Cooke: When Reagan was told of his friend's death, the president's words from their earlier meeting echoed in my mind. ``Whatever time I may have left is left for Him.'' I would never forget his promise, and I would see him deliver on it time and time again. President Reagan's interest in life issues was not just convenient political positioning either. He actively wrestled with this issue. I will read a passage from ``What I Saw at the Revolution,'' political memoir of Reagan's speech writer Peggy Noonan. Look at him on abortion. It took courage to oppose an option that at least 20 million Americans had exercised since Roe v. Wade, when the issue isn't a coalition builder but an opposition creator, when the polls are against you and the boomers want it and when you've already been accused of being unsympathetic to women and your own pollster is telling you your stand contributes to a gender gap. . . . Let me continue now further with the book: But he puzzled it out on his own, not like a visionary or an intellectual but like a regular person. He read and thought and listened to people who cared, and he made up his own mind. And suddenly when they said, ``The argument is over when life begins,'' he said, ``Well look, if that's the argument: If there's a bag in the gutter and you don't know if what's in it is alive, you don't kick it, do you? Well, no, you don't. He held to his stand against his own political interests (where were the anti-abortion people going to go?) and against the wishes of his family and friends. Nancy wasn't anti-abortion, the kids weren't anti- abortion, and people like the Bloomingdales and his friends in Beverly Hills--they did not get where they are through an overfastidious concern for the helpless. He was the only one of his group who cared. A lengthy quote from Peggy Noonan. President Reagan did care deeply about the sanctity of life, and we know that he was actively engaged on this issue. One example of this was President Reagan's interest in the pro-life journal, the Human Life Review. We know the President read this journal because he actually wrote a letter responding to the heroic mother of a child with spina bifida who had written a letter that was published in the journal in the summer of 1982 edition. In his letter to the mother the President wrote: Your recent letter published in the summer issue of the Human Life Review came to my attention. I want you to know that I was deeply impressed by what you wrote and by the obvious commitment you and your family have made to respond to the affliction of a handicapped child with affection and courage. I strongly believe that protection of these children is a natural and fundamental part of the duty government has to protect the innocent and to guarantee that the civil rights of all are respected. This duty is a special order when the rights involved are the right to life itself. . . . After learning of President Reagan's interest in their pro-life publication through this letter, Jim McFadden of the Human Life Review invited the President to write an essay for publication in the journal. The President obliged, and thus his famous ``Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation'' was published in 1983. In this essay, President Reagan made some profound statements laying the groundwork for the Reagan cultural doctrine. A copy of this essay may be found on the Human Life Review website at http://www.humanlifereview.com/reagan/reagan_conscience.html.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Ohio in supporting this amendment that will put forward $95 million in emergency aid to the Sudan. I thank him for bringing this forward. I thank the Chair for holding a hearing on this recently to highlight what is taking place. He outlined what is occurring. This is happening before our very eyes. I associate myself with my colleague's statement that we need to say to people around the world that when genocide occurs, we will respond. There will be consequences on governments that conduct genocide in their nations. What we are seeing taking place today is something on a massive scale before our very eyes. We had satellite photographs appearing today. We see vast sections of communities wiped out, burned out. We see militias going in, backed by the government, burning communities, poisoning wells, putting dead animals down in the bottom of wells so they are not usable. This is a marginal region in the first place, where, if you push people out of their homes and away from their encampments, it is difficult to survive. We now have by estimates about 1 million people on the move in this region. We have, by estimates, the capacity to feed 300,000 people, with 1 million people on the move. One can see that if the situation does not improve, we are going to have a large group of people who are not going to get fed, housed, and are vulnerable. Many will die. Many will perish. We are going into the rainy season in this region. There are a couple of items we need to do. No. 1, we need to get this aid passed. I thank the chairman for allowing us to bring up this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it. We need to get the international community engaged with the international observers, the African Union, the United Nations, with observers and peacekeepers in this region. We need to force the Sudanese Government to stop their sponsorship of the Jingaweit. This is the Arab militia that is going into the region and burning communities and attacking communities with machine guns. We need to stop the Sudanese Government from using helicopter gunships for aerial bombardments, from going into these communities and driving people out, killing them with bombings or by military attacks. We need to speak very clearly and then act decisively. Time is of the essence. We need to act now for us to be able to save the lives in this region that are so vulnerable and will be lost if we do not act. I applaud the Secretary of State for announcing today that he will be traveling next week to the Darfur region in the Sudan. Congressman Wolf and I will be traveling there shortly as well to view this situation and to put pressure on the Sudanese Government to stop this and to put pressure on the international community to effectively respond. We can act, and we can stop this if we act now. Mother Teresa, when she came to this country and people were asking her what can they do to help the poor, to help those in trouble, responded by saying: We all have our Calcuttas. There are things each of us can do. We all have our Calcuttas. Here is a situation to which we can respond. We can do something. We need to adopt this amendment. We need to put pressure on the international body and the Sudanese Government, and we can save lives by doing so. I urge the adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to participate in many of the important votes that took place on Wednesday, June 23, 2004. I was necessarily absent from the Senate yesterday as I was attending the funeral of a family member. Nevertheless, I believe it is important for my constituents in Kansas to know how I would have voted had I been here; thus, I indicated to the Majority Leader my position for each of the votes throughout the day.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3235.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. This is the decency amendment that has been widely discussed.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3464, which is at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, from the central highlands of Vietnam to the Darfur region of Sudan, and from the Tumen river dividing North Korea and China to the roof of the world in Bhutan and Nepal, nearly 12 million people worldwide are refugees. Sunday, June 20, 2004 is World Refugee Day. This week, at events both in Washington and around the world, policymakers, advocates and concerned individuals will direct our attention to the plight of those who seek safety from persecution in their homelands. Refugees face the most difficult of circumstances. Their stories of escape from persecution are more dramatic than anything Hollywood could script and often too horrific for most of us to imagine. Stories of unspeakable brutality, long journeys, and family separation are not the exception but the rule. Often, refugees are alive only because of a faith in God and an unshakeable will to survive. Tragically, however, the plight of a refugee does not end with escape from persecution. Refugees frequently have nothing but their lives to bring into a new country. Most refugees would love to return to their homelands, but this is often impossible. Absent a dramatic change in conditions at home, refugees have few choices. I am proud that the United States leads the world in one of those choices: refugee resettlement. From its founding, America has been the dream destination for the world's oppressed peoples, and that dream endures today. I want to applaud the determination of the State Department to resettle as many as 50,000 refugees this year--a significant increase over recent annual totals. I look forward to working with the State Department for the rest of this year and into the next, to return our refugee resettlement program to its historical averages and preserve America's commitment to the world's most vulnerable people. Some might say ``Why should we bother?'' Some might ask why the United States should play such a role. But such questions are ultimately short-sighted. America's principles are never better upheld than when we assist the oppressed. American's image is nowhere better polished than in the minds of refugees who receive our assistance. And no, the United States cannot solve every refugee problem, so it should be clear that America's interests are well-served by setting an example for the rest of the world to follow. There is much work to be done. Hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing the Darfur region of Sudan. They stream into Chad bringing nothing with them and finding little across the border. Within a few months, the region has become the world's most acute humanitarian crisis. The United States has already directed millions of dollars in emergency funds to this region, and as we find additional ways to respond, I hope the international community will commit itself to assisting these refugees. In similar fashion, I hope that the international community will not allow discussions of nuclear weapons to obscure the plight of thousands of North Koreans who have fled into northeast China. Not only are they living testimonies to the brutality of the regime of Kim Jong-il, they remind us that sometimes refugees are forced to trade one set of horrors for another. China must stop forcibly repatriating North Koreans and should allow the international community to provide assistance to these people. In other parts of the world, refugees find safe haven in camps where they await a change of conditions at home or some other long-term resolution of their exiled status. While camps are intended to be way stations, however, they too often become warehouses. Seven million of the world's 12 million refugees have lived in camps or segregated settlements for more than 10 years. Think of that: seven million people who have each forfeited a decade of human potential. The international community never intended that it be this way. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol--signed by the United States--give refugees the right to be recognized before the law, to move freely, to earn a living, and to own property. But in many cases, these rights are not respected and the loss of human potential endures. There are no easy solutions to the warehousing problem, but such treatment is unacceptable. I hope that as we respond to the Darfur situation and others around the world, the State Department and other members of the international community will take steps to ensure that refugees who receive our emergency assistance today will gain opportunities for self-sufficiency tomorrow. Unfortunately, as long as there is conflict, there will be refugees. But strong United States responses to these humanitarian crises mean more than a dollar figure in the budget. When the United States emphasizes refugee assistance and refugees, it demonstrates a commitment for other nations to emulate. Truly global responses to refugee crises begin here with America's strong, compassionate leadership. As we mark World Refugee Day 2004 this Sunday, I look forward to extending that leadership in the days ahead, and I hope my colleagues will join me in working on this crucial part of our foreign and humanitarian policy.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in speaking to the Burns second-degree amendment, this is an amendment that was considered in the Commerce Committee and added to the base bill at that time. What he is proposing to do makes a lot of sense. I do not see a problem with that at all, so I would be supportive of doing that. Overall, we want to get this to move it forward. The House has moved on this action. The FCC is seeking this authority. So we really want to try to get this to move on through the process, if at all possible. We are not having further rollcall votes until Monday, so we will proceed at that time, and I will ask for a rollcall vote then.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on this amendment, I am being joined by Senator Lieberman and Senator Zell Miller. It is a simple issue. I want to take a few minutes to explain it. I am hopeful we will get strong support in this body as in the House. A similar bill came up earlier in the House and it passed that body 391 to 22. The same issue passed the Commerce Committee in the Senate 14 to 0 on a recorded vote. It is an issue of fines and decency on over-the-air broadcasts-- whether it be radio or television. I think it is important to put my comments in context today by explaining the policy history of this issue; that is, decency on over- the-air public airwaves. At the invention of television, our Nation established a public policy of providing citizens with free over-the-air television. It gave broadcasters wishing to provide that service with the use of valuable spectrum. Not everyone can broadcast over the Nation's public airwaves. These are airwaves owned by the public. That is why the statute requires the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate not just the ability but the character of an entity to operate. When handing out a broadcast license, in return for a license, each broadcaster agrees not to air indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The broadcaster gets a valuable piece of spectrum, which is public property. The broadcaster gets the right to use that. In exchange, one of the requirements is they not broadcast indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Fines and license revocations have always been the discipline tool available to the FCC to help enforce America's longstanding commitment to broadcast decency. This is an issue about license. It is an issue about the use of public property, and some modest limitation of that. We live in a nation where we hold the first amendment in high regard, as well we should. In an effort to maintain the free exchange of information, thoughts, and opinions, we strive to avoid government involvement in communications content. At the same time, as a nation, we strive to project decency and justice for all. As a nation raising children, we do the same. With the turning of a tuning knob, or the click of a remote, minors all across America are presented with the content of the public airwaves. Broadcasters have a legal and a moral duty to ensure that American taxpayers--and especially children--are not assaulted by explicit material. For years, we have been asking and waiting for the broadcasters to police themselves in this effort. Unfortunately, instead of fulfilling the public interest duty, they have allowed the content to grow steadily worse and worse. Meanwhile, the companies that own the broadcast stations have grown steadily larger--and not surprisingly. Some of these broadcasters' profit margins have made them immune to the FCC's current fine structure. Let me give you an example. Today's maximum fine for an indecent broadcast is $27,500. That seems like a lot of money--and it is to some. But it isn't to others. Compare that fact to a 30-second commercial during the 2004 Super Bowl which cost advertisers an average of $2.3 million for a 30-second ad. In the words of the FCC Commissioner, Michael Powell, these fines are peanuts to the big media conglomerates. That is why we are here to increase the fine structure for indecency and obscene broadcasts. The threat of these fines will be taken seriously and force broadcasters to protect their consumers from explicit content. Nothing in this amendment forges any new ground in broadcast decency law. The intent is simple: To increase the fines for indecent broadcasts to mask the realities of today's media markets. This amendment would increase the maximum fines tenfold, from $27,500 to $270,000, with a maximum $3 million cap per incident per day. Why do we need to do this? We need this amendment to end the growing volume of graphic content on free over-the-air broadcasts. Remember, broadcasters profit from exclusive and free use of the public airwaves which gives them unique access to all Americans, particularly America's youth. With that access to our country's intellectual, moral, and social development comes a set of moral and social responsibilities and obligations that are agreed to in the licensing process. I am very disappointed by the apparent confusion the broadcasters are having between the right to do something and the right thing to do when it comes to the public airwaves. Recently, FOX and VIACOM announced they were going to appeal the FCC Bono ruling so they can use the ``F'' word on broadcast television. This is their response in spite of the fact that the FCC overturned the original rule in response to a fierce public outcry. This hostile response the public is getting from broadcasters is inexcusable. We see time and again media leaders defending their profit-driven motives by airing explicit content and then falsely hiding behind their so-called first amendment rights. Broadcasters have joined the shock jocks of the country to shout down those who publicly question harmful content as an anti-first-amendment censor. In abandoning their duty to adhere to decency standards, broadcasters point to the absence of decency regulations on cable television. This is just a red herring. We are talking about public airwaves and a public right to air decent material. The broadcasters argue they have a right to air indecent, obscene, and profane material. But that is a disgraceful abuse of the first amendment. I support the first amendment and its guarantees of free speech. It is the basis of much of the freedoms we enjoy in our great democracy. But there are limits, and particularly here, where we are dealing with a public license and the use of public property where the licensee has agreed to not broadcast indecent material. This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the famous Pacifica case where it was upheld that the Government had the right to protect the public airwaves. This case came to the Court in the early 1970s when George Carlin's famous ``filthy words monologue'' was broadcast during the middle of the day on a New York radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation. A father driving with his son heard the broadcast and complained to the FCC. The FCC said that if those kinds of words were used again, the radio station airing them would be fined. Just like today, the broadcasters challenged the ruling and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the FCC action and added that it could continue to fine broadcasters in the future because broadcasters had to take special care not to air material that would offend or shock children. The majority opinion stressed that of all the forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited first amendment protection because it extends into the privacy of the home and is uniquely accessible to children. The FCC has been too lax for too long enforcing the law on broadcasters. A recent public outcry has been a wake-up call for the FCC. The Commission told us they do not have all the tools they need for effective enforcement. That is why we are here today. Passing this legislation will tell the broadcasters that we are serious about protecting our airwaves and we will give the FCC updated tools to get the job done. I don't know if I need to remind my colleagues that this came to the forefront at this year's Super Bowl, an event families across the country watch together. At the halftime show, the incident between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson set off a firestorm that had been brewing for a long period of time. Finally people said: Look, I have had enough; I don't want to see this any more, particularly when I am watching TV with my family. That is what launched this forward. We have been waiting for years for the broadcasters to voluntarily take care of this growing problem. They have failed. Instead, they are fighting tooth and nail for the availability to air graphic material so they can increase their profit margins. America deserves better. That is why we need to make the consequences of broadcasting indecency punitive so the standards are no longer ignored. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Increasing the fines will help clean up our Nation's free, over-the-air television and radio by holding accountable broadcasters who use the public airwaves and individuals who use the opportunity of a live performance to gain notoriety through indecent acts. As I noted previously, this has been considered by the Senate Commerce Committee and it has passed unanimously in that committee. It has been considered previously by the House of Representatives, which has voted 391 in favor with only 22 against increasing these fines. They actually have some teeth in today's marketplace. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays when we vote on this Monday. I further ask unanimous consent that when we go back to this amendment on Monday that I be recognized first to speak if there are any further amendments that are proposed to this that are to be considered on Monday.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have been informed that we need colleagues on the other side to respond to yeas and nays and I will not ask for that until we do get that agreement from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to applaud the decision by the Supreme Court yesterday dismissing the Pledge of Allegiance Case and affirming a student's right to say the pledge with the phrase ``One Nation Under God.'' The majority decision concluded that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Newdow's claim of injury since Mr. Newdow is merely a noncustodial parent with no decision-making authority over his daughter's education. The Court, of course, chose to sidestep the larger issue presented by the case. If you recall, Mr. President, the Ninth Circuit's stunning decision was deeply troubling to many Americans when it was first announced in 2000. The Ninth Circuit, unable to legally address the issue of relationship between the father and the daughter, simply decided that Mr. Newdow had a fundamental right to have his child shielded in public school from religious views that differ from his own. Never mind that such a right has not been articulated before, and certainly not within the context of a noncustodial relationship, but more importantly, a right of such magnitude has breathtaking implications for the future relationship between the Federal judiciary and public education. For one thing, any disenchanted parent similarly offended by what their children are taught in public schools could run to the Federal courts and clog the system with litigation. Mr. Newdow's objection to the Pledge of Allegiance is that it supports the historical fact that this Nation was founded on a belief in monotheism; the Pledge of Allegiance simply reflects that singular and important fact about this Nation and about us. As a matter of law, injury of the kind alleged by Mr. Newdow must be direct and palpable. Having an unorthodox interpretation of historical fact certainly does not rise to a level which would confer article III standing. But even if we assume that Mr. Newdow had standing, the merits of Newdow's case are nonexistent as Chief Justice Rhenquist, O'Connor, and Thomas argues in their minority opinion. Recitation of the Pledge of allegiance in public schools is fully consistent with and appropriate within the context of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the United States Constitution. The words of the pledge simply convey the conviction held by the Founders of this Nation that our freedoms come from God. Congress inserted the phrase ``One Nation Under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of reaffirming America's unique understanding of this truth, and to distinguish America from atheistic nations who recognize no higher authority than the State. The Ninth Circuit's decision was problematic on several fronts. Let me point out a few specifics. First, the court ignored the distinction that the Supreme Court historically has drawn between religious exercises in public schools and patriotic exercises with religious references. The Court repeatedly has said that the latter are consistent with the establishment clause. The voluntary recitation of the Pledge of allegiance is not a coerced religious act, and the Ninth Circuit's conclusion to the contrary is insupportable. Second, the Ninth Circuit ignored the numerous pronouncements by past and present members of the Court that the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance poses no Establishment Clause problems. It is one thing to identify isolated dicta with no precedential weight; it is something quite different to ignore, as the Ninth Circuit did, consistent and numerous statements from the Court's opinions all pointing to a single conclusion. The Ninth Circuit's refusal to heed the Court's previous statements about the pledge is simply inexcusable and is a glaring and continuing example of judicial activism run amok. A decision to affirm the Ninth Circuit could have had ramifications extending far beyond the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. There is no principled means of distinguishing between recitation of the pledge, and recitation of passages from other historical documents reflecting the same truth. The Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address that every student in this Nation is familiar with contain the same recognition that the Nation was founded upon a belief in God. Should we, in a recitation of those seminal speeches, similarly delete any references to God? In fact, had the Ninth Circuit's decision been allowed to stand, it could have cast doubt about whether a public school teacher could require students to memorize portions of either one. Additionally, much in the world of choral music would become constitutionally suspect, if it is performed by public school students. If the optional recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the establishment clause, what would be the basis by which music teachers can have students perform any classical choral pieces with a religious message? The phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is descriptive only. In contrast, much in classical choral music is explicitly religious. They would, under the Ninth Circuit's decision have a greater chance of being rejected. In ruling that Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the Pledge of Allegiance from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her, the Court avoided the larger question of whether or not recitation of the pledge in a public school is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment proscription against the establishment of religion. However, restrictions on religious freedom in the guise of preventing the establishment of religion have been eroding our freedoms and adversely affecting our culture. This began in 1962 in the Engel v. Vitale case, when 39 million students were forbidden to do what they and students had been doing since the founding of our Nation, and only a year later in the School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, the Court held that Bible readings in public schools also violated the first amendment's establishment clause. Then 1992, Lee v. Weisman removed prayer from graduation exercises, and the 2000 ruling in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, prohibited student-initiated, student-led prayer at high school football games. No legislative body affirmatively adopted any of these restrictions. In fact, the people's representatives--at both the Federal and State level--did precisely the opposite. For example, when Congress added the phase ``under God'' in 1954 to the Pledge of Allegiance, it did so with the explicit intention of fostering patriotism and piety. It was done to reflect the values of the American people. Those values, Mr. President, have not changed. And the Court's ruling yesterday simply confirms what the American people have always known: acknowledging God in the public square is patriotic, wise, and good. It is not in conflict with our founding principles, or with our Constitution.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution honoring the life of Harry W. Colmery of Topeka, KS, and expressing the sense of Congress that the President should award Mr. Colmery the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously. As my colleagues know, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is this Nation's highest civilian honor. Thus, my colleagues may ask, ``What in particular makes the life of Harry Colmery stand out?'' I would answer that just two weekends ago, we in Washington saw the answer to this question when thousands of veterans gathered on the National Mall for the dedication of the World War II Memorial. These individuals and millions of their fellow soldiers benefited from the work of Harry Colmery, the author of the initial draft of the Servicemen's Readjustment act of 1944, also known as the GI Bill of Rights. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 was aimed to aid military veterans as they transitioned back into civilian life following the conclusion of World War II by providing certain useful benefits. Among the historic benefits of this bill was a new educational benefit that would revolutionize America's higher education system. More than 2 million eligible men and women went to college using these educational benefits in the decade following World War II. The result was an American workforce enriched by 450,000 engineers, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists, and another million college-educated men and women. An estimated 5 million additional men and women received other schooling or job training under the provisions of the GI Bill. The success of the GI Bill of Rights was unmistakable. A Veterans Administration study in 1965 showed that the increased earning power of GI Bill college graduates led to Federal income tax revenues rising by more than a billion dollars annually. In less than 20 years, the $14 billion cost of the original program had been recovered. Americans like programs that work and, in the decades following World War II, Congress built on the success of the original GI Bill. The most recent Montgomery GI Bill, approved in 1985, was designed not only to help veterans make a transition into the workforce through additional education and training benefits, but also to help support the concept of an all-volunteer military. As my colleagues know, the promise of educational benefits has been one of the most successful tools given to our Nation's military recruiters. Harry Colmery's dedicated service to the veterans of this Nation and the long reach of his work into the lives of millions of Americans certainly make him an individual worthy of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I call on my fellow Senators to support this resolution so that Harry Colmery, even posthumously, may receive the honor he is due.