Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Ronald Reagan, my political guiding light. I came to Congress on the second Reagan wave in the 1994 election, when Republicans took over the House of Representatives. Many of us were raised on Ronald Reagan. His was my first Presidential campaign in 1976, when I was still a student at Kansas State University. I was riding in a tractor in Kansas when I heard the Evil Empire speech. I started pounding on the dashboard, saying: That is right, that is right. Then all the pundits came on afterward and said how terrible it was. I was a bit confused but decided Reagan was right and the pundits were wrong. He went on to prove that. He was a great contributor to our time and our legacy. I only had the pleasure of meeting Ronald Reagan once. I was a White House fellow in the Bush 1 White House. We met him in southern California. People had always given examples of his legendary humor. This meeting was no exception. We were having a meeting for a period of time, and then one of the people with whom I was traveling asked him a question: What one thing didn't you get done as President that you wish you had gotten done. I think he had heard this question before and he had given this line before, but he tilted his head back, and you could see the glint in his eye and the smile comes across the face, and he said: I wished I had brought back the cavalry. That was a line people enjoyed at the time, and it was the sort of humorous thing he was so known for in his policies. It was part of his greatness. While he was a great President, he didn't consider greatness to be inherent to him. In other words, he was not full of himself. He considered this country great. He considered the position of President to be great. But he wasn't full of the feeling of greatness for himself, and he always had self-deprecating humor. That was part of him. Following on the previous speaker, Senator Kyl, I had a chance several years back to talk with Eduard Shevardnadze, Foreign Secretary under Mikhail Gorbachev, about when Reagan and Gorbachev were negotiating on missile reduction and nuclear weapons reduction. This was a meeting that took place within the last 3 or 4 years with Mr. Shevardnadze. I asked him to reflect on that time period when we were having a military defense buildup here under Ronald Reagan and what took place in the Soviet Union in that time period. I wanted to get a measure from him on that. He said of Reagan: Reagan saw the central weakness of the Soviet Union. That was its inability to produce goods and services. They were spending somewhere between 60 to 80 percent of the GDP of the Soviet Union on the military. Along comes Reagan and says: I am moving more chips on the table. You will have to match me if you want to stay in this race. The Soviet Union then was looking around saying, how do we stay in the race when we are putting virtually every chip we have right now into this military buildup for the cold war. And it was a long way from secure at that point in time that the Soviet Union was going to fall any time soon. This was a very well-established, militarily strong country. What it forced in the Soviet Union was for them to restructure their economy and move to openness to try to get more chips on the table to grow their economy. They introduced the likes of glasnost and perestroika, openness and restructuring of the economy. But when you looked at the totalitarian Communist system, glasnost and perestroika were inherent inconsistencies and led to the demise of the Soviet Union, that along with Ronald Reagan's words. These words are from Eduard Shevardnadze. Many talked about star wars and how the Soviet Union, at that time when Reagan announced star wars--the Soviet Union's leadership sent its best scientists to come back and appraise it and tell the political leadership if the Americans could do this. The Soviet scientists came back after a few months of studying the American proposal--the Reagan proposal--for star wars and said we could not. They spent another few months looking at it and then returned to the Soviet leadership and said if the Americans are willing to stay on this path and put the money into doing it, they can do it. It sent a shock wave through the leadership in the Soviet system that the United States could get this accomplished. Clearly, the deciding factor of opening that system led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. There was this wave of freedom for people who had been in oppressed societies for their entire existence, and that was Ronald Reagan. He understood the source of our national greatness was not our wealth or our military power but, rather our belief in the dignity of the individual and in the God-given freedom of ordinary people to order their lives as they wished. That was the source of his view of the United States being a shining city on a hill and a model to people the world over, and an inspiring example of a political system that put power in the hands of the people, not bureaucrats or judges. That was Ronald Reagan. We remember President Reagan for restoring our national confidence at a time when our country was on the heels of the Vietnam war and the impeachment of a President, uncertain about the way forward. We remember him for his staunch defense of innocent, unborn human life--an issue on which he never wavered--and for the extraordinary step he took in authoring a book as President, entitled ``Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation,'' because he felt so strongly about the pro- life cause. We remember his brave challenge to a new Soviet leader to ``tear down this wall,'' because it was an affront to human dignity. We remember his vital role in bringing the cold war to an end--an end hastened by both President Reagan's military buildup and his revitalization of the American economy. In all of Ronald Reagan's political life was his passionate belief in two core principles: human freedom and human dignity, both inalienable because they were given by God. He believed in the unbounded inventiveness and ingenuity of the individual freed from the tyranny of government but firmly rooted in our recognition of a higher moral authority. He understood that, in his words, ``The city of man cannot survive without the city of God, that the visible city will perish without the invisible city.'' President Reagan recognized that the vitality of our society and culture has always been dependent on the religious faith and practice of the people. As he said, ``Those who created our country . . . understood that there is a divine order which transcends the human order. They saw the state, in fact, as a form or moral order and felt that the bedrock of moral order is religion.'' Ronald Reagan was never reticent in speaking about his own faith and the primary place it held in his life. In all of these things, President Reagan was, and continues to be, an inspiration to millions, and certainly to me. He transformed the world for the better, and we are thankful he graced this Nation with his life, his example, and his divine calling. Our thoughts and prayers go out to him and to his family. And for all of us who mourn his passing, may we continue to be inspired and elevated by all he was, all he achieved, and all he sought for us to be. God bless you, Ronald Reagan.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the alarming decision handed down earlier this week by a District Court in California on partial birth abortion. The judge's decision was wrong on many fronts. It is wrong on the medical facts, and it is wrong in its blatant disregard of Congressional findings. Most importantly, the decision is also wrong on the law. This ruling is unconstitutional, as well as violative of fundamental human rights, because it drives a wedge between biological humanity which prenatal human offspring undeniably have, and legal personhood i.e., the right to the equal protection of the law. The repellant notion underlying Roe v. Wade--that there are ``subhuman'' members of the human species--conflicts directly with the very purposes of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, which undid the great injustice of treating black Americans as slaves and property instead of as human beings entitled at law to full respect. I realize that the Supreme Court has not yet repudiated this holding of Roe, which it imposed upon the Nation in 1973, but this case decided by one district court in California is clearly going in a direction that contradicts everything we value about the Constitution and the principles under which this Nation and its people operate. First, Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismisses the overwhelming medical evidence that it is never medically necessary--to save the life of the mother or any other reason--to perform the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure--in which a young human is partially born, so that only the head remains in her mother, and then a sharp object pierces the back of the child's head and sucks the child's brain out, killing the child. Think about that, a baby--a young human baby--is partially born, so that only her head remains in her mother's birth canal. Then an abortion-provider punctures the back of the child's head with a surgical instrument. Then the abortion provider suctions the young human's brains out, leaving the child dead, dead, dead. There is no recourse for the young human. This is a cold-blooded murder. And if this District Court has its way, the young child will never receive justice for her gruesome murder. Before I address Judge Hamilton's disregard of Congressional findings, I want to talk in particular about the issue of fetal pain, which Judge Hamilton alleges is ``irrelevant.'' I would submit that were we to see a puppy have its head punctured and brains sucked out, we would not consider it irrelevant. We would be moved to protect the puppy. Yet, we are not talking about a dog; we are talking about a young human. And the judge in California says that pain is irrelevant when we are talking about a young human. We are elected representatives. We have an obligation to defend the Constitution. This includes defending the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. First among these 3 is life. We have an obligation to defend the right to life for the most defenseless and helpless among us. Our laws should protect the sanctity and dignity of every innocent human life from the moment of conception. Judge Hamilton notes that there is some debate within the medical community on the issue of fetal pain. Then she acknowledges that: ``the position that Congress has taken [on pain experienced by unborn children] is neither incorrect nor entirely unsupported.'' But then she disregards the Congressional finding that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary and writes something incredibly callous: ``[Pain experienced by unborn children] is, however, irrelevant to the question of whether the Act requires a health exception, as discussed in this court's conclusions of law.'' Irrelevant? First, partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, and since the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure is never medically necessary, an essential reason for abolishing this dreadful form of death is the terrible pain inflicted on the unborn child. Pain experienced by an unborn child is very relevant. Just before the recess, I introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, S. 2466, with nearly a quarter of the Members of this chamber as original cosponsors. This legislation would require those who perform abortions on unborn children 20 weeks after fertilization to inform the woman seeking an abortion of the medical evidence that the unborn child feels pain. The bill would also ensure that the woman, if she chooses to continue with the abortion procedure after being given the medical information, has the option of choosing anesthesia for the child, so that the unborn child's pain is less severe. Women should not be kept in the dark; women have the right to know what their unborn child experiences during an abortion. Unborn children should be spared needless, deliberately-inflicted pain. Many among us are unaware of the scientific, medical fact that unborn children can feel, but it is true. Not only can they feel, but 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. An expert report on fetal development, prepared for the partial birth abortion ban trials, notes that while unborn children are obviously incapable of verbal expressions, we know that they can experience pain based upon anatomical, functional, physiological and behavioral indicators that are correlated with pain in children and adults. Unborn children can experience pain. This is why unborn children are often administered anesthesia during in utero surgeries. Think about the pain that unborn children can experience, and then think about the more gruesome 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--the child is torn apart limb-from-limb. Think about how that must feel to a young human. Pain is absolutely relevant to the subject at hand. Oddly, one of Judge Hamilton's reasons for ruling against the partial-birth abortion ban is that: ``[Fetal pain] appears to be irrelevant to the question of whether [partial-birth abortions] should be banned, because it is undisputed that if a fetus feels pain, the amount is no less and in fact might be greater in D&E by disarticulation than with the [partial-birth abortion] method.'' Apparently, Judge Hamilton believes that fetal pain is irrelevant to the issue at hand because other abortions might be more painful. Clearly, Judge Hamilton's logic is flawed. Judge Hamilton's decision crosses the line. What we have seen in this week's District Court decision is judicial bias and judicial activism at its extreme. Judge Hamilton egregiously reveals her own bias in favor of abortion when she writes: ``The court found all of the plaintiffs' experts not only qualified to testify as experts, but credible witnesses based largely on their vast experience in abortion practice. However, of the four government witnesses who were qualified as experts in ob/gyn, all revealed a strong objection either to abortion in general or, at a minimum, to the D&E method of abortion. The court finds that their objections to entirely legal and acceptable abortion procedures color, to some extent, their opinions on the contested intact D&E procedure.'' By her logic, those with moral objections to abortion are biased--or ``colored''--in their views against abortion, but those who perform abortions for money are not at all biased--or ``colored''--in their views favoring abortions. Sadly, the action of this California District Court is simply the latest instance of arrogant judges riding roughshod over the democratic process and constitutional law alike in a quest to impose a radical social agenda on America--in this case abortion on demand for any reason or no reason. We are a democracy, not a people ruled by judicial dictate. This district court decision is yet another example of why we need to reign in an increasingly reckless judiciary one, by means of stripping courts of authority they have usurped from the people and their legislative representatives, and two, through impeachment, when necessary at both the Federal and State level. Policy-making decisions--particularly those that have such sweeping social implications--must be made by the representatives of the people in a way that is respectful of long-established traditions and principles of our social order. When activist judges use their positions to achieve policy goals, they must be resolutely opposed. As the partial-birth abortion ban litigation continues in Nebraska and New York, I remain hopeful that we will see much more restraint and reasonable rulings coming forth from the judiciary.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks, more than 2,000 farmers--including over 600 from Kansas, the most from any State--have signed a petition that will be sent to ABC News and TIME magazine today or tomorrow. The signers of this petition are to be commended. Their request is simple. They want to ensure that their voices are heard in an upcoming summit on obesity sponsored by the two news outlets. At this summit, and in subsequent media coverage, ``experts'' will attempt to link Federal support for America's farmers to the country's obesity epidemic. The individuals who signed the petition are frustrated, and rightfully so. This summit is a follow-up to the December news special, ``How to Get Fat Without Really Trying,'' where ABC dedicated more than 15 minutes of airtime to bash Federal support for farmers. Unfortunately, no one from the agricultural community was afforded the opportunity to defend farming families or the policies on which they depend. And don't expect too many farmers to be on hand to defend themselves at the upcoming summit either, not with a $2,000 registration fee. The agriculture community is not alone in its frustration. I am frustrated, too. So are many of my colleagues, like Senators Burns and Lincoln, who have also been vocal in their opposition to those who would blame farmers for America's bulging waistlines. In the December special, Peter Jennings claimed ``not many people in the government have made the connection between subsidies to agriculture and obesity.'' At least ABC got one thing right. We haven't made that connection, because there is no connection to be made. Consider this: federal farm support has been in place since the 1930s. Yet, obesity is only a recent problem. Other nations that don't have obesity problems provide subsidies to their farmers to produce many of the same commodities grown in the U.S. The European Union, for example, doles out six times the subsidies that we do, yet obesity is less of a problem in the EU than here in America. Federal support is not causing drastically higher levels of production, as some suggest. In fact, America produced more wheat 20 years ago than today. Corn harvested for human consumption has only seen moderate increases from 10 years earlier. And soybeans--another commodity unfairly linked to obesity-- experienced supply issues over the past year. According to USDA consumption statistics, Americans consume much less wheat than consumers in other countries that don't suffer widespread obesity problems. Data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that in the past 20 years, the calorie intake of American kids has risen only about 1 percent, an increase that's in keeping with their increased heights. The big change is that they now get 13 percent less exercise. Bottom line: America needs farmers. And farmers need a strong Federal farm policy. America's farmers deserve our praise. They deserve our thanks. What they don't deserve is to be blamed for America's obesity.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, and I am joined by 22 original cosponsors. Unborn children can experience pain, and they can certainly respond to touch from outside the womb. Any woman who has been blessed with carrying a baby in the second trimester can tell you this. I remember my own children kicking and squirming inside of my wife's womb. And my wife certainly remembers feeling their kicks. That unborn child is very much alive. All along, women have been able to feel the child inside of them, but now, science is telling us what the child inside of his or her mother can feel. Many among us are unaware of the scientific, medical fact that unborn children can feel, but it is true. Not only can they feel, but 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. An expert report on fetal development, prepared for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban trials, notes that while unborn children are obviously incapable of verbal expressions, we know that they can experience pain based upon anatomical, functional, physiological and behavioral indicators that are correlated with pain in children and adults. Unborn children can experience pain. This is why unborn children are often administered anesthesia during in utero surgeries. Think about the pain that unborn children can experience, and then think about the more gruesome 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--the child is torn apart limb from limb. Think about how that must feel to a young human. We would never allow a dog to be treated this way. Yet, the creature we are talking about is a young, unborn child. Fortunately, the issue of pain experienced by unborn children has been covered by the news media during the ongoing Partial Birth Abortion Ban trials. Take for instance an April 7, 2004 Associated Press news article covering the trials. And I quote: ``A type of abortion banned under a new federal law would cause `severe and excruciating' pain to 20-week-old fetuses, a medical expert testified yesterday . . . `I believe the fetus is conscious,' said Dr. Kanwaljeet `Sonny' Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences . . . said yesterday that fetuses show increased heart rate, blood flow, and hormone levels in response to pain. `The physiological responses have been very clearly studied,' he said. `The fetus cannot talk . . . so this is the best evidence we can get.'' Today I introduce a bill that would require those who perform abortions on unborn children 20 weeks after fertilization to inform the woman seeking an abortion of the medical evidence that the unborn child feels pain: (a.) Through a verbal statement given by the abortion provider, and also (b.) by providing a brochure--developed by the Department of Health and Human Services--that goes into more detail than the verbal statement on the medical evidence of pain experienced by an unborn child 20 weeks after fertilization. The bill would also ensure that the woman, if she chooses to continue with the abortion procedure after being given the medical information, has the option of choosing anesthesia for the child, so that the unborn child's pain is less severe. Women should not be kept in the dark; women have the right to know what their unborn child experiences during 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 able--at the very least--to make an informed decision. It is simply not fair to keep women in the dark. Unborn children do not have a voice, but they are young members of the human family. It is time to look at the unborn child, and recognize that it is really a young human, who can feel pain and should be treated with care. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I take a few minutes of the leader's time to speak in morning business on one of the issues this week that has drawn, obviously, the attention of everybody across the country. It has happened in Massachusetts where, 3 days ago, in keeping with the rulings of four Massachusetts Supreme Court justices last November, the State of Massachusetts started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as thousands descended on the State. This event has significant repercussions for all Americans. According to news reports, local officials across the State were giving licenses to all who requested them, without asking for proof of State residency. This is in open defiance of Massachusetts law, which bars out-of-State couples from marrying in the State if the union would be illegal in their home State. Let there be no mistake about this. The stakes in this battle over the future of our culture are enormous. This attempt by an imperious judiciary to radically redefine marriage by a few people is both a grave threat to our central social institution and a serious affront to democratic rule in our Nation. Our reaction to this threat hinges on not only the future of marriage, which is a foundational unit for building a strong society, but our future as a self-governing people as well--whether the people here rule or a few on the judiciary. The actions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, to mandate homosexual marriage, is simply the latest instance of arrogant judges riding roughshod over the democratic process and constitutional law alike, in a quest to impose a radical social agenda on America. The decision in this case could not have been more radical. The court declared that our society's longstanding, historical understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman was irrational or completely lacking a foundation in reason. As such, according to the court, the only possible explanation for the State denying marriage licenses to homosexual couples is prejudice, which the court compared with racial prejudice of the past that opposed interracial marriages. This analogy, of course, is false. It is misleading. The vast majority of African Americans recognize that. The vast majority of all Americans recognize it. All America should have the right to marry whomever they choose, regardless of race. But while most Americans believe that homosexuals have a right to live as they choose, they do not believe that a small group of activists or a tiny judicial elite have a right to redefine marriage for the entire society and to impose this radical social experiment on the culture. Almost every benefit that is being sought can be attained through contract or power of attorney. But 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. This is a key issue. I look for this body to take up the issue in a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This is going to be a very difficult discussion. I hope we can have a good, healthy discussion about the importance of marriage as a foundational building unit in this society, a marriage between a man and a woman bonded together for life. That, indeed, is the best place to raise children according to all of our sociological data. This institution has been in disrepair for 40 years--has had difficulty for a long period of time--but this is not the answer to curing it. This will harm it. While this is going to be a difficult debate and discussion for us as a country, it is a valuable and important one for us to have. I look forward to this body, later this year, voting on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this morning the Senate will conduct a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the first half under the control of the majority leader and the second half under the control of the Democratic leader. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Senators Warner and Levin will continue working on amendments today and rollcall votes are expected on amendments to the bill throughout the day. Senators will be notified when the first vote is scheduled. The majority leader announced last night that the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution conference report may become available and we may consider that conference report before the week concludes. Votes will occur over the next 2 days. Members should plan accordingly.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, and I am joined by 22 original cosponsors. Unborn children can experience pain, and they can certainly respond to touch from outside the womb. Any woman who has been blessed with carrying a baby in the second trimester can tell you this. I remember my own children kicking and squirming inside of my wife's womb. And my wife certainly remembers feeling their kicks. That unborn child is very much alive. All along, women have been able to feel the child inside of them, but now, science is telling us what the child inside of his or her mother can feel. Many among us are unaware of the scientific, medical fact that unborn children can feel, but it is true. Not only can they feel, but 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. An expert report on fetal development, prepared for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban trials, notes that while unborn children are obviously incapable of verbal expressions, we know that they can experience pain based upon anatomical, functional, physiological and behavioral indicators that are correlated with pain in children and adults. Unborn children can experience pain. This is why unborn children are often administered anesthesia during in utero surgeries. Think about the pain that unborn children can experience, and then think about the more gruesome 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--the child is torn apart limb from limb. Think about how that must feel to a young human. We would never allow a dog to be treated this way. Yet, the creature we are talking about is a young, unborn child. Fortunately, the issue of pain experienced by unborn children has been covered by the news media during the ongoing Partial Birth Abortion Ban trials. Take for instance an April 7, 2004 Associated Press news article covering the trials. And I quote: ``A type of abortion banned under a new federal law would cause `severe and excruciating' pain to 20-week-old fetuses, a medical expert testified yesterday . . . `I believe the fetus is conscious,' said Dr. Kanwaljeet `Sonny' Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences . . . said yesterday that fetuses show increased heart rate, blood flow, and hormone levels in response to pain. `The physiological responses have been very clearly studied,' he said. `The fetus cannot talk . . . so this is the best evidence we can get.'' Today I introduce a bill that would require those who perform abortions on unborn children 20 weeks after fertilization to inform the woman seeking an abortion of the medical evidence that the unborn child feels pain: (a.) Through a verbal statement given by the abortion provider, and also (b.) by providing a brochure--developed by the Department of Health and Human Services--that goes into more detail than the verbal statement on the medical evidence of pain experienced by an unborn child 20 weeks after fertilization. The bill would also ensure that the woman, if she chooses to continue with the abortion procedure after being given the medical information, has the option of choosing anesthesia for the child, so that the unborn child's pain is less severe. Women should not be kept in the dark; women have the right to know what their unborn child experiences during 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 able--at the very least--to make an informed decision. It is simply not fair to keep women in the dark. Unborn children do not have a voice, but they are young members of the human family. It is time to look at the unborn child, and recognize that it is really a young human, who can feel pain and should be treated with care. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution with my colleague, Senator Bingaman, calling on the Chinese Government to release all Tibetan political prisoners. One individual of concern is the prominent religious leader Tenzen Delek. On April 7, 2002 Tenzen Delek and 3 other monks were arrested at their monastery. Subsequently, Tenzen was held incommunicado for 8 months and sentenced to death with a two years suspension after a closed door trial. Tenzen Delek and Lobsang Dhondup were both convicted of inciting separatism. Lobsang Dhondup was sentenced to death and executed on January 26, 2003, only one month after the sentence was handed down. Given the arbitrary and political nature of China's judiciary, Tenzen Delek could be put to death at any time. It has been 2 years since his April 7, 2002 arrest, and December 2004 will mark two years since he was sentenced to death. Tenzen Delek moved to a monastery at the young age of 7, and by early adulthood he was active on issues of culture and religion and a dedicated supporter of the Dalai Lama and his teachings. More than likely, his community work and societal influence left him subject to the suspicion of the Chinese government. It is this sort of peaceful protest of China's occupation of Tibet that has landed so many other Tibetans in jail. Mr. President, this resolution recognizes China's violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, and calls on the Chinese government to release Tenzen Delek and the other Tibetans who remain in jail. Phuntsog Nyidron is a prominent Tibetan nun who was arrested in 1989 for her peaceful protest of the political situation and remained in jail for 14 years. Just this February she was freed after the House passed a similar resolution calling for her release. The International Campaign for Tibet estimates that there are 150 political prisoners in Tibet, and 75 percent of them are monks and nuns. Those unfortunate enough to find themselves in a Chinese prison are often subjected to physical and mental torture, and isolation. Many of them do not make it out of custody alive. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this resolution. For more than 50 years the Tibetan people have struggled to preserve their 1,000 year old sovereign national identity. The Chinese occupation that began in 1949 brought with it the subjugation of the Tibetan people at the hand of the People's Liberation Army, destruction of thousands of monasteries and shrines, a prohibition against practicing the Buddhist faith and Chinese migration--all aimed at destroying Tibetan culture, language and religion. The United States must confront continued Chinese repression of the practice of all faiths in China, and this resolution does exactly that.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am here to address the Bioshield Act and particularly section 3 of that bill that directs the Secretary of Homeland Security on an ongoing basis to assess threats of use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents and determine which threats pose a material risk of use against the U.S. population. I draw my colleagues' particular attention to what has recently been reported in the newspaper about one of the most recent uses of sarin gas that has occurred and its possibility of being used in the United States. I commend my colleagues for bringing this bill to the Senate, for a chance to talk about it. It is a very important issue. I see in this particular section our need to assess this. The discovery and confirmation of sarin gas in artillery shells in Iraq highlights evidence that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program that was not only fully operational but ready for use against U.S. troops. I raise this for two reasons. One, the argument that we have not been able to find WMD in Iraq is ongoing. I hope we will not dismiss the lack of any findings in the past and what we are finding now, the actual use of sarin gas against our troops. That should continue to be a focus that we hunt for, and we should be vigilant in looking for weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemicals such as sarin gas. But more importantly, Iraq had told the U.N. weapons inspection team they had produced tons of sarin gas and other chemical weapons. We should be concerned about where those are today and whether some of them may have found their way into Syria or other countries. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a news story that appeared today from Fox News.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will read portions of this news story, dated today, Fox News: Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirmed that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin. This has been confirmed by Defense Department officials. This is obviously a danger to our troops. It is obviously of great concern to us if this were to find its way into the United States. I will read from retired United States Army COL Robert Maginnis: Clearly, if we're gonna find one or two of these every so often--used as an IED or some other way--the threat is not all that high, but it does confirm suspicion that he [Saddam] did have this stuff. He goes on to say this: It is a bazaar of weapons that are available on every market place through that country. We're doing everything we can to aggressively disarm these people but there are so many things that were stored away by Saddam Hussein in that country . . . it's a huge job that we're tackling. This next quote is from Dennis Ross, the former Ambassador, special envoy to the Middle East, a well-known figure on Middle East peace negotiations that took place: What we don't know is if there are other shells which there certainly could be. He goes on to say: We also don't know whether or not these kinds of shells could be used as explosives, which could have a more devastating effect on our troops. A final quote for the Record from this story: Saddam's regime used sarin gas in mass amounts during an air attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War. More than 5,000 people are believed to have died in Halabja and surrounding villages, with more than 65,000 injured. This is deadly stuff. It exists. We are now finding it. We need to be aware of that as we move forward with this bioshield bill. Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. inspectors found within the last few months ``warehouses full of commercial and agricultural chemicals'' which, if mixed and packaged properly, ``could quickly become chemical weapons.'' U.S. forces in Karbala have uncovered 55-gallon drums loaded with chemicals that were said to be ``pesticides,'' some of which were stored in what military sources described as a camouflaged bunker complex. Why would anyone camouflage insecticide? According to another article, the alleged agricultural site just happened to be located alongside a military ammunition dump. Why are we storing insecticide by a military ammunition dump? According to the Journal, the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles Duelfer, recently told Congress that some of Saddam's WMD facilities were newly built and contained stockpiled raw materials that would have allowed them to ``produce such weapons on a moment's notice.'' If I recall, in early April, Jordanian authorities foiled an al-Qaida plot to kill 80,000 people in a chemical weapons attack in Amman. According to one of the conspirators whose confession was broadcast on Jordanian TV, al-Qaida WMD specialist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was last seen in that chilling video beheading Nick Berg, trained and outfitted the WMD attackers in prewar Iraq. Like notorious terrorists Abu Nidal and Abu Abi Abbas, Zarqawi enjoyed sanctuary in Baghdad, courtesy of Saddam Hussein. Jordanian coverage of the plot included footage of 100-gallon jugs containing chemical weapons that had been intercepted 75 miles from the Syrian border where much of Saddam Hussein's prewar WMD stockpiles are believed to be hidden. The Zarqawi revelation comes on the heels of the April 26 explosion at a suspected chemical weapons factory in Baghdad just as a U.S. weapons team arrived to inspect its contents. This was disguised as ``a perfume factory,'' and the facility was boobytrapped to destroy evidence, investigators believe, of whatever was inside. We should not be surprised if, within the coming weeks, more sarin- laden shells are uncovered in Iraq. In the meantime, we should focus on this and get coverage on what is taking place and what has been found of this deadly sarin gas. I note that Secretary Ridge, Homeland Security Department, has been warning of an increased risk of attack in coming months. In light of what we found in Iraq, it would not be farfetched to say if al-Qaida wants to strike on U.S. soil, it would likely be with a chemical or biological weapon, something other than a conventional explosive. In a recent interview with the Associated Press, retired LTG Patrick Hughes said that America has gotten better at predicting and safeguarding itself against attacks since September 11, but still Lieutenant General Hughes indicated that significant threats remain, especially now as high ``background noise'' from terrorists and heightened sensitivity during the election year has officials on guard for a possible attack whose nature they cannot quite pin down. Based on captured material, interviews, and other sources of information, Lieutenant General Hughes believes that al-Qaida will likely strike with something other than a conventional explosive device. He is particularly worried about chemical and biological attacks, including a dirty bomb, and particularly points to the possibility of another anthrax biological attack following the one that wreaked havoc on the postal system, closed a Senate office building for 3 months, and killed five people in 2001. We first heard about sarin gas in an attack at a Japanese subway where twelve people died. It is a potent weapon in which a little drop on your skin will kill you. Sarin gas was confirmed in the 155-mm shell and contained an estimated 3 or 4 liters. Fortunately, the two soldiers who may have been exposed are now safe and are returned to duty. They did show signs of being hit by chemical weapons, but it was a mild case and they are back on duty. This could have ended in tragedy had our soldiers not been more vigilant. I hope we will continue to be focused on finding these weapons of mass destruction, particularly before they find their way to our shores so we can make sure our troops are safe and that such weapons do not find their way here to the United States. I believe my colleagues' bill will go a long way toward securing that goal. I urge its immediate passage. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the side of the proponent, Senator Gregg, for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my colleagues and support the Children and Media Research Advancement Act or CAMRA. The development of our Nation's children is vital and the way in which media impacts their ability to grow and develop is imperative. For many years, I have been concerned about the impact media has on our children. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released their report on electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers-- ages 0 to 6 years old. Not surprisingly, the study found that children today are reared in a media saturated environment. According to the study, 99 percent of all children live in a home with a TV set and 50 percent of these children live in a home with three or more TVs of which 36 percent have a TV in their bedroom. Perhaps even more startling, 30 percent of children ages zero to three years and 43 percent of four to six year olds have a TV in their bedroom. Additionally, 27 percent of children have their own VCR or DVD player in their rooms and 10 percent have their own video game console in their room as well. Further, 73 percent of children ages 0 to 6 have a computer at home, and 49 percent of these young people have a video game player. Even more concerning is that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under two do not watch any television. The Academy further states that all children over two should be limited to one or two hours of educational screen media a day. However, despite this recommendation, the Kaiser study found that in a typical day, 68 percent of all children under two use screen media-- 59 percent watch TV, 42 percent watch a video or DVD, five percent use computers and three percent play video games. The study also found that 74 percent of all infants and toddlers have watched TV before the age of two. Unfortunately, there is a lack of comprehensive research that provides detailed data on the relationship between media and brain development in children. That is why I am pleased to support the Children and Media Research Advancement Act. This will not only encourage much needed research in this area, but will also serve to coordinate such research. Providing parents and guardians with the most accurate information regarding the impact media has on their children is essential--to do anything less would be reprehensible. Already many studies--including ones that followed children from age 8 until mid-adulthood (age 30 plus years)--have demonstrated a link between early exposure to entertainment violence and aggressive attitudes, values and behaviors, including increased levels of violent crime against others. There are three main effects on children of viewing entertainment violence: aggression more likely to think and behave aggressively, and hold attitudes and values favorable to the use of aggression to resolve conflicts; desensitization decreased sensitivity to violence and a greater willingness to tolerate increasing levels of violence in society; fear viewers may develop the ``mean world syndrome'' in which they overestimate their risk of becoming victims of violence. Even in the Kaiser study I referenced earlier, among all parents whose zero to six year olds watched TV, 81 percent said that they saw their children imitate behaviors from television--36 percent of parents reported that their children mimicked aggressive behavior, 78 percent mimicked positive behavior. When focusing on the four to six year age group, mimicking aggressive behaviors increase to nearly half or 47 percent, with aggressive behavior being imitated more frequently with boys, 59 percent than with girls at 35 percent. Clearly, we must continue to encourage and fund studies that will show the effects media has on the development of the adolescent brain. I am pleased that CAMRA will encourage this much-needed research in such a crucial area. Protecting our nation's children and ensuring that parents have the most accurate and complete information on the effects of media on their children should remain our top priority. I look forward to working with Senators Lieberman and Clinton on an issue that is vital to our society.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my colleagues and support the Children and Media Research Advancement Act or CAMRA. The development of our Nation's children is vital and the way in which media impacts their ability to grow and develop is imperative. For many years, I have been concerned about the impact media has on our children. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released their report on electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers-- ages 0 to 6 years old. Not surprisingly, the study found that children today are reared in a media saturated environment. According to the study, 99 percent of all children live in a home with a TV set and 50 percent of these children live in a home with three or more TVs of which 36 percent have a TV in their bedroom. Perhaps even more startling, 30 percent of children ages zero to three years and 43 percent of four to six year olds have a TV in their bedroom. Additionally, 27 percent of children have their own VCR or DVD player in their rooms and 10 percent have their own video game console in their room as well. Further, 73 percent of children ages 0 to 6 have a computer at home, and 49 percent of these young people have a video game player. Even more concerning is that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under two do not watch any television. The Academy further states that all children over two should be limited to one or two hours of educational screen media a day. However, despite this recommendation, the Kaiser study found that in a typical day, 68 percent of all children under two use screen media-- 59 percent watch TV, 42 percent watch a video or DVD, five percent use computers and three percent play video games. The study also found that 74 percent of all infants and toddlers have watched TV before the age of two. Unfortunately, there is a lack of comprehensive research that provides detailed data on the relationship between media and brain development in children. That is why I am pleased to support the Children and Media Research Advancement Act. This will not only encourage much needed research in this area, but will also serve to coordinate such research. Providing parents and guardians with the most accurate information regarding the impact media has on their children is essential--to do anything less would be reprehensible. Already many studies--including ones that followed children from age 8 until mid-adulthood (age 30 plus years)--have demonstrated a link between early exposure to entertainment violence and aggressive attitudes, values and behaviors, including increased levels of violent crime against others. There are three main effects on children of viewing entertainment violence: aggression more likely to think and behave aggressively, and hold attitudes and values favorable to the use of aggression to resolve conflicts; desensitization decreased sensitivity to violence and a greater willingness to tolerate increasing levels of violence in society; fear viewers may develop the ``mean world syndrome'' in which they overestimate their risk of becoming victims of violence. Even in the Kaiser study I referenced earlier, among all parents whose zero to six year olds watched TV, 81 percent said that they saw their children imitate behaviors from television--36 percent of parents reported that their children mimicked aggressive behavior, 78 percent mimicked positive behavior. When focusing on the four to six year age group, mimicking aggressive behaviors increase to nearly half or 47 percent, with aggressive behavior being imitated more frequently with boys, 59 percent than with girls at 35 percent. Clearly, we must continue to encourage and fund studies that will show the effects media has on the development of the adolescent brain. I am pleased that CAMRA will encourage this much-needed research in such a crucial area. Protecting our nation's children and ensuring that parents have the most accurate and complete information on the effects of media on their children should remain our top priority. I look forward to working with Senators Lieberman and Clinton on an issue that is vital to our society.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote yesterday afternoon on the very significant amendment offered by my colleague from Texas. As my colleagues know, yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. We in Kansas were very pleased that President Bush and Education Secretary Paige joined with us in Topeka to commemorate this important date. While I intended to arrive here in time for the vote following the special events of this day in Kansas, the plane I was riding was, unfortunately, delayed. Truly, providing for the health needs of our military's cadets and midshipmen when they are placed in harm's way is a duty of this Nation. I am grateful to the Senator from Texas for raising this issue, and I am pleased that the Senate adopted this amendment to S. 2400, the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization bill. Mr. President, I ask that the record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted in favor of Senator Hutchison's amendment No. 3152 yesterday afternoon.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, it gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues today and talk about something that happened 50 years ago, which has been a difficult and important journey that we have been on. On May 17, 1954, Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States and the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion that changed the country. It was Brown v. the Board of Education. The Brown was the Reverend Oliver Brown of Topeka, KS, my hometown. The case of Brown v. the Board of Education was the case that ended segregation in our schools and in our society. It was really the beginning legal case that moved that forward. On Monday, we will dedicate in Topeka, KS, the school that was the basis for the complaint. It is the Monroe School. It will be dedicated as a national historical site, a national park. The President will be there. A number of different dignitaries will be there to celebrate and say where we have been over the last 50 years after we ended segregation in this country in 1954 and where we are going. It is going to be a beautiful occasion. It is a momentous occasion. It is an important occasion. We have been on a journey during that period of time of the 50 years. It has been a rocky road since that time period. It was certainly difficult before that time period. It has not always been going in the right direction, but at the end of the day we have been going in the overall right direction. We are on a journey. What is the destination? Well, I think the best place to look is to Martin Luther King's words. He said: The end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community. These are words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King spoken on December 3, 1956, after the completion of the Montgomery bus boycott. These words symbolize the goal of this great Nation, a goal that is echoed throughout our history: The end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community. In this quote, Dr. King, who was and remains a prophet to the Nation, is speaking of a time in which all people in the United States will be able to live together harmoniously, reconciled with one another and with God, as one people under God. Today we look back on the history of our Nation and take note of how far we have come as a people. We are reminded that we owe a great debt to those who have fought valiantly for the freedoms we easily take for granted. On the eve of the 50th anniversary of this case, it is fitting that today the Senate takes time to honor the Brown case, the Brown family, which is one of the greatest civil rights cases in our Nation's history and one that changed the way in which we view equality under the law in our society. More than any other case, Brown sets this Nation on a path of ensuring freedom and equality in America. The United States is a nation that symbolizes the essence of freedom, equality, and democracy. These principles are embedded in the documents that established this country. Yet as a young nation, America had not yet bestowed these ideals upon African Americans who resided in this country. Though progress was made after the Civil War, America had yet to realize her true potential as a nation built on freedom and equality for all. It was not until the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown was rendered that our country was ushered into a symbol of freedom and democracy of what Dr. King did so eloquently describe as the beloved community. May 17, 2004, marks the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision which effectively ended school segregation in America. However, the history of desegregation of our public school system started before Brown in such cases as Murray v. Maryland and Sweatt v. Painter. It was the Brown case that caught fire and changed the course of American history in the way in which we view equality in the eyes of the law. Before Brown, many States in this country held and enforced racially segregated laws which was an atrocious practice. Many individuals cited the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, and I note that while the Court got it right in Brown, the Court has gotten it wrong in the last two. Courts are not infallible institutions. They are made of people such as we are. They make good decisions and they make bad situations. They made a bad decision in Plessy that was the law of the land for 50 years after it--a little more than 50 years. They made a bad decision in the Dred Scott decision--the Fugitive Slave Act that was applicable across the land until, really, the Civil War. They make good decisions and they make bad decisions. The Plessy case, which was a bad decision, sanctioned the separate but equal doctrine as the grounds for keeping school segregation legal. During that time, there were court cases that challenged this separate but equal doctrine because the schools for African American children were substandard facilities with out-of-date textbooks and often no basic school supplies. In fact, in Kansas, alone, there were 11 school integration cases dating from 1881 to 1949, prior to Brown. By 1950, African-American parents began to renew their efforts to challenge State laws that only permitted their children to attend certain schools, and as a result, they organized through the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People the NAACP, an organization founded in 1909 to address the issue of the unequal and discriminatory treatment experienced by African Americans throughout the country. It was at this time that Rev. Oliver L. Brown, a citizen of Topeka, Kansas became part of the NAACP strategy to file suit against various school boards on behalf of African American parents and their children. This effort was led first by Charles Houston and later by Thurgood Marshall. On February 28, 1951, Rev. Brown, along with 13 parents and 20 children, filed a lawsuit against the Topeka School Board on behalf of his 7-year-old daughter, Linda. Like other young African Americans, Linda had to cross a set of railroad tracks and board a bus that took her to the ``colored'' school on the opposite side of the city from where she lived--even though a school for white children was located only a few blocks from her home. The case was taken to the District Court of Kansas, but the ruling was not beneficial to Rev. Brown and the others. The court admitted that segregated schools gave African American children a feeling of inferiority, but felt that they must uphold the decisions of Plessy vs. Ferguson, which stated that separate but equal is still equal, and subsequently, ruled in favor of the Board of Education. On October 1, 1951, Rev. Brown's team appealed the case to the Supreme Court, where the Brown case was combined with other NAACP cases from Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, DC, which was later, heard separately. These combined cases became known as Oliver L. Brown et al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka, et al. There were many notable African Americans who helped to bring these cases to the United States Supreme Court; however, none so famous as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who valiantly defended the rights of not only Linda Brown and the other defendants in the case, but of an entire race of individuals who were treated as second class citizens. During the course of the trial, Thurgood Marshall used expert witnesses in child psychology and referenced the detrimental impact that segregation in our Nation's School System had on African American children. He also referenced the cases of Sweatt v. Painter, and McLaurin v. Oklahoma, both of which made a lot of progress in the desegregation of colleges and universities when the court ruled that the restrictions of African Americans actually hinder their learning. He argued that younger children were equally hindered by segregation, and therefore there was no logical argument that could justify ruling against segregation in higher learning, and uphold the Plessy v. Ferguson case when referring to elementary and secondary schools. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its decision to rule racial segregation in schools unconstitutional. Further, the Supreme Court found the ``separate but equal'' doctrine to be in violation of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, among other things, that: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. When the court ruled, in 1954, that school segregation laws were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court demolished the legal foundation on which racial segregation stood. The court's opinion, written and delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, also served as a stirring moral indictment of racial segregation, and an eloquent challenge to America to cast off its prejudices and extend its promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all citizens, regardless of race or color. Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to honor this magnificent case in our Nation's history. I am encouraged that with this case, this Nation was able to move one step closer to that ``beloved community'' Dr. King referenced, where redemption through reconciliation can occur. Therefore, the importance of this case does not solely reside in the law, but equally sheds light on our responsibility to humanity and upon our ability to reconcile our differences, with one another and through that process seek redemption, and achieve the creation of the ``beloved community.'' As we celebrate Brown today and next week, we are one step closer to that goal for our country and I invite our Nation to join with us in celebrating this magnificent case that stirred a Nation's consciousness and was the basis for shattering segregation in our society. I yield the floor. Celebrating a Landmark Decision in the Civil Rights Movement: the 50th Anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education Decision

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of the passage of S. Con. Res. 102, which honours the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas et al. As you may know, the history of desegregating our public school system started before Brown with such cases as Murray v. Maryland and Sweatt v. Painter. But it was Brown v. Board of Education that caught fire and changed the course of Americas history and the way in which we view equality in the eyes of the law. Before Brown, many States held and enforced racially segregated laws enforced, which was an atrocious practice. Many individuals cited the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, which sanctioned the separate but equal doctrine, as the grounds for keeping school segregation legal. Oliver Brown, a citizen of Topeka, KS, along with other individuals, filed a lawsuit against the Topeka School Board on behalf of his 7- year-old daughter, Linda. Like other young African Americans, Linda had to cross a set of railroad tracks and board a bus to take her to the ``colored'' school on the other side of the city from where she lived-- even though a school for white children was located only a few blocks from her home. There were many notable African Americans who helped to bring this case to the United States Supreme Court; however, none so famous as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who valiantly defended the rights of not only Linda Brown and the other defendants in the case, but of an entire race of individuals who were treated as second class citizens. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its decision to rule racial segregation in schools unconstitutional. Further, the Supreme Court found the ``separate but equal'' doctrine to be in violation of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, among other things, that, ``no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.'' When the Court ruled, in 1954, that school segregation laws were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court demolished the legal foundation on which racial segregation stood. The Court's opinion, written and delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, also served as a stirring moral indictment of racial segregation, and an eloquent challenge to America to cast off its prejudices and extend its promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all citizens, regardless of race or color. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many individuals who worked tirelessly to ensure that the 50th anniversary celebration of this case is recognized world wide. Most notably, I would like to thank Cheryl Brown Henderson, the Brown Foundation and the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site for their steadfast and unwavering commitment to the legacy established by the Brown decision. I would also like to thank and commend the work of the Brown v. Board of Education 50th Anniversary Commission. Finally I would like to recognize all of the cases that comprise the Brown decision. Belton v. Gebhart (Bulah v. Gibhart)--Delaware First petitioned in 1951, the local cases, Belton v. Gebhart and Bulah v. Gibhart, challenged the inferior conditions of two African American schools. In the suburb of Claymont, DE, African American children were prohibited from attending the area's local high school. In the rural community of Hockessin, Delaware, African American students were forced to attend a dilapidated one-room schoolhouse and were not provided transportation to the school, while white children in the area were provided transportation and a better school facility. Both cases were represented by a local NAACP attorney. Though the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the decision did not apply to all schools in Delaware. bolling, et. al. v. c. melvin sharpe, et.al.--district of columbia Eleven African American Junior high School students were taken on a field trip to Washington, D.C.'s new John Phillip Sousa School for whites only. The African American students were denied admittance to the school and ordered to return to their inadequate school. in 1951, a suite was filed on behalf of the students. After review with the Brown case in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregation in the Nation's capital was unconstitutional. briggs v. r.w. elliott In Claredon County, SC, the State NAACP first attempted, unsuccessfully and with a single plaintiff, to take legal action in 1974 against the inferior conditions African American students experienced under South Carolina's racially segregated school system. By 1951, community activists convinced the African American parents to join the NAACP efforts to file a class action suite in U.S. District Court. The court found that the schools designated for African Americans were grossly inadequate in terms of buildings, transportation and teacher's salaries when compared to the schools provided for whites. An order to equalize the facilities was virtually ignored by school officials and the schools were never made equal. brown v. board In Kansas there were 11 school integration cases dating from 1881 to 1949, prior to Brown in 1854. In many instances the schools for African American children were substandard facilities with out-of-date textbooks and often no basic school supplies. In the fall of 1950, members of the Topeka, Kansas Chapter of the NAACP agreed to again challenge the ``separate but equal'' doctrine governing public education. On February 28, 1951, the NAACP filed their case as Oliver L. Brown et al. vs. The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, which represented a group of 13 parents and 20 children. The District Court ruled in favor of the school board and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court level, their case was combined with other NAACP cases from Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington, D.C., which was later heard separately. The combined cases became known as Oliver L. Brown et. Al. vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, et al. davis, et. al. v. prince edward county board of supervisors One of the few public high schools available to African Americans in the State of Virginia was Robert Moton High School in Prince Edward County. Built in 1943, it was never large enough to accommodate its student population. The gross inadequacies of these classrooms sparked a student strike in 1951. The NAACP soon joined their struggles and challenged the inferior quality of their school facilities in court. Although the U.S. District Court ordered that the plaintiffs be provided with equal school facilities, they were denied access to the white schools in their area. I am encouraged and hopeful that the Nation will join with me and celebrate this magnificent achievement in American History.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding the nomination of Mr. Negroponte to be the Ambassador to Iraq.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise with several of my colleagues today to bring to the attention of this body a severe situation in the western part of Sudan. The Darfur region is facing an acute humanitarian catastrophe, which has been cited by some individuals as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. For over a year now, government-backed militias have been carrying out savage attacks on innocent civilians and have engaged in the use of rape as a weapon, abducted children, destroyed food and irrigation systems and burned villages. We are gravely concerned about the violence that persists, despite the April 8 cease-fire agreement. Recent estimates report that 3 million people are beyond the reach of aid agencies trying to provide assistance in Sudan, and mortality rates in the Darfur region are catastrophic. The Darfur disaster has forced staggering numbers of people to flee their homes. More than 800,000 people have been displaced, with more than 100,000 of them crossing the border into neighboring Chad. Less than half of these refugees are living in UNHCR camps. Refugees International reported yesterday that 540 refugees in Chad are near death due to lack of food. To make matters worse, the rainy season is expected soon, at which time roads will be impassable and the delivery of aid extremely difficult. Human Rights investigators have finally been allowed into the region and we anticipate their findings later this week. However, initial reports indicate that their movements were severely restricted, despite numerous requests for full access to the region. The international community must continue to call on the Government of Sudan to grant visas to the humanitarian organizations who are ready and waiting to provide much-needed assistance in Darfur. Civil war has left carnage during the two decades of fighting in Sudan. The largely Arab-Islamic North had been fighting the predominantly African-Christian and animist South over issues of religion and Sharia law. Negotiations have included tough compromises over issues of power- and wealth-sharing. I believe that continued pressure on Sudan to end the suffering in Darfur can lead to a negotiated settlement between the North and the South, which we hope to see in the coming days. But we cannot wait for this agreement to address the current situation; the humanitarian crisis in Darfur warrants immediate attention by the international community. Today the Senate passed S. Con. Res. 99, condemning the Government of Sudan for their complicity in attacks against innocent civilians and calling on them to immediately end such brutality. It calls on Sudan to grant immediate and unconditional access to Darfur for humanitarian and human rights organizations and for a cease-fire monitoring team. In addition, it calls on the USAID Administrator to develop a plan for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, by air if necessary. Furthermore, the resolution urges the Secretary of State to develop a plan for further bilateral and multilateral action in the event that the Government of Sudan fails to immediately allow access, including a plan to seek a Security Council resolution addressing the Darfur situation. Finally, S. Con. Res. 99 urges the President to direct the U.S. Representative to the United Nations to seek an official investigation to determine if crimes against humanity have been committed by the Government of Sudan in Darfur and work with the international community to ensure that the individuals responsible for such crimes are accountable for their actions. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important resolution. The 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide was an important reminder of the devastating effects that international blindness can have on a population. Just this week, Sudan was voted back onto the U.N. Human Rights Commission, despite protests by the United States. How can a nation who allows for nearly 1 million displaced persons, catastrophic deaths, and the threat of continuing death and disease, remain on the very body of the United Nations which is responsible for preventing such atrocities? We have a moral responsibility to the people of Darfur, let us not wait until another life is lost.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues in the Senate to a new report by a credible organization based on the Thailand-Burma border. In ``Shattering Silences,'' the Karen Women's Organization has carefully investigated and recorded the Burmese military regime's use of rape as a weapon of war against ethnic minority women, revealing a shockingly brutal and callous practice. The report documents that both young and old women are being raped, and usually very brutally. Forty percent of the rapes committed by the regime's soldiers were gang rapes, and over one-quarter of the women were killed after being raped. This horrifying evidence, which echoes previous documentation conducted by our own State Department, suggests that Burma's regime is deliberately using rape as a weapon to terrorize and subjugate the Burmese people. Fifty percent of the rapes were committed by officers in the military regime. Many of us hoped that after the exposure of the use of rape as a weapon in Bosnia, the practice would come to an end. Sadly, our hopes have not been fulfilled, and Burma is the new Bosnia. To be a woman in Burma's ethnic states is to live in constant fear of sexual violence and murder. Ever since the United States imposed economic sanctions on Burma last year, the ruling regime has made repeated promises of a so-called transition to democracy. The rapes documented in this report show what many of us have known for a very long time; that promises by this regime are meaningless. Our State Department must take a lead in condemning these horrific acts and move to rally support for international sanctions on Burma. We cannot wait any longer, while more women face the war crimes committed by Burma's dictators.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Talent and Senator Allen, an important resolution regarding recent developments in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been a great friend of the United States, a key ally in the war on terrorism and an invaluable trading partner. In recent weeks, however, it has become increasingly clear that Beijing will stand in the way of Hong Kong's development into a full democracy. Such actions compel support from the members of this body. The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 sets forth the guidelines for the U.S. relationship with Hong Kong. It provides for a very special and distinct relationship with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, even as we recognize the Hong Kong is a part of China. This special relationship rests on the notion that Hong Kong will be governed differently than the rest of China. Unfortunately, Beijing continues to suggest that it has no intention of realizing Hong Kong's democratic potential. Recent decisions by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress push direct election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive into the future. Hong Kong's Legislative Counsel faces a similar fate. Some observers even suggest Beijing will wait another 30 or 40 years to allow universal suffrage in the selection of executive and legislative office holders to become a reality. By then, the 50 year special arrangement will be near expiration, threatening everything the people of Hong Kong have achieved. I traveled to Hong Kong in January. My Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs held a hearing last month where we heard testimony from Hong Kong's leading democracy advocates. A clear message emerges from everyone with whom I have spoken on this issue: Hong Kong is ready for full democracy. The people have demonstrated the ability to create a vibrant society and they deserve universal suffrage and the ability to participate fully in the functions of government. The resolution I submit today is simple. It recognizes the recent report from the State Department dealing with the U.S.-Hong Kong relationship. It highlights Hong Kong's autonomy as envisioned by the Hong Kong Policy Act, and it highlights the unfortunate steps taken in Beijing to frustrate Hong Kong's democratic development. As the resolution says, Congress ought to declare ``that the people of Hong Kong should be free to determine the pace and scope of constitutional developments'' and that anything less violates the vision of democracy set forth in the 1984 Joint Declaration signed by Great Britain and the People's Republic of China. When Martin Lee came to testify about the importance of democratic development in March, Beijing referred to him as a dreamer. They meant it as an insult, but Mr. Lee embraces the label as he looks to a future of freedom in Hong Kong. This body can make a powerful statement of support for Martin Lee's democratic dreams by passing this resolution, and I hope they will move quickly to do so.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleagues Senator Talent and Senator Allen, an important resolution regarding recent developments in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been a great friend of the United States, a key ally in the war on terrorism and an invaluable trading partner. In recent weeks, however, it has become increasingly clear that Beijing will stand in the way of Hong Kong's development into a full democracy. Such actions compel support from the members of this body. The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 sets forth the guidelines for the U.S. relationship with Hong Kong. It provides for a very special and distinct relationship with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, even as we recognize the Hong Kong is a part of China. This special relationship rests on the notion that Hong Kong will be governed differently than the rest of China. Unfortunately, Beijing continues to suggest that it has no intention of realizing Hong Kong's democratic potential. Recent decisions by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress push direct election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive into the future. Hong Kong's Legislative Counsel faces a similar fate. Some observers even suggest Beijing will wait another 30 or 40 years to allow universal suffrage in the selection of executive and legislative office holders to become a reality. By then, the 50 year special arrangement will be near expiration, threatening everything the people of Hong Kong have achieved. I traveled to Hong Kong in January. My Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs held a hearing last month where we heard testimony from Hong Kong's leading democracy advocates. A clear message emerges from everyone with whom I have spoken on this issue: Hong Kong is ready for full democracy. The people have demonstrated the ability to create a vibrant society and they deserve universal suffrage and the ability to participate fully in the functions of government. The resolution I submit today is simple. It recognizes the recent report from the State Department dealing with the U.S.-Hong Kong relationship. It highlights Hong Kong's autonomy as envisioned by the Hong Kong Policy Act, and it highlights the unfortunate steps taken in Beijing to frustrate Hong Kong's democratic development. As the resolution says, Congress ought to declare ``that the people of Hong Kong should be free to determine the pace and scope of constitutional developments'' and that anything less violates the vision of democracy set forth in the 1984 Joint Declaration signed by Great Britain and the People's Republic of China. When Martin Lee came to testify about the importance of democratic development in March, Beijing referred to him as a dreamer. They meant it as an insult, but Mr. Lee embraces the label as he looks to a future of freedom in Hong Kong. This body can make a powerful statement of support for Martin Lee's democratic dreams by passing this resolution, and I hope they will move quickly to do so.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for the thoughts he put forward.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe I have time reserved under the majority leader's time to speak this morning in morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, what I wish to talk about this morning is the overall issue of marriage, and I will go through some charts, factual information, and some data. It is a current topic. It is one of great interest in the country. What I want to do is back up and say, Why is this institution even significant to us as a country? Why would a governing body be interested in marriage at all? Isn't this just simply a private matter? What I want to do is go through, on a factual basis, and outline and make clear why marriage is so important to a government. At the end of the day, it comes back to raising children in a society to be productive, good, strong, healthy citizens, and the best setting to do that in is between two married biological parents, if at all possible, male and female. That is what all the statistical studies show. That is what the sociological studies show. I want to go through that because it lays the groundwork for why we are interested in marriage in a governmental body. It turns out that if you have strong families, at the end of the day you are going to need less government infrastructure and support for them. If you have a very weakened family structure, you are going to need a lot more governmental structure to surround that child to make up for the lack of two dedicated male-female biological parents. This is not to say people cannot raise good children outside of that setting, because people do, and they struggle sometimes heroically to get it done, and they get it done. I want to recognize and honor them as well. I want to talk about the macropicture as a broad society. As a society of millions of people, why are we interested in it? The reason is that, by and large, it produces stronger, more capable citizenry. In the wake of all the recent debates about defending marriage from some of the new and unique challenges it faces and promoting marriage as an essential component in addressing some of our more intractable social problems in this country, I think it is important we come back to some fundamental questions: What is marriage? Why is it important to the health and continuance of our society? Why is the Government interested in marriage at all? The answers to these fundamental questions are no longer so obvious or self-evident, as is apparent from the fact that many today question our civilization's traditional understandings of the institution of marriage, its purpose, its necessity for society, and its role in preventing social breakdown. Before we can argue fruitfully about what marriage is not, we have to have a good understanding of what it is, why it is valuable, and why it must be defended as an essential bulwark of this great Nation of ours. The stronger the marriages we have between a man and woman in this country, bonded together for life, the stronger the country is going to be. Marriage has been central to the understanding of family in Western culture from the beginning, and central to our historical concept of marriage has been the rearing of and orientation toward children. It is in this setting that children have the most likelihood of coming out successfully. This traditional understanding is a far cry from a postmodern deconstruction of marriage by a large number of sociologists and academics today, many of whom hold that the unique character of marriage is simply ``public approval and recognition.'' In other words, marriage is whatever controlling public authority says it is, whatever current public opinion is. Our civilization's historical understanding of marriage and the consequent recognition by the State of the unique nature of this one relationship reflect the fact that the public recognition of the institution of marriage is not primarily about the granting of rights and liberties but about the imposition of burdens. Under the law, marriage limits rather than increases individual freedom. As family scholar Allan Carlson points out, marriage laws commonly mandate the sharing of earnings and debts, compelling obligations of mutual support, and limit rights to terminate the relationship. These are all limitations on the two people involved. Why is it that governments leave all other relationship between individuals free but continue to register and in a sense burden these heterosexual unions? The answer--and I will go through this in a number of charts and statistics--is children, beings at once highly vulnerable and essential for the future of every community. Strong and stable marriages receive public approbation because it is a source of citizens able to practice ordered liberty. So children are the key to the puzzle about the unique treatment of heterosexual unions and traditional marriage. As author Maggie Gallagher has written: Marriage is the place where having children is not only tolerated but welcomed and encouraged, because it gives children mothers and fathers. That should seem very basic. This is not to say that marriage is not important to society for a host of other reasons as well. 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 childcare, home carpentry, and food preparation, is still at least as large as that of the official economy. Not least of the reasons 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 live longer. Here is an instance where social science, viewed honestly, confirms what common wisdom has always told us: Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing. It is not only good for the spouses, it is absolutely vital for the children. Now again, we know from study after study that the children of intact traditional marriages are also much healthier in body, spirit, and mind, more successful in school and life, and much less likely to use illegal drugs, abuse alcohol, or engage in crime. That is not to say people cannot raise healthy children in other settings. They can and they do, and they struggle mightily to get it done. This is the best setting. As a result, though, one can always confidently conclude that traditional marriage is also a social good because it dramatically reduces the social costs associated with dysfunctional behavior. Supporting and strengthening marriage significantly diminishes public expenditures on welfare, raises Government revenues, and produces a more engaged responsible citizenry. On the other hand, as seen today, most dramatically in modern societies such as ours, where the institution of marriage has been threatened and under attack for decades, with high rates of divorce and cohabitation, combined with low birthrates, there is a real question about the vibrancy of future societies that do not uphold traditional marriage. It is ironic, then, that the very governments that benefit from intact traditional unions have in recent years seemed determined to follow policies that have the effect of weakening marriage. There is a clear consensus about the benefits of stable marriages to children, and that consensus is growing. Child Trends, a mainstream child welfare organization, has noted that: Research 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 cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . Not that they do not have in many cases very good outcomes, but they face higher risk of poor outcomes. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents. It is not just any relationship between any two adults that provides children with the stability and nurture they need to thrive; it is a strong, stable marriage between biological parents. Again, social science seems to confirm what our common sense tells us: Children need a mom and a dad. We cannot lose sight of the importance of fathers in this discussion of marriage. While it has become fashionable to champion a wide variety of alternative family forums, 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 at school and two to three times more likely to suffer from an emotional or behavioral problem. 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. This is the first chart I wanted to show about developmental problems are less common in two-parent families, the red chart being single- parent families and the second one being two-parent families. Virtually half the level, the lower half of class academically, developmental delay, emotional or behavioral problems--all of those problems are nearly cut in half in a two-parent family. I want to show next, on the child poverty issue, nearly 80 percent of all children suffering long-term poverty come from broken or never- married families. This is the number of children, total population, that are in the situation of poverty. Twenty-two percent are children of intact married couples, and the rest in the various other areas are children born in marriage subsequently divorced; children born out of wedlock, mother subsequently marries; children of never-married mothers. Virtually 80 percent are those involved in poverty. The crisis of child poverty in this country is, in large degree, a crisis of marriage. That is why in the welfare reform bill there has been so much push on the issue of marriage, because with marriage comes a much better chance that this child is not going to be in a situation of poverty. It is not saying that is going to be in all circumstances; it is not. But the odds get much improved. The percentage of children of intact families living in poverty is very small compared to those in families where the father is not present. 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 poor 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. I am saying this, and some people may be uneasy about what the facts say, but this is what the situation is. We have had this vast social experiment of fathers being removed from families or leaving families in an increasing amount over the past number of decades and we have the data now. It is important for governments that we have a two- biological-parents traditional family. This chart indicates the impact of marriage on poverty based on the nonmarried father's actual earnings, percentage of mothers and children who are poor. If the mother remains single, it is 55 percent; if the mother marries the child's father, it is 17 percent. Divorce, on the other hand, impoverishes families and children. It has been estimated the average income of families with children declines by 42 percent after divorce. Divorce has hit my family. It has hit many families-- most families across this country. I know the impact of it, in siblings in my family. 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. What a tough situation for that child. 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 suicides. It is clear both children and societies as a whole pay an enormous price for fatherless homes. The American people realize this. There is a Gallup poll from several years ago that 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-- 25 million children. Half of these children have never stepped foot in their father's home--12.5 million have never stepped foot in their father's home. Less than half of all teenagers currently live with their married biological mothers and fathers. On this chart, that is the point I just made: 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 families has more than quadrupled since 1950. This is a crisis for both our children and our country, the fact that so many children are growing up without dads. It has been exacerbated by the decline of the institution of marriage. In the year 2000, the proportion of never-married women between the ages of 25 to 29 reached 39 percent; in 1965 it was less than 10 percent. Among men, the proportion who have never married from that age group went from 18 percent to 44 percent in the same time period. According to the Census Bureau, the number of cohabiting couples has increased from half a million to almost 5 million in the last 30 years. The number of households with neither marriage nor children present has gone from about 7 million in 1960 to just under 41 million in 2000. While married-couple families were 76 percent of all households in 1960, they constitute barely 50 percent today. Divorce rates have doubled every decade between 1960 and 1990, and while now they appear to have leveled off, they are still at historically high levels. This is the percentage of adults in the population that is married compared to the percentage of the population that is divorced. You can see what it was in 1970: married 72 percent, divorced 3 percent; in 2002, 59 percent married, 10 percent divorced. Public policy must focus on reinforcing the institution of marriage if we are to make progress in addressing many of the most difficult problems we face as a society. While welfare reform, for instance, has been an undeniable success in cutting half the caseloads, it is clear the next step must include addressing what is the core issue, the decline of marriage and the absence of fathers from families. We certainly cannot mandate the involvement of biological fathers with their families, but we can do everything possible to support the most proven and effective pathway to responsible parental engagement, and that is marriage. We must continue to work to change the policies that in effect punish the decision to marry, such as welfare rules that make it more difficult for married couples with children to qualify in comparison to single- parent families. We must work to address the decline of traditional marriage. Unless we provide, as a society, cultural reinforcement for the often difficult path of loyal, committed, monogamous, heterosexual unions, we should not expect to see the institution of marriage thrive. If society says the family structure does not matter, what is the incentive to get or to stay married when the road gets rough, which it often does? As one marriage expert has said, ``If marriage is just a way of publicly celebrating private love, then there is no need to encourage couples to stick it out for the sake of children. If family structure does not matter, why have marriage laws at all? Do adults or do they not have a basic obligation to control their desires so that children can have mothers and fathers?'' That, my colleagues, is the real question in the marriage debate. That is why we have a vital interest in defending the institution of traditional marriage from attempts to define it out of existence. I yield the floor.