Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I inquire first how much time is remaining for the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues for being here to participate in a difficult debate. I have a difficult set of stories I want to tell. If any of the individuals here in this body, or watching, are interested in talking to the individuals involved, they are actually outside in the lobby. I invite anybody to come out. There are grandparents, mothers of victims--there are the women who themselves were assaulted and lost a child. They are here. For those individuals here would care to visit with them, they would love to have a chance to tell their story. The question is simple: do we have one victim or two involved in violent crimes such as these? That is the simple question. I will present a series of case studies to my colleagues and then I will ask my question again--colleagues, do we have here one victim, or two? We start with the story of Christina and Ashley Nicole Alberts. We have a chart which presents a heartbreaking picture. I think it needs to be shown to better tell the story. This is a gut-wrenching picture of Christina and Ashley Nicole Alberts (you can see them there in the coffin). It is a difficult picture. This body needs to know what the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is about--the victim. I ask my colleagues to bear in mind that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act states there are two victims--there are two victims in this picture. The amendment we are considering right now, the Feinstein amendment, says there is only one victim--one victim in this picture. I simply ask my colleagues to make that determination. Is there one victim or are there two in this picture? Here is the story. In December 1998, Christina was nearly 9 months pregnant. Ashley was looking forward to life with her soon-to-be-born daughter whom she could definitely feel moving, alive and well, and growing in her womb. When she found out she was going to have a girl, she decided to name her Ashley Nicole. However, this earthly life--which all of us living and breathing here today enjoy--tragically came to a screeching halt for Christina and Nicole on December 12, 1998. On that day, some thugs were going around robbing homes for money. The thugs entered the house where Christina was. Christina recognized one of them, and because she recognized one of them, it cost her and her baby Ashley Nicole their lives. Christina was beaten. Can you imagine someone beating a woman in the ninth month of her pregnancy? Yet they did. I think of my own family and my own wife if she were in that type of situation. Christina was then forced to kneel, and she was executed--shot in the head. Once the trigger had been pulled, releasing the bullet that abruptly ended her life, one might think at least the physical pain from the crime was over for Ashley Nicole. It was not. When her mother's heart stopped, her inutero child does not die instantly. Instead, the inutero baby dies slower. When the mother's heart stops beating, the baby begins to suffocate for lack of oxygen. The baby can feel. The baby is in pain. At 4 minutes, the baby begins to suffer severe neurological damage. The process gets worse. Ashley Nicole would have finally died 15 minutes after her mother Christina had been shot and killed. Look at this photo again of Christina and Ashley in the coffin. Is there one victim? Or are there two? Who will say there is only one victim in this coffin? Yet this substitute amendment we are considering will say there is only one victim. What about the family? What about Ashley Nicole's grandparents? What happened to them after the murders? Christina and Ashley Nicole lived in Kanawah County, West Virginia. Her grandmother is here today. In addition to the horrific news of their daughter and granddaughter's murder, they were further traumatized to learn the West Virginia murder statute does not allow the prosecution of an individual for the murder of an unborn child. Do you know what happened in the murder trial for Christina and Ashley's killer? Christina's pregnancy could not even be discussed in court. Any recent photos of Christina shown during the trial could only show facial shots. Why? Because the court said any pictures of Christina in which it would have been obvious she was pregnant would have been prejudiced. I ask my friends from West Virginia to support their constituents, the Alberts, by opposing the Feinstein substitute and voting for passage of unamended Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I have another story to tell--Heather Fliegelman Sargent. In this picture with her mother, as you can see, 20-year-old Heather was well into her pregnancy. Heather was 8 months pregnant with her son Jonah. I also point out that her mother and the grandmother of Jonah are here with us today in the lobby, if people should care to visit with her. Sadly, both the lives of Heather and Jonah were taken in January 2003, over a year ago. Heather was found dead with multiple stab wounds in her home in Bangor, ME. Her husband Roscoe Sargent was tried on one--only one--count of murder. The Bangor Daily News reported on January 10, 2003: ``That Heather Sargent was pregnant did not affect the charges brought against her husband . . . No matter how advanced the pregnancy, Maine's homicide law does not apply to unborn fetuses.'' But listen to this. Another news story on that same day, January 2, 2003, tells us that ``Police also reportedly found several dead cats at home. Whoever killed the cats faces charges under the State's animal welfare act, while no charges will stem from the death of the unborn baby.'' Is it even remotely rational to charge someone with the death of these cats and yet not charge them with the death of a viable 8-month- old baby? As we move to the next chart in the same case, I want to pause for a moment and urge caution for any parents who may be watching with young children present. They may not want to view this. It is a serious matter, and these are real life stories that people need to hear. But, nonetheless, they are difficult. I would simply ask as we move to the next chart, are we looking at one victim or two? On the left in the chart is Heather before she was stabbed to death, and on the right is Jonah who also died in the attack. The grandmother of Jonah is here with us today. I hope Senators will hear the pleas of their constituents--the family of Heather and Jonah who are here in the Senate today watching, as I noted. Please, in their behalf, on behalf of Heather and Jonah, oppose this substitute that says there is only one victim. The Feinstein substitute would increase penalties for Federal crimes in which a pregnant woman is a victim, but it would also write into Federal law the doctrine that such a crime has only a single victim. If we pass this Feinstein amendment, and a mother survives such an attack, she will be told, ``We can prosecute your attacker for assault but not for murder--the law says nobody died.'' This cannot and should not be. On behalf of Heather and Jonah, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Feinstein substitute and support the underlying bill un-amended. I have another story to tell. This picture shows the late Ashley Lyons of Kentucky. Ashley was killed when she was 21 weeks pregnant with her son Landon, in January of this year--just 3 months ago. Her parents and Landon's grandparents are here today. They are in the lobby, if anybody would care to meet with them. I have met personally with them. They are very passionate about this case and about what took place. If Ashley and her son Landon were with us today, they would be planning for Landon's birth in just a little over a month. I have a staff member who is expecting a child in a little over a month, so this really hits home. Rather than telling the story of Ashley and Landon myself,I would like to read their story as it was written by the mother and grandmother, Mrs. Carol Lyons. As I noted, Mrs. Carol Lyons is with us here today, along with her husband Buford. It was their efforts that helped get an unborn victims law passed in Kentucky--too late for their daughter and grandson, but not too late for other victims. I will read you this story which actually quotes Ashley, as written by her mother, the grandmother of Landon. It was written February 25, 2004. I note parenthetically that if this crime had happened on a military base where only Federal law applies, there would be only one victim-- not two--unlike California law, which acknowledges two victims of violence. Ashley's mother writes: On January 7, I was seeing my grandson, Landon, for the first time. Landon was moving around in an ultrasound image on the TV screen in our home in Stomping Ground, Kentucky. We could clearly see Landon's little heart beating. We could see his little face. Just a few hours later, Ashley and Landon were both dead. They were found murdered--shot to death in a local park. Later, I found a journal that Ashley had been writing to her baby. Right at the beginning, when she was only two months pregnant, she wrote how she had rejected advice to get an abortion. Clearly Ashley made a choice to have a child. She wrote in her journal: ``I couldn't do that. I already loved you.'' Ashley also wrote: ``You are the child I have always dreamed about. I know that it will be a long time before I meet you, but I can't wait to hold you for the first time. I love you more everyday. Always, Mommy.'' Yes, the killer took two lives--each with a long, bright future ahead. It is heartless and cruel to say that the law must pretend this is not so, in order to preserve ``choice'' on abortion. Ashley had made her choice--and she chose life. This, again, is her mother Carol speaking. Our case has been widely reported in Kentucky. In response, both houses of the legislature passed a strong fetal homicide bill, and on January 20th, Governor Ernie Fletcher signed it into law. I pray that Congress, too, will soon pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which will allow a criminal to be charged for any harm he does to an unborn child during commission of a Federal or military crime. Of course, laws are not retroactive, so no laws enacted now will allow full justice to be done on Landon's behalf. But they will ensure in the future no mother, grandmother, or other family member will ever again be told that the law is blind to the loss of a child who is unborn but already living and loved. I ask my colleagues to listen again to Ashley's words to her child Landon--both victims, both were murdered: You are the child I have always dreamed about. I know it will be a long time before I meet you, but I can't wait to hold you for the first time. I love you more every day. Always, Mommy. I ask my colleagues, is there one victim, or are there two? Is it one victim or two when Ashley and Landon were murdered? I have another case--unfortunately, there are too many of these cases--that demonstrates why this law needs to be dealt with. Here is a picture of Tracy Marciniak holding her son Zachariah 12 years ago. This is a case from Wisconsin. We all have precious baby photos. I have five children, and I love each of them and have precious photos. This should be a happy baby photo, but if you look closely, you will see it is not. You can see it by the look on Tracy's case, by the coffin behind her, and by the funeral flowers. Tracy's son Zachariah is dead and she, Tracy, survived, and is here today. If people would like to visit with her, she is in the lobby. In 1992, in Wisconsin, Tracy was terribly beaten. She lived and her son Zachariah died. I have spoken with Tracy, and I have heard how the loss of Zachariah hurts her to this very day. Regrettably, justice was not served. Was Tracy and Zachariah's assailant charged with the murder of Zachariah? No. In Wisconsin, law enforcement authorities told Tracy's family they could only charge the attacker with assault; in the eyes of the law, no one died. What is more, Tracy's attacker says he would not have attacked her if he could have been charged with murder. Let me state that again: If Tracy's attacker had known he could have been charged with murder, he would not have attacked her. I would like to read a portion of Tracy's July 8, 2003, testimony in front of the House Judiciary subcommittee, where she has spoken about this case before. This is Tracy Marciniak's statement: I respectfully ask that the members of the subcommittee examine the photograph that you see before you. In this photo, I am holding the body of my son, Zachariah Nathaniel. Often, when people see the photo for the first time, it takes a moment for them to realize that Zachariah is not peacefully sleeping. Zachariah was dead in this photograph. This photo was taken at Zachariah's funeral. I carried Zachariah in my womb for almost nine full months. He was killed in my womb only five days from his delivery date. The first time I ever held him in my arms, he was already dead. This photo shows the second time I held him--it was the last time. There is no way I could really tell you about the pain I feel when I visit my son's grave site in Milwaukee, and at other times, thinking of all we missed together. But that pain was greater because the man who killed Zachariah got away with murder. I know that some lawmakers in some groups insist there is no such thing as an unborn victim, and that crimes like this have only a single victim--but that is callous and it is wrong. Please don't tell me that my son was not a real victim of a real crime. We were both victims, but only I survived. Zachariah's delivery date was to be February 13, 1992. But on the night of February 8, my own husband brutally attacked me in my home in Milwaukee. He held me against a couch by my hair. He knew that I very much wanted my son. He punched me very hard, twice, in the abdomen. Then he refused to call for help, and prevented me from calling. After about 15 minutes of my screaming in pain that I needed help, he finally went to a bar and from there called for help. I and Zachariah were rushed by ambulance to the hospital, where Zachariah was delivered by emergency Caesarean section. My son was dead. The physicians said he had bled to death inside me because of blunt-force trauma. My own injuries were life-threatening. I nearly died. I spent three weeks in the hospital. During the time I was struggling to survive, the legal authorities came and they spoke to my sister. They told her something that she found incredible. They told her that in the eyes of Wisconsin law, nobody had died on the night of February 8. Later this information was passed on to me. I was told that in the eyes of the law, no murder had occurred. I was devastated. My life already seemed destroyed by the loss of my son. But there was so much additional pain because the law was blind to what had really happened. The law, which I had been raised to believe was based on justice, was telling me that Zachariah had not really been murdered. Before his trial, my attacker said on a TV program that he would never have hit me if he had thought he could be charged with killing an unborn baby. My family and I looked for somebody who would help us reform the law so that no such injustice would occur in our state in the future. We found only one group that was willing to help, Wisconsin Right to Life. They never asked me my opinion on abortion or on any other issue. They simply worked with me, and other surviving family members of unborn victims, to reform the law. It took years. Again and again I told my story to state lawmakers and pleaded with them, as I now plead with you, to correct this injustice in our criminal justice system. Finally, on June 16, 1998, Governor Tommy Thompson signed the fetal homicide law. This means it will never again be necessary for state authorities in Wisconsin to tell a grieving mother, who has lost her baby, that nobody really died. Under this law, an unborn child is recognized as a legal crime victim, just like any other member of the human race. Of course, the state still has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, which is as it should be. But when this bill was under consideration in the legislature, it was actually shown to some of the former jury members in our case, and they said if that had been the law at the time I was attacked, they would have had no problem convicting my attacker under it. Next, I present a statement from Ms. Shiwona Pace of Arkansas. Ms. Pace suffered a horrible tragedy. She was severely beaten by several attackers, and as a direct result, her baby, whom she had named Heaven, died. Fortunately, Arkansas passed an unborn victims of violence law prior to the crime committed by Ms. Pace's assailants. Under the Feinstein amendment, Ms. Pace's assailants would not have even committed a crime, other than assault. Please listen to her plea to legislators. My name is Shiwona Pace. On August 26, 1999, I was a 23- year-old college student in Little Rock. I was the mother of two--my five-year-old son, and an unborn baby girl named Heaven Lashay. August 26 was one day before my predicted full-term delivery date. But that night, three men brutally murdered my unborn baby daughter. I curled up face down on the floor, crying, begging for them to stop beating me. But they did not stop. One shouted, ``F*** you! Your baby is dying tonight!'' They choked me, punched me, hit me in the face with a gun. They kicked me again and again in the abdomen. After about thirty minutes, they left me sobbing there on the floor. At the hospital, they found that Heaven had died in my womb. She was a perfect baby, almost seven pounds. The assailants were arrested. They had been hired by Erik Bullock, my former boyfriend. He paid them $400 to kill little Heaven Lashay. Only a month before, a new state law took effect that recognized unborn children as crime victims. If that law had not been enacted, Erik Bullock would have been prosecuted only for the assault on me, but not for the death of my baby. But thanks to the state law, Bullock was also convicted for his role in killing my baby. The men who attacked me are also being prosecuted for what they did to Heaven. I tell my story now for one reason: If this same attack occurred today within a federal jurisdiction, the men who killed my baby would be prosecuted only for assault. That is why I urge members of Congress to support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which would recognize unborn children as victims under 68 federal laws dealing with crimes of violence. I was dismayed to learn that some members of Congress oppose this bill, and insist on adoption of a radically different [version] that says that such crimes only have one victim--the pregnant women. This is not the same as what would happen under the Feinstein amendment. They are wrong. On the night of August 26, 1999, there were two victims. I lived--but my daughter died. I lost a child, and my son lost the baby sister he had always wanted--but little Heaven lost her life. It seems to me that any congressman who votes for the ``one-victim'' amendment is really saying that nobody died that night. And that is a lie. Then we have the well-known case of Laci and Conner Peterson in California that has been spoken of previously. This is a statement from Sharon Rocha, Laci Peterson's mother, and Conner Peterson's grandmother. She has spoken out often on this issue. This is a California case that is well known and has probably done as much to bring this up today on this floor as anything else we have examined. This is from Sharon Rocha's statement. I will read a portion of it: As you know, Laci and Conner were cruelly murdered. In this difficult time, my family is grateful that under California law the murders of Laci and Conner can both be prosecuted. But for the families of many other murder victims across the country, there can be no such comfort. Federal law does not recognize that these crimes have two victims. So California law does recognize it. When I became aware that Congresswoman Melissa Hart was working on a bill to correct this problem, I contacted her to express my support. I asked her to name it ``Laci and Conner's Law'' in memory of my daughter and grandson. I am grateful to Congresswoman Hart, the House leadership, and the many congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats, who have agreed to support this common-sense legislation. I thank President Bush for his willingness to sign it into law. The House of Representatives has shown their support for this law by approving it twice thus far, but the Senate has consistently failed to act. I call on every Senator to vote for this bill, so that the law will do justice for families of murder victims--families like mine. It is time for the Senate to stand up for innocent victims like Conner. These are real stories. They are tough stories. But they speak to the situation in this country today. This type of crime happens all too frequently. Unfortunately, there are more cases that we could mention. I wanted to put a real face on this issue for my colleagues, and to ask them this simple question when they vote on the Feinstein substitute: How many victims are there? Is it one victim, or are there two? That is the real decision in regard to this amendment. I urge a vote against the Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Ohio, I yield myself such time as I might consume on his side.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2859

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I recognize the significant scientific accomplishments of the Hubble Space Telescope. Space telescopes such as Hubble are an important part of our future space program and the President's vision for revitalized human exploration of space. Several months ago NASA made a decision to forego planned Space Shuttle servicing missions for the Hubble Space Telescope. This is a difficult and complicated issue and technical experts reasonably differ on the best approach. I believe that NASA might benefit from the counsel of the best experts the nation can muster inside and outside of the Government. Correspondingly, I've joined my colleague Senator Mikulski in urging NASA to sponsor a comprehensive study on the full range of options and risks associated with various approaches for maintaining the Hubble Space Telescope and its capabilities. I would also hope that this study would include imaginative new concepts for robotic servicing. As we fulfill the promise of space exploration the President has outlined, the enormous success of the Hubble Space Telescope and other NASA successes such as the recent Mars Rover Program provide us with a sound basis upon which to build. NASA can count on my continued support of their endeavors to provide unlimited opportunity to future generations of Americans.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa for the bill he has put forward, the JOBS bill. I want to take a few minutes to talk to my colleagues about the impact of this bill, if we can get it through. I am very disappointed we were not successful on the cloture motion. In relation to the impact on jobs, particularly in rural areas, such as in some of the areas of my State of Kansas, the chairman has done a masterful job of crafting a jobs bill that is a true jobs bill. It is going to create jobs. Let me give you a couple examples that will have a direct impact in a State such as mine in the manufacturing sector. That is the area in which we are trying to create jobs. One of them is in the aircraft industry. He extends the service rules on bonus depreciation for 1 year. That is to say, if the product is put in service a year later, we are going to still be able to use the bonus depreciation. You may say: Well, big deal that you can do that. In the business of aircraft manufacturing you need some time. It takes some time to build the aircraft. It takes time to order up all the subparts. My aircraft industry people--which fan out from Wichita to several surrounding States--say by putting in a bonus depreciation last year, they tripled the level of sales they had prior to that. And by extending the bonus depreciation time period of putting the airplane actually into service, we are going to extend that life expectancy for us to get increasing aircraft sales. They say this is a must thing for them to increase and to continue the trajectory back into job creation in aircraft manufacturing. The chairman put this in. There is a zero cost associated with it in the bill. Absolutely, without this we lose manufacturing jobs in Wichita and the surrounding communities that reach out to several surrounding States. It is in the bill. We have to have this or we lose jobs. The other thing the chairman did that was magnificent that affects about 12 States in particular--this is going to be a key job creator in an area of the country where it has been tough to create jobs--has to do with counties that have been losing population. While the overall country has grown in population, and while my State of Kansas has grown in population, half of the counties in my State have lost population over the last 20 years. As we have mechanized in agriculture, as agriculture has concentrated in larger farms, larger agribusiness enterprises, we have lost job opportunity, we have lost people in agriculture--the field I came up in, the field my parents and one of my brothers still farm in. But we have lost jobs in half of the counties, lost population in half of the counties in Kansas. The chairman included in this JOBS amendment for the first time in recent history, if not the first time ever, some opportunities to be able to create jobs and economic incentives for counties that have been losing population. Key States that benefit are North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, States that sweep throughout the Middle West. The Great Plains area has many counties that have lost population. What did the chairman do? He kindly put in a provision we have started and put forward. We have a bipartisan bill called the New Homestead Act, creating economic incentives for people to move into areas that have been depopulated, and saying that a county, if it qualifies, gets this economic incentive. To qualify, you had to have lost 10 percent of your population over the last 20 years. The New Homestead Act is a bipartisan bill we have been pushing for some period of time. The chairman included the initial provision of a rural investment tax credit in the managers' amendment, as well as a qualified rural small business investment credit. What would this do? These sections provide a credit with a present value of 70 percent of qualified expenditures on newly constructed rural investment buildings, and a 30-percent tax credit for expenditures on starting or expanding a business. These are in counties that have lost 10 percent of their population over the last 20 years. I can tell you, as I have traveled across Kansas, as I have gone into those counties that have seen, year after year, population decline; that have seen, year after year, declines in their K through 12 public education schools; that have seen, year after year, younger people moving out saying: I would love to live here but there are no jobs; that have seen, year after year, people saying: Well, I guess that is the trend we are in--when they look at these economic opportunities to locate in a place that has been depopulating, they are saying now that is something that will work, that is something that is going to create some opportunity, some hope, jobs, and, yes, people moving back into these counties that have lost so much population throughout the High Plains. This is a first step. It is not everything I wanted, but the chairman put it in the managers' amendment. This will create jobs and opportunities in some of the toughest areas in the country to create those jobs and opportunities--places that have been losing population, in highly rural areas, far away from urban areas, in places where we have not been able to put forward a decent set of proposals of something that is going to work. We have for years put in place employees to try to create rural opportunities, to encourage people to move back to rural areas. We have tried to do a lot of different things. When I was secretary of agriculture in Kansas, I even worked with a group just to document and to list all of the rural development programs that are available to people in Kansas. We had a book that was a half inch thick of State and Federal programs that are targeted at rural development and creating rural jobs. As we created all of those programs, we have still continued to see the population decline and the job opportunities decline and communities decline. People say: What are we going to do? What we put forward was a bipartisan bill to create economic incentives such as we used in urban areas. When we were seeing the urban cores of our country losing population, losing economic vitality, we said, let's create economic opportunity. We did it in Washington, DC. We put forward a list: OK, we will have an enterprise zone, a tax credit situation in Washington, DC. We put in a $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers to get people to move back into the area. We put together a series of economic incentives, and these have worked. So for all those years we created these rural development programs, the thing we were not listening to was: How did people locate in the High Plains in the first place? The Homestead Act. Why did they go there? Economic opportunity. If I go out to this region, and I settle on 160 acres, and I stay there for 5 years, it is mine. We had millions of people move out to do that. The New Homestead Act is trying to model that same issue saying, what is the answer? It is not a Government recruitment program. It is creating a series of economic incentives. And that has worked in our urban cores. It has worked in the rural areas before. It will work here again. The chairman has it in his mark. Unfortunately, we are not getting this bill to the floor. We are not being able to vote on the JOBS bill. This has the starting edge of the opportunity to create jobs and economic vitality in a region of the country where we have had the most difficulty doing this. I applaud the chairman for putting this in the bill in the managers' amendment. It is a start. We want more economic incentives in this area. It will create jobs and opportunities. We have to get this up to vote on it, to create these opportunities. I am most disappointed we were not able to get cloture through so we could get a chance to propel this issue forward. I say to my colleagues who voted against cloture, at some point in time we are going to have to deal with this issue, with this tax bill. We are being hit by a trade case--everybody knows about this--from Europe that we have lost. We have to make these changes. At some point in time either the tariff against our goods is going to rise, rise, rise, and we are going to lose market, market, market in the process, or we are going to pass this bill. So we are going to have to pass this bill. Why not do it now when we can create the incentives, we can create the jobs and the opportunities, do things such as a portion of the New Homestead Act that helps create these opportunities in some of the most difficult areas to create jobs and economic vitality and do it now and early when we can get some advantage out of moving this forward? I don't understand why we would want to hurt that. I want to back up to an earlier point I made. I want to press this further. Going into 9/11, the aircraft production industry, the construction industry, the people who make aircraft--Cessna, Bombardier, Learjet, Raytheon, Boeing, the large commercial airliners-- they were going into a soft marketplace because the recession was starting in the country prior to 9/11. Their orders were tailing down at that point. They are frequently a leading economic indicator of what is happening. As corporate profits were going down, a lot of their orders were going down. As the airline industry was not making money, the aircraft purchases, the orders that were coming to Boeing were going down. Then we had 9/11, and it was a brick wall. It fell. Business in aircraft plummeted at that point in time. What we saw in the aircraft manufacturing industry was a precipitous fall off of employment of 30 percent across the board. Not quite everybody, but virtually across the board had big layoffs. I was meeting with the industry and asking what can we do. And they were saying: We have to get the economy moving forward again. We need to make sure these jobs don't move overseas because when we have a difficult situation, there are always people around the world trying to get aircraft manufacturing jobs. They are the highest wage, highest skilled manufacturing jobs in the country. A lot of places want them. They were saying: We need to work to make sure we have enough research dollars getting out the next wave of products so when the industry turns back up, we will be there with the new products that are better, that fit the needs of our customers more. So we put more money in research. And we did that this past year. It was an important thing to do so we don't get somebody else technologically jumping ahead of us and taking the industry over. This last year they said to me that an absolute thing we just have to have now to get the industry to take off is bonus depreciation. With that, we will be able to make airplanes sales. Without it, we will not. We were able to get bonus depreciation on business equipment, which included aircraft used in business and business purposes. True to their point--they have shown me the sales numbers--their sales numbers tripled from the point in time when we put in a bonus depreciation. As people looked at the bottom line of the cost of the aircraft and they figured in that bonus depreciation and it dropped the total expenditure they were going to have to pay, sales soared. It kept them from laying off more people, and it gave some spunk to the industry. That is a great manufacturing industry. That was working and working well. But then they started running into a problem that they were getting the sales, but they had to put the aircraft into service by the end of this year. By the time you place an order and are able to make the aircraft and deliver it, they were hitting timelines they could not make. This is a very complicated piece of machinery. It has to be done exactly right. It takes time. They would get the order, but their production schedule was such that they were not going to be able to get this into service by the end of this year, December 31, 2004. They were pleading with me and Members of this body saying: You have to extend that date of service in a year so we can continue to get these orders in and then be able to manufacture them in time to be able to get them placed and used. They were saying: This is a killer. If you stop this, if you don't extend this bonus depreciation a year for putting the aircraft into service, we are done. We can't take any more orders at this point in time. We cannot get the craft made by the time it has to be in service to qualify for the bonus depreciation. We have to have it or else you are going to kill the recovery taking place in the aircraft manufacturing industry. I talked with the chairman a number of times. We got it in the managers' amendment. As I noted to my colleagues, it was scored at a zero for its fiscal impact on tax receipts, which is a great score. It doesn't have an impact on our budgetary situation or on our budget deficit. It only has a positive impact on employment. This is critical for manufacturing jobs in America. Let me give you one example of this creation of jobs. Consider the example of Cessna, a great aircraft manufacturing company. It employs a significant number of Kansans in Wichita and the surrounding region. For each plane that Cessna builds, they create 21 manufacturing jobs. Using the Department of Labor aerospace workforce multiplier of three, each aerospace job creates three indirect supplier support jobs. That means for every aircraft that Cessna sells and builds, 63 jobs outside of Cessna are created on top of the 21 inside. This is all associated directly with bonus depreciation that is extended in this bill. You have a series of direct high-wage, high-skilled manufacturing jobs you are going to lose if we don't pass this bill. Extending this placed-in-service date for bonus depreciation, which is what the substitute amendment does, means that equipment that has a longer placed-in-service period will continue to thrive and help provide and maintain jobs. We are just at springtime. We are just at the phase where this is starting to take off. And if you don't extend that period of time when it can be placed into service, you kill it before it can really do the good it needs to. Everybody in this body and in this country is concerned about jobs, outsourcing or, rather, overseas migration of jobs. Here is a classic manufacturing job that overseas countries are seeking to take from us. And we have the direct opportunity to create and keep those jobs here, but we have to pass this bill. We have to get it through. It will have a direct impact on this. We have the numbers of what it has done. If we don't pass the bill, it doesn't happen. We don't get these sales of aircraft. We don't create these manufacturing jobs. They end up moving, if other places get established in this aircraft manufacturing business and they seek to do that, to Japan, Taiwan, China, Brazil. Other competitors seek to get these high-wage, high-skilled manufacturing jobs out of America and into their countries. We have the bill at hand to help us stop that at zero cost. We have to do this. It is ridiculous for us not to do it. And the sooner, the better, so that more of those sales can be made. If you put this bill off 3 months, and we still have to operate--this aircraft has to be placed into service by the end of this year, anybody trying to sell a business aircraft has to go out to people and say: You can order it and we will sell it to you now, and we hope bonus depreciation will apply to you. But we can't guarantee that today because the Senate has not acted. If the Senate acts, yes, we can get the aircraft manufactured. And you will have it in time with bonus depreciation. But unless the Senate acts, we can't sell this based upon bonus depreciation because we can't get the craft made. If you do this now and make this change in this tax provision, they can start selling aircraft again. If you don't do it now, they have to go out to people and say: We think we will get this done. We hope we will get it done. But you can't bank on it. This aircraft, if you have bonus depreciation, it is at X price, but if you don't, it is much higher. What is it going to do to sales? You are going to freeze a lot of sales. If you freeze sales, you freeze jobs. You have to make the sale to be able to manufacture this aircraft. Bonus depreciation will allow companies to depreciate an additional 50 percent of their new equipment in the first year of ownership. That was a key economic jobs growth component of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of last year. However, to qualify for bonus depreciation, the equipment must be purchased and placed in service before the end of this year. This is problematic for expensive equipment that takes a long time to manufacture, such as general aviation aircraft. We have to get this done. This is a direct jobs issue in my State, in this region. Here is a classic example of what it does. I urge my colleagues who voted against cloture, for whatever reason, to reconsider it based on what is happening in their States and also based on these specific manufacturing jobs in the aircraft industry, or if they are one of the 19 States that have a substantial area of their State that has lost population in the rural areas over the last 20 years. My State has lost 50 percent. Some States in the country have lost up to 80 to 90 percent of their counties. If you are a State in that area, you would look at the provision that is the starting edge of this new Homestead Act--initial tax benefits--and try to attract capital, rural investment tax credit, into these declining population areas and say: I am going to have to pass this bill anyway because of the tariff issue with the European Union. Here is a provision that helps my region--and the sooner the better--on both the tariff issue dealing with Europe and the rural development issue. Let's do it now, get it passed. I know we are in a political season and people jockey politically. But we should not mess with this bill. It meets the need everybody has been citing--the need for jobs and job creation. We should not mess around with this bill. There are plenty of other bills that one could hold up, for whatever political issue, and there are legitimate differences between the parties. This is not one that we can afford to do it on. It has a penalty dealing with Europeans, and it has a bonus dealing with us. We need to get this through now. Mr. President, with that, I appreciate the opportunity to address these items as it affects my State. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the great story of Kansas can be summed up in the State motto, ``Ad Astra per Aspera,'' to the stars through difficulties. Though only a short phrase comprised of four words, the meaning and passion behind the Kansas State motto are as profound as they are descriptive of a State that though smaller than some, was a catalyst for racial equality in this Nation. From inception, Kansas was born in controversy--a controversy that helped to shape a Nation and end the egregious practice of chattel slavery that brutalized an entire race of individuals in this country. I cannot think of a more noble or more important contribution provided to our Nation--through arguably it was one of the most turbulent and darkest hours of our history. Without this struggle however, the battle to end persecution and transform our country into a symbol of freedom and democracy throughout the world would not have been realized. This year marks the sesquicentennial of the signing of the Kansas- Nebraska bill which repealed the Missouri compromise, allowed States to enter into the Union with or without slavery. This piece of legislation, which was passed in May 1854, set the stage for what is now referred to as, ``Bleeding Kansas.'' During this time, our State, then a territory, was thrown into chaos with Kansans fighting passionately to ensure that the territory would enter the Union as a free State and not condone or legalize slavery in any capacity. At the end of a very difficult and bloody struggle, Kansas entered the Union as a free State and helped to spark the issue of slavery on a national level. However, Kansas' contributions to the realization of freedom in this Nation did not stop with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Keeping true to the motto, ``to the stars through difficulties.'' Kansas opened up her arms to a newly freed people after the Civil War ended. Many African Americans looked to Kansas for solace and prosperity when the South was still an uncertain place. Perhaps one of the best examples of Ad Astra per Aspera was the founding of a town in Kansas by African Americans coming to our State to begin their life of freedom and prosperity. Founded in 1877, Nicodemus, which was named after a legendary slave who purchased his freedom, is the most recognized historically black town in Kansas. Nicodemus was established by a group of colonists from Lexington, KY and grew to a population of 600 by 1879. However, Nicodemus is not the only Kansas contribution that shaped a more tolerant Nation. Kansas was also one of the first States to house an African American military regiment in the 1800s, the Buffalo Soldiers. The Buffalo Soldiers were, and still are, considered one of the most distinguished and revered African American military regiments in our Nation's history. One of those regiments, the 10th Cavalry, was stationed at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In July 1866, Congress passed legislation establishing two cavalry and four infantry regiments that were to be solely comprised of African Americans. The mounted regiments were the 9th and 10th Cavalries, soon nicknamed ``Buffalo Soldiers'' by the Cheyenne and Comanche tribes. Lt. Henry O. Flipper, the first African American to graduate from the United States Military Academy in 1877 and commanded the 10th Calvary unit where he proved that African Americans possessed the quality of military leadership. Until the early 1890s, the Buffalo Soldiers constituted 20 percent of all cavalry forces on the American frontier. Their invaluable service on the western frontier still remains one of the most exemplary services performed by a regiment in the U.S. Army. These are just a few examples of why I am pleased to join with my colleague from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, today and introduce the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act, which will not only serve to educate Kansans but the Nation on the important contributions--and in many cases the sacrifices--made in order to establish this proud State. The creation of this heritage area will ensure that this legacy is not only commemorated but celebrated on a national level. Specifically, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act will designate 24 counties in Kansas as the ``Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area.'' Each of these counties will be eligible to apply for the heritage area grants administered by the National Park Service. The heritage area will add to local economies within the State by increasing tourism and will encourage collaboration between interests of diverse units of government, businesses, tourism officials, private property owners, and nonprofit groups within the heritage area. Finally, the bill protects private property owners by requiring that they provide in writing consent to be included in any request before they are eligible to receive Federal funds from the heritage area. The bill also authorizes $10,000,000.00 over a 10 year period to carry out this act and states that no more than $1,000,000.00 may be appropriated to the heritage area for any fiscal year. Kansas has much to be proud of in its history and it is vital that this history be shared on a national level. By establishing the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area, we will ensure that this magnificent legacy lives on and serves as a stirring reminder of the sacrifices and triumphs that created this Nation--a Nation united in freedom for all people. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the great story of Kansas can be summed up in the State motto, ``Ad Astra per Aspera,'' to the stars through difficulties. Though only a short phrase comprised of four words, the meaning and passion behind the Kansas State motto are as profound as they are descriptive of a State that though smaller than some, was a catalyst for racial equality in this Nation. From inception, Kansas was born in controversy--a controversy that helped to shape a Nation and end the egregious practice of chattel slavery that brutalized an entire race of individuals in this country. I cannot think of a more noble or more important contribution provided to our Nation--through arguably it was one of the most turbulent and darkest hours of our history. Without this struggle however, the battle to end persecution and transform our country into a symbol of freedom and democracy throughout the world would not have been realized. This year marks the sesquicentennial of the signing of the Kansas- Nebraska bill which repealed the Missouri compromise, allowed States to enter into the Union with or without slavery. This piece of legislation, which was passed in May 1854, set the stage for what is now referred to as, ``Bleeding Kansas.'' During this time, our State, then a territory, was thrown into chaos with Kansans fighting passionately to ensure that the territory would enter the Union as a free State and not condone or legalize slavery in any capacity. At the end of a very difficult and bloody struggle, Kansas entered the Union as a free State and helped to spark the issue of slavery on a national level. However, Kansas' contributions to the realization of freedom in this Nation did not stop with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Keeping true to the motto, ``to the stars through difficulties.'' Kansas opened up her arms to a newly freed people after the Civil War ended. Many African Americans looked to Kansas for solace and prosperity when the South was still an uncertain place. Perhaps one of the best examples of Ad Astra per Aspera was the founding of a town in Kansas by African Americans coming to our State to begin their life of freedom and prosperity. Founded in 1877, Nicodemus, which was named after a legendary slave who purchased his freedom, is the most recognized historically black town in Kansas. Nicodemus was established by a group of colonists from Lexington, KY and grew to a population of 600 by 1879. However, Nicodemus is not the only Kansas contribution that shaped a more tolerant Nation. Kansas was also one of the first States to house an African American military regiment in the 1800s, the Buffalo Soldiers. The Buffalo Soldiers were, and still are, considered one of the most distinguished and revered African American military regiments in our Nation's history. One of those regiments, the 10th Cavalry, was stationed at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In July 1866, Congress passed legislation establishing two cavalry and four infantry regiments that were to be solely comprised of African Americans. The mounted regiments were the 9th and 10th Cavalries, soon nicknamed ``Buffalo Soldiers'' by the Cheyenne and Comanche tribes. Lt. Henry O. Flipper, the first African American to graduate from the United States Military Academy in 1877 and commanded the 10th Calvary unit where he proved that African Americans possessed the quality of military leadership. Until the early 1890s, the Buffalo Soldiers constituted 20 percent of all cavalry forces on the American frontier. Their invaluable service on the western frontier still remains one of the most exemplary services performed by a regiment in the U.S. Army. These are just a few examples of why I am pleased to join with my colleague from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, today and introduce the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act, which will not only serve to educate Kansans but the Nation on the important contributions--and in many cases the sacrifices--made in order to establish this proud State. The creation of this heritage area will ensure that this legacy is not only commemorated but celebrated on a national level. Specifically, the Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area Act will designate 24 counties in Kansas as the ``Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area.'' Each of these counties will be eligible to apply for the heritage area grants administered by the National Park Service. The heritage area will add to local economies within the State by increasing tourism and will encourage collaboration between interests of diverse units of government, businesses, tourism officials, private property owners, and nonprofit groups within the heritage area. Finally, the bill protects private property owners by requiring that they provide in writing consent to be included in any request before they are eligible to receive Federal funds from the heritage area. The bill also authorizes $10,000,000.00 over a 10 year period to carry out this act and states that no more than $1,000,000.00 may be appropriated to the heritage area for any fiscal year. Kansas has much to be proud of in its history and it is vital that this history be shared on a national level. By establishing the Bleeding Kansas and the Enduring Struggle for Freedom National Heritage Area, we will ensure that this magnificent legacy lives on and serves as a stirring reminder of the sacrifices and triumphs that created this Nation--a Nation united in freedom for all people. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, March 10 has been known around the world as ``Tibetan Uprising Day.'' Today, as Tibetans remember those who died resisting Chinese occupation, we too should reflect on the struggles that have faced Tibet since that fateful day 45 years ago. The events of that day, followed by over four decades of struggle by the Tibetan people, is a plight that has become known to many around the world. After Chinese invasion in 1949 and despite the 1951 Seventeen Point Agreement forced upon the Tibetans by the Chinese Government, it was clear by 1958 that they had no intention of securing the preservation of Tibetan autonomy and institutions. By March 10, 1959 so many Tibetans feared for the Dalai Lama's life that they surrounded his compound as a means of protection and began protesting Chinese occupation. Only seven days later the Dalai Lama escaped to India fearing for the lives of his vigilant people. After the crowds refused orders to leave the compound and unaware of the Dalai Lama's escape, the People's Liberation Army launched an attack killing thousands of innocent civilians. It is estimated that 87,000 Tibetans were killed, arrested or deported to labor camps during the uprising. Many attempted escaping the communist persecution to India, but only a small percentage actually survived the difficult conditions. The United States has long supported the Tibetan right to self- determination and has declared Tibet to be an occupied territory. In 2000 this very body passed a resolution recognizing March 10 as Tibetan Uprising Day. In fact, the United States has supported the Dalai Lama's commitment to a dialogue and has commended him for his 1989 Nobel Peace Prize recognizing his efforts to work for self-determination through non-violent means. In the Dalai Lama's statement today he said, and I quote, My hope is that this year may see a significant breakthrough in our relations with the Chinese Government. As in 1954, so also today, I am determined to leave no stone unturned for seeking a mutually beneficial solution that will address both Chinese concerns as well as achieve for the Tibetan people a life of freedom, peace and dignity. I, like the Dalai Lama, hope that this year will be a breakthrough year for the Tibetan cause. On the eve of the 60th Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, let us not forget or neglect the plight of Tibetans who have struggled for too long. I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of the Dalai Lama be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to report the success of a bipartisan effort in which Senators, Members of the House, their key staff aides and a broad variety of religious and human rights groups have engaged. This effort has produced a greatly strengthened Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act which has passed the House, and which it is my honor to bring to the Senate floor. I am pleased to note that my colleague, the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, has joined me in cosponsoring this important legislation. The act will greatly strengthen America's hand in combating the slavery issue and the women's issue of our time--the annual trafficking of as many as 2 million women and children into sex and slave bondage. As such, this act will give needed tools to President Bush, and to all future Presidents, to take on the world's trafficking mafias and to protect the traffickers' victims. It will thus also greatly facilitate the pledge made by President Bush in his United Nations speech of September 23 to make the war against trafficking a major commitment of his administration. But I am pleased and deeply honored to bring this bill before my colleagues for yet another reason--one that I know will resonate with every Member of this body. Both in spirit and substance, the measure now before the Senate captures the hopes and the ideals of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, without whose passion and commitment no U.S. anti- trafficking initiative against worldwide sex and slave trafficking would have been possible. It is one of my greatest sources of satisfaction and fulfillment as a member of this body to have worked with Paul and with Sheila to sponsor the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. In doing so, I and others were regularly inspired by these two friends to go the extra mile for the bill. After our first Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the bill, Paul remarked that the victims who testified on behalf of the bill had produced his most moving experience as a Senator. This says much about the man Paul was, and about the manner in which his and Sheila's priorities were always directed on behalf of abused, vulnerable, and powerless victims. We honor Paul and Shelia today by taking up this bill. As pleased as they would be by that gesture, it would be a much more meaningful tribute if we are able to pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, for there are a number of vital, strengthening provisions in the act that will greatly improve the fight against trafficking. First, the Director of the State Department Office to Combat and Monitor Trafficking in Persons has been raised to ambassadorial rank. This step will elevate the status of the office precisely as it will befit its present incumbent. John Miller, a former House Member known to many of us, is an able, respected, committed, and moral man who is now the Federal Government's chief antislavery and antitrafficking official. He has served as head of the TIP Office with great effectiveness and skill, and I am confident that, as Ambassador Miller, he will continue to do so. Next, the reauthorization act resolves one of the original act's greatest operational failings by ensuring that ``Tier II'' designations--given to counties that neither satisfy the act's high standards for anti-trafficking performance nor clearly merit the act's automatic sanctions--will not become an overbroad catchill category. Under the act, countries on the cusp of Tier III designations will be placed in a Tier II Special Watch List category and their performance in eliminating trafficking will be subject to special scrutiny, and the issuance of a special February 1 progress report and designation evaluation. Thus, the Special Watch List category will maintain strong pressure on countries that may ``almost but not quite'' merit a sanctions-bearing Tier III designation, and will permit clear differentiation between those countries and others placed on Tier II because they have not met the very high standards required for Tier I designations. Three points should be made in connection with the act's Special Watch List category. First, countries otherwise meriting Tier III designation but placed on the Tier II Special Watch List because they have made section (e)(3)(A)(iii)(III) ``commitments . . . to take additional future steps over the next year'' should only avoid Tier III designation under extraordinary circumstances, and only where they are engaged in implementing important and curative steps likely to be rapidly completed. Next, the provisions of section (e)(3)(A)(iii)(II) that authorize Special Watch List treatment of countries that have failed to engage in increased efforts to limit trafficking, prosecute traffickers and protect trafficking victims should not be construed to automatically bar Tier II designations when such efforts have not been made. Finally, to address a matter of legitimate concern to the State Department, the act's mandate that special Feburary 1 reports are to be issued for all Special Watch List countries needs to be understood in terms of our intention that only countries on the Tier II-Tier III cusp are to be the subjects of full and complete reports. Finally, as an overall matter, it should be made clear that failure to be placed on the Tier II Special Watch List will not bar a country from being placed on Tier II in the following year. A third major category of change established by the act involves the establishment of additional ``minimum standards'' criteria for determining appropriate tier designations. First, the reauthorization makes clear that countries may not escape more severe tier designations if they fail to keep meaningful records of what they have done to investigate, prosecute, convict and otherwise monitor their performance in the war against trafficking. Next, the reauthorization establishes an ``appreciable progress'' standard evaluating a country's performance--a standard not intended to exculpate countries still significantly complicit in trafficking activities, but to ensure that countries failing to make measurable progress on a year-to-year basis will be negatively affected. In other words, the reauthorization establishes a bottom-line ``performance standard'' to supplement the original act's ``effort standards.'' Next, and critically, the reauthorization adds a standard based on the percentage of noncitizen trafficking victims. This provision was added to permit the Trafficking Office to employ critical and needed standards to evaluate the antitrafficking performance of countries that have legitimized prostitution. Simply put, this provision both allows and mandates the Trafficking Office to cut through dubious claims by legalizing countries that they are providing meaningful protections to their so-called ``sex workers.'' A final point with regard to the act's minimum standards criteria for determining countries' tier status: It is the clear intent of the Congress, and there should be no mistake about this, that compliance with one or a few of the criteria does not, must not, lead to automatic designation as a Tier I country. Likewise, compliance with one or a few of the criteria shall not, must not, in and of inself shield countries from Tier III designation. The designation process is intended to be one of judgment and balance; and is not formulaic except to the intent of creating a presumption that Tier I status should only be granted to countries that comply with all of the minimum standards criteria. Countries that deliberately and grossly violate ``only some'' of the act's minimum standards criteria may be designated as Tier III countries if this be the judgment of the Trafficking Office--a judgment that should be exercised where there are gross and flagrant failures to comply with other minimum standards criteria. And, as noted, compliance with most of the statute's minimum standards criteria, combined with even modes noncompliance with a remaining few, is not intended to produce automatic Tier I designations. Finally, a few words are in order regarding the Senior Policy Operating Group created by this spring's Omnibus Appropriations Act, which today's reauthorization bill both incorporates and strengthens. While what I am about to say should be clear from the act's language, and will be made explicit in the omnibus appropriations bill which the Senate was unfortunately not able to enact today. While the omnibus bill will take care of some of the issues related to the Senior Policy Operating Group with explicit statutory language, I nonetheless believe it important to make Congress's unmistakable intention clear in today's floor statement. First, it should be clear that Congress established the Senior Policy Operating Group as the body it intended to coordinate all of the Government's antitrafficing grants, policies and grant policies. The Senior Policy Operating Group is comprised of senior political appointees of each of the agencies with trafficking policy responsibilities, and is thus perfectly structured to perform a vital function of monitoring government-wide policy consistency. As presently constituted, the Senior Policy Operating Group is made up of such members as TIP Office Director John Miller, Deputy HHS Secretary Claude Allen, Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy Dan Bryant, Assistant AID Administrator for Eastern Europe and Russia Kent Hill. The committee meets on a regular basis and has produced an extraordinary consensus, government-wide grant policy directive. Thus, the Senior Policy Operating Group, including its chairman, John Miller, can and must perform the function intended for it by Congress: to be the sole and accountable body responsible for coordinating Federal anti-trafficking policies, grants and grant policies. Having said this, it should be noted that the coordinating responsibilities of the Senior Policy Operating Group are not intended to supercede the decisionmaking authority of the constituent members of the Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, to whom operating group members continue to report. Finally, as should be clear from the language of the act, but as is also worth unmistakably establishing, Congress did not intend that the designation of grants and/or policies as being for ``public health'' or like purposes should in any way remove such policies or grants from Senior Policy Operating Group coordinating jurisdiction when those policies or grants deal with the activities of traffickers, brothel owners, pimps or the women and children from whose activities they profit. It is vital for the Federal Government to make consistent and otherwise harmonize its activities to stop the spread of communicable disease and AIDS and its activities designed to prosecute traffickers and eliminate trafficking. Both are vital objectives, and as recent letters form the Moscow Duma have clearly shown, such harmonization is imperatively pressing. Some persons may believe that forming partnerships with traffickers, pimps, and brothel owners in order to ensure use of clean needles and condoms, and doing so in a manner which legitimizes the abusers and enslavers of women and children and shields them from prosecution, is the way to go. They are wrong. Others may believe that public health measurers to protect prostitutes from AIDS always stand in the way of prosecuting the traffickers, pimps and brothel owners who exploit them. They too are wrong. What Congress intends is that a Senior Policy Operating Group comprised of political appointees of all involved agencies is the body responsible for harmonizing the above objectives into a single set of government-wide policies. All this said, I reiterate my belief that the memory and spirit of Paul and Sheila Wellstone are alive in the bill before us, as are the spirits of such activists as the great English Parliamentarian and evangelist William Wilberforce, and the abolitionist leaders of my home State of Kansas who led the 19th century war against the chattel enslavement of African men and women. If we do it right, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act will be seen by generations to come to have met the high standards of William Wilberforce and the Free Kansas activists. If we do it right, we will have created a true monument to the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. This act makes this possible. I urge my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my friends.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the chairman, both for his commitment to this legislaiton and for keeping my staff and me informed throughout the drafting of these provisions. I would note that from the time he first spoke on this issue during consideration of the tax bill the chairman has expressed his intent to, ``ensure that seniors and their caregivers have adequate payment for, and continued access to, important cancer therapies.'' I would ask of the chairman, is it his intent that the changes to outpatient drug reimbursement in Sections 303 and 304 of this bill will not have a significantly adverse impact on access to cancer treatment?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would like to thank my friends for the progress that was made in the conference. The bill passed by the Senate several months ago contained a net cut of $16 billion as a result of Part B drug payment reforms. The reduction in the Conference report before us is now $11.4 billion. However, I would also note to my friend from Iowa that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the discretion to reduce reimbursements further based on studies preformed by the Inspector General of the Department. I would ask my friend if it was the intent of the conferees that any future adjustments to the reimbursements be based on average of prices available to and paid by a wide range of physicians in the marketplace.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2003. The abortion drug RU-486 increases in infamy as its lethal nature continues to reveal itself. As my colleagues may remember, in September, RU-486 claimed two more lives, one of whom was an 18-year- old woman. Holly Patterson, a resident of the San Francisco suburb of Livermore, died from an infection caused by fragments of her baby left in her uterus after she was administered RU-486 at a Planned Parenthood facility. This tragedy underscores the dangerous nature of this drug. The available data from the U.S. trials of RU-486 raises serious questions in my mind as to whether or not this drug truly is ``safe'' for the women who use it. Women who participated in the U.S. trials of this drug were carefully screened, and only those who were in the most physically ideal condition were accepted. Even so, among these physically ideal participants, troubling results emerged. Two-percent of the women participating hemorrhaged; one-percent had to be hospitalized; several others required surgery to stop the bleeding-- some of whom needed blood transfusions; and one woman in Iowa, after losing between one-half to two-thirds of her total blood volume, would have died if she had not undergone emergency surgery. If these side- effects occurred in the most physically ideal candidates, what about those who are not in the physically ideal category? Is this drug ``safe'' for women? I believe medical results suggest it is not. The bill I am introducing today will require the suspension of the Food and Drug Administration's approval of RU-486. Following this suspension, the General Accounting Office is directed to review the process the FDA used to approve RU-486 and to determine whether the FDA followed its own guidelines. If it is determined that the FDA violated its guidelines, RU-486 will be suspended indefinitely. Monty and Helen Patterson, the parents of Holly Patterson, have expressed their firm support for this legislation and have requested that it be known as ``Holly's Law'' in honor of their daughter whose life was prematurely ended. I ask that their open letter on this subject be printed in the Record. The Food and Drug Administration should not have authorized this dangerous drug. RU-486 is perilous both to the baby and to the woman who uses it. I urgently call on my colleagues in this Chamber to support ``Holly's Law'' to prevent more unnecessary deaths.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation, the RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2003. The abortion drug RU-486 increases in infamy as its lethal nature continues to reveal itself. As my colleagues may remember, in September, RU-486 claimed two more lives, one of whom was an 18-year- old woman. Holly Patterson, a resident of the San Francisco suburb of Livermore, died from an infection caused by fragments of her baby left in her uterus after she was administered RU-486 at a Planned Parenthood facility. This tragedy underscores the dangerous nature of this drug. The available data from the U.S. trials of RU-486 raises serious questions in my mind as to whether or not this drug truly is ``safe'' for the women who use it. Women who participated in the U.S. trials of this drug were carefully screened, and only those who were in the most physically ideal condition were accepted. Even so, among these physically ideal participants, troubling results emerged. Two-percent of the women participating hemorrhaged; one-percent had to be hospitalized; several others required surgery to stop the bleeding-- some of whom needed blood transfusions; and one woman in Iowa, after losing between one-half to two-thirds of her total blood volume, would have died if she had not undergone emergency surgery. If these side- effects occurred in the most physically ideal candidates, what about those who are not in the physically ideal category? Is this drug ``safe'' for women? I believe medical results suggest it is not. The bill I am introducing today will require the suspension of the Food and Drug Administration's approval of RU-486. Following this suspension, the General Accounting Office is directed to review the process the FDA used to approve RU-486 and to determine whether the FDA followed its own guidelines. If it is determined that the FDA violated its guidelines, RU-486 will be suspended indefinitely. Monty and Helen Patterson, the parents of Holly Patterson, have expressed their firm support for this legislation and have requested that it be known as ``Holly's Law'' in honor of their daughter whose life was prematurely ended. I ask that their open letter on this subject be printed in the Record. The Food and Drug Administration should not have authorized this dangerous drug. RU-486 is perilous both to the baby and to the woman who uses it. I urgently call on my colleagues in this Chamber to support ``Holly's Law'' to prevent more unnecessary deaths.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, ours is a remarkable Nation. America is the home to 90 of the top 100 universities. Americans work an average of 300 hours more per year than our friends in Europe. More patents are applied for in this Nation each year than in all of the EU member states combined. We lead the world in research and development. Perhaps the area in which our labor and investment will have the most profound impact, is in field of the life sciences. This year our Nation met a remarkable goal. In the span of the last 5 years we have doubled our financial commitment to basic health research funding. Those funds will go toward saving and extending the lives of, and improving the quality of life for, people around the world. Our history has proven that when this Nation is resolute and determined, we can achieve remarkable things. In 1939, the United States was producing 800 military airplanes per year. At the onset of World War II, President Roosevelt challenged the Nation to increase manufacturing to 4,000 planes per month. By the end of 1943, in perhaps the greatest industrial feat in history, the United States was producing 8,000 military aircraft per month. On May 5, 1961, the United States launched Mercury 3 and Alan Shepard became the first American in space, spending a total of 15 minutes and 28 seconds in sub-orbit. Twenty days later President Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress and proposed that our Nation land a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Only July 29, 1969, four days after leaving the launch pad, Neil Armstrong stepped from the lunar module to the surface of the moon in perhaps the greatest engineering and technological feat in history. Between 1996 and 1997, for the first time, the total number of cancer deaths in the United States did not rise. That trend has continued to this very day. Today, there are at least 50 compounds under investigation for efficacy as cancer preventives and untold research is being performed in search of new cures and treatments for cancer. This is the time for our Nation to become resolute and determined to achieve what may be the greatest scientific feat in history--to win the war on cancer. Our Nation began its commitment to the War on Cancer with the passage of the National Cancer Institute Act of 1937. In 1971, Congress committed itself to win the war with the passage of the National Cancer Act. Today, I am joined by the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Judd Gregg in beginning the next campaign of this war, with the introduction of the National Cancer Act of 2003. With this bill we renew our commitment to the fight, and join NCI Director Dr. Andrew Von Eshenbach in his commitment to make cancer survivorship the rule and cancer deaths rare by 2015. Major provisions within the legislation include: Enhancing our current cancer registry system; enhancing our existing screening mechanisms; creating a new Patient Education Program; enhancing NCI Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers; elevating the importance of pain management and survivorship throughout the nation's cancer programs; authorizing the Office of Survivorship within NCI; freeing the NCI to engage private entities to further cancer research; and providing patients with greater access to experimental therapies. In the coming months, I look forward to working with the Chairman, the Administration and other members interested committed to winning the War on Cancer, to get this bill to markup, to the floor and to the President's desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, over 200 years ago, there was a dream that was America for a group of individuals who were brought to our shores in shackles. A dream so powerful that compelled a race of people to fight for the liberty of others when they were in bondage themselves. A dream that not only served as a catalyst for physical liberation in the African-American community but removed societal shackles from our culture and enabled us to realize the ideals set before us in the Constitution--that all men are created equal under God. Today, I am proud to stand here with my colleagues, from both the House and the Senate, and announce the passage of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture Act. After over 70 years, we have finally created a museum to honor--nationally--the contributions and sacrifice of African Americans in this country. I would specifically like to thank Senator Dodd, who was committed to honoring this history and has worked hard to get us to this point today. I would also like to thank Senator Trent Lott for his unwavering support to move this bill through the Committee of Jurisdiction. As well as Senator Ted Stevens for his leadership and commitment to this project. Additionally, I would like to recognize Senator Santorum for his continued unwavering commitment to this bill as well as the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Bill Frist. It means a great deal to have such widespread support and I am grateful. Perhaps most important, I would like to thank Representative John Lewis for championing this bill for over 15 years. It has been a pleasure for me to work with you, John, on this bill. With the creation of this museum, we will celebrate a rich and magnificent history. A history of a people's quest for freedom that shaped this Nation into a symbol of freedom and democracy around the world. I am proud to stand here today with my colleagues and celebrate the passage of this wonderful bill. Perhaps most important, I believe that this museum will be a catalyst for needed racial reconciliation in this country. There will be many tears shed at this museum--tears that cleanse the soul and that transcend race, creed, and color. I remember when I met with the dean of the Afro-American Studies at Howard University. He told me of a story about his grandfather who finished a bowl the day the Emancipation Proclamation was authorized. His grandfather decided to keep the bowl because it no longer was the property of a slave master but the man who made it--his grandfather. The dean has this bowl in his home--an incredible piece of history and I am sure there are many more pieces out there waiting for a home--a national home and today we have ensured that there will indeed be a home for such artifacts. Specifically, this bill creates this museum within the Smithsonian Institution--America's premier museum complex. We have worked very hard with the Smithsonian Institution to craft a bill that will compliment their programs--and indeed we have done just that. The legislation outlines a museum that is very similar to the American Indian Museum, slated to open next year. And I know that the Smithsonian Institution will create another national treasure, one that tells the story of African Americans in this country--a proud history, a rich history. This bill charges the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution along with the Council of the National Museum to plan, build and construct a museum dedicated to celebrating nationally African-American history--which is American history. In addition, this bill charges the board of regents with choosing a site on or adjacent to the National Mall for the location of the museum. Additionally, the bill instructs the director of the museum to create and oversee an education and program liaison section designed to work with educational institutions and museums across the country in order to promote African-American history. Finally, the bill sets fourth a federal-private partnership for funding the museum and creates a council for the museum, which will be comprised from a mixture of leading African Americans from the museum, historical, and business communities. I do not pretend that this museum is a panacea for racial reconciliation. It is, however, a productive step in recognizing the important contributions African Americans have made to this country. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once expressed his desire for this Nation, ``That the dark clouds of [misconceptions] will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear- drenched communities and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great Nation with all their scintillating beauty.'' We are one step closer today--God bless.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, ours is a remarkable Nation. America is the home to 90 of the top 100 universities. Americans work an average of 300 hours more per year than our friends in Europe. More patents are applied for in this Nation each year than in all of the EU member states combined. We lead the world in research and development. Perhaps the area in which our labor and investment will have the most profound impact, is in field of the life sciences. This year our Nation met a remarkable goal. In the span of the last 5 years we have doubled our financial commitment to basic health research funding. Those funds will go toward saving and extending the lives of, and improving the quality of life for, people around the world. Our history has proven that when this Nation is resolute and determined, we can achieve remarkable things. In 1939, the United States was producing 800 military airplanes per year. At the onset of World War II, President Roosevelt challenged the Nation to increase manufacturing to 4,000 planes per month. By the end of 1943, in perhaps the greatest industrial feat in history, the United States was producing 8,000 military aircraft per month. On May 5, 1961, the United States launched Mercury 3 and Alan Shepard became the first American in space, spending a total of 15 minutes and 28 seconds in sub-orbit. Twenty days later President Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress and proposed that our Nation land a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Only July 29, 1969, four days after leaving the launch pad, Neil Armstrong stepped from the lunar module to the surface of the moon in perhaps the greatest engineering and technological feat in history. Between 1996 and 1997, for the first time, the total number of cancer deaths in the United States did not rise. That trend has continued to this very day. Today, there are at least 50 compounds under investigation for efficacy as cancer preventives and untold research is being performed in search of new cures and treatments for cancer. This is the time for our Nation to become resolute and determined to achieve what may be the greatest scientific feat in history--to win the war on cancer. Our Nation began its commitment to the War on Cancer with the passage of the National Cancer Institute Act of 1937. In 1971, Congress committed itself to win the war with the passage of the National Cancer Act. Today, I am joined by the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Judd Gregg in beginning the next campaign of this war, with the introduction of the National Cancer Act of 2003. With this bill we renew our commitment to the fight, and join NCI Director Dr. Andrew Von Eshenbach in his commitment to make cancer survivorship the rule and cancer deaths rare by 2015. Major provisions within the legislation include: Enhancing our current cancer registry system; enhancing our existing screening mechanisms; creating a new Patient Education Program; enhancing NCI Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers; elevating the importance of pain management and survivorship throughout the nation's cancer programs; authorizing the Office of Survivorship within NCI; freeing the NCI to engage private entities to further cancer research; and providing patients with greater access to experimental therapies. In the coming months, I look forward to working with the Chairman, the Administration and other members interested committed to winning the War on Cancer, to get this bill to markup, to the floor and to the President's desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, at a time when the global community's attention is focused on rebuilding Iraq and the relations that states have to one another, I would like to commend the World Youth Alliance, which offers itself as a way forward to address some of the critical questions with which we are faced. Working with over 1 million young people from over 100 countries around the world, these young people have had a constant presence at the United Nations and other international institutions for the last 4 years. Their membership consists of young people of diverse faiths-- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other--and young people of no faith. Their binding commitment is to work for the promotion of the dignity of the person at the international level and in each of their countries and communities around the world. The World Youth Alliance understands that building sustainable, free and just societies can only be accomplished when the human person is recognized and placed at the center of all policy, programs, and culture. In doing this, they are reaching out to each other and to the world to impact the policy and culture that is being created around them. The dignity of the person, according to the World Youth Alliance, is intrinsic and inviolable. The dignity of the person is the basis for all human rights. In this, they place themselves directly in the heart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the great human rights history that has particularly grown after the tragedy of World War II. The World Youth Alliance recognizes that each individual, no matter how vulnerable, must be protected by the state. Otherwise, the state finds itself in the terrifying position of deciding the worth of a human being and objectifying the human person. At such a point, the freedom and justice of the state are called into question. The World Youth Alliance then reminds the global community that the person can never be seen as the problem, but must be recognized at all times with having the dignity and rights which the person possesses by simple right of being. This global coalition understands that to protect each human person and to build sustainable and free societies, this dignity must be extended to each member of the human family, unconditionally, from the moment of conception until natural death. In the last 4 years, this coalition of young people has had extraordinary success. Their membership continues to grow. They have participated at major United Nations conferences. They have spoken to the General Assembly and to individual states, and they have helped to determine the outcomes of documents and resolutions. This group of young people has trained over 10,000 young people on the importance of the international institutions and the relationship that these institutions have on their lives. They have initiated projects together: projects to build community centers in Nigeria for young people who are struggling to build up their communities and combat HIV/AIDS; projects to educate and rebuild schools in Tanzania, South Africa and Mexico; projects with street children in Latin America; projects with art and beauty to reawaken the transcendent among all of their generation and ours. Most recently the World Youth Alliance has worked with a coalition of states at the United Nations, including the United States, on the draft discussions to prepare for an international treaty on human cloning. At the first discussion on cloning, the United States quoted from the World Youth Alliance in their statement to the General Assembly. Recognizing a shared commitment to protecting the dignity of each and every person, the statement read: ``[this resolution] also responds to a call by over one million youth from all continents. They are members of the World Youth Alliance, who believe that only a total, comprehensive ban on human cloning would protect and respect the dignity of all human beings. They respectfully asked the Ad Hoc Committee to work towards a complete ban. To the youth, the future world leaders, we hope that the Sixth Committee will be able to say--we heard you!'' As the World Youth Alliance continues to grow and expand their work in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe, let us wish them the same kind of continued growth and success. Their work to train young people to engage at the international level, connecting a generation together in the promotion of the dignity of the person and human rights, is precisely what the world needs. I look forward to seeing many of them as the future world leaders, a role in which they have already found themselves, demonstrating remarkable integrity, vision and capability. Our work will be well served when it inspires this kind of response and commitment from the world's youth.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to follow up on a question by my colleague from Minnesota. I think this is the point. He points out that you have a couple of filibusters on major issues to change the country. The issues that were filibustered ultimately got through, and I believe these judges will ultimately get through when the public gets the Record and has a chance to read it. These issues were things that were changing the country--when you talk about the law, civil rights laws, things that were being brought forth. Isn't that what is really being addressed here today? We are not talking about 4 judges or 29 who are being blocked on circuit courts. This is really about a group trying to block a certain set of individuals who may, as some say, have deeply held beliefs being on the Federal bench and trying to purge that set of philosophies or thoughts from the Federal bench. Isn't this a much bigger issue than the appointees? Those law changes were bigger than filibustering one law. This is about the impact on all of society, on a whole culture.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the distinguished chairman yield for a question?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from South Carolina carrying the comments and the load for several hours in the early morning as we approach 4:15 in the morning. We are talking about something of great importance. He has real wisdom in his words, too, about the point that the process on which we are embarked has no upside to it. When you have good people, qualified people blocked from the Federal bench not by majority vote but by filibuster, you are headed down a bad path. This bad path doesn't have a good ending. We will continue to have division in this body. I don't doubt we can be blocked on these for some time, but that is certainly going to carry over into the next election cycle, and this doesn't have an upside to it. Plus, we have good people waiting. We have people who are qualified and are not going to be serving on the Federal bench. We have a lot of hurt feelings. We have a lot of accusations made without truth. We have harsh words, harsh comments, and that all leads to a downward cycle. There isn't an up cycle here. I wish to take a few minutes to describe why I think we got to this point. We didn't used to be here. We have approved people of strong judicial opinions in recent times. They have generally been from the left, and those have been approved during the Clinton years. Lord knows we are talking about circuit court nominees now. What if we got a Supreme Court nominee? Does the body get tied up for 2 years? We have actually had one Supreme Court Justice who has been filibustered in the past. Why did we get to this point? It used to be if people had a litmus test on candidates, that was seen as a terrible thing and they were castigated. I don't know if the Presiding Officer or others remember when Ronald Reagan was accused of having a litmus test. That was just a horrible thing. His administration denied it. They didn't put forward people under a litmus test, and we were moving forward. Now people are being subject to a litmus test. They are being blocked. They are qualified, and they are being stopped. How did we get to this point? I want to take a shot at that and develop it from the standpoint of a case that is currently before the Supreme Court. It is the case of Michael A. Newdow v. The U.S. Congress, United States of America, George W. Bush, President of the United States, State of California, Elk Grove Unified School District. That would be the operative group in the Newdow case, the flag suit case. It is the case most people are familiar with where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined it was unconstitutional for our children in school to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The reason it is unconstitutional is because of something Dwight Eisenhower signed into law when he was President of the United States in 1954, and that is where the Congress of the United States added the phrase: ``One Nation under God.'' That phrase was so offensive to Mr. Newdow or his child who was in the school that he said: I can't stand this any longer. He was joined by some other people and took this case to the Court. The Ninth Circuit said you are right. You should not have to. This is not right for our children to say one nation under God. That evoked quite a comment across the country. It evoked quite a comment by this body. I believe this body voted 99 to 0 to say that the flag salute is right; we should say this; it should be allowed by our children. There were a lot of protestations and the people commented that it was terrible that the Ninth Circuit would be so out of whack, so lacking of mainstream thought, so out of context and touch with the American public that they would rule against something that 98 percent of the American public is for, the flag salute. The problem with the public outpouring on Newdow and the problem facing the Supreme Court now on this Newdow case is that they were following precedence being developed over a period of 40 years, that the Supreme Court, circuit courts, and others had been working for a period of 40 years to remove the recognition of a higher moral authority from the public square. They were saying this is something we do not want in the public square. It started in 1962 that these series of cases is built upon. In 1962, Engel v. Vitale was the case that really started this whole string going. That was when our children were allowed to say a prayer at the beginning of the schoolday, and Engel v. Vitale said that was unconstitutional. It was followed by School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. There the Court held that the Bible readings in public school also violated the first amendment. It was followed, in 1992, by Lee v. Weisman, a case about prayer that was being held at a graduation exercise. The Court held that was unconstitutional. It was followed, in 2000, by Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe where prayer was being removed from being said at a football game. That is followed by the Newdow case now before the Court. I predict it will be followed by a case that will call for this body to remove ``In God we trust'' off the mantle that is here. I predict it will be followed by a case that will call on us to remove off of our money any reference to a higher moral authority, ``In God we trust'' being taken off of the back of the one dollar bill. It will follow, follow, follow. Well, people do not agree with that. Massive amounts of people in this country do not agree with that. People have mounted up now. Actually, some people do agree. Some people say, yes, we should remove the recognition of some higher moral authority, of God, from the public square. So we are engaged in this great ideological fight. I contend that this battle, this fight, of blocking these justices started about 40 years ago. Some of us participating in this form of debate feel as if the last couple of days have been along that 40-year line. What we are seeing is the courts injecting itself here into a societal issue that many people feel deeply about and immersing itself in this. Then both sides get fired up and we get good people such as Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen and others--particularly a guy like Charles Pickering. He is probably the most instructive of the cases here. We have gone through ad nauseam his qualifications, but I want to make this point of him: First in his law school class, highest rating by Martindale Hubbell, unanimously approved by the Senate for a district court judge in 1990, affirmed on appeals 99.5 percent of the time, reversed only 26 times out of approximately 5,300 cases, received the ABA, the American Bar Association, highest rating, well qualified. So what is the problem with this picture? Mr. Pickering was president of the Southern Baptist Convention for Mississippi, so he is a man of faith. As such, when we have these 40 years of cases coming up that say we have to remove God from the public square and run into a guy such as Charles Pickering who says, I will uphold the law--and he has upheld the law because, if he had not, he would have been overturned many more times--he says I will uphold the law but I really think this line of cases and some of these discovered rights the court has done in just these last 40 years, I think they are wrong personally. I disagree with these. I will uphold the cases. But they run into people who are saying we are trying to remove God from the public square and we are going to try to remove people who believe in God from serving in the public square. You run into this clash, and you get this great clash in the civilization and you get this great clash in the culture. Now you have the courts injecting themselves in a great culture conflict that we are involved in in this country today. One of the key division issues in our country today is issues of culture. People ask what is that? Culture, it is difficult to say what that is, but people are concerned about it. There is not a company in this country that is not deeply concerned about its corporate culture. There is not a family in this country who is not concerned about its family's culture. There is now in the country itself concern about what its culture is going to be. The central issue is, are you going to recognize a higher moral authority or not? Is the motto ``in God we trust'' true or not? You get a guy qualified such as this who would say, yes, that motto is true. I believe it to be true. I will uphold the laws as ruled to date, but I do believe this motto is true. And it runs right smack into this series of cases and we are going to see it front and center again in Newdow. We will see it again and again. That is the problem actually with this, because it divides us on something that should not. It divides us on something that should unite us. It divides us in a way that I do not think is healthy for the country. I do not think this is good at all. I think it divides us on something that as a policy matter is not good and that is why I think it is also bad politics when this happens. I think bad policy is bad politics. That is why we have this level of fighting today. That is why I am speaking on the floor of the Senate at about 4:30 in the morning. We are going to continue to have this fight. Regardless of the vote that we take later this morning, how it takes place, probably really regardless of the dispensation of these four and future ones coming on, this is the cultural clash that we have. It is not healthy but it is going to continue.

Mr. BROWNBACK. It is not mainstream.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I object.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a joint resolution regarding the status of Jerusalem, and its potential in catapulting the Middle East Peace process forward. Just prior to returning from the summer recess, I traveled to Israel for five days on one of the most important official trips I have made since coming to the Congress in 1994. I have been to Israel before, but this trip had a special meaning for me both in terms of who and what I saw. I arrived in the aftermath of the bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed Yeshiva students going to the Wailing Wall. The same week I was there, Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen lost a no confidence vote and conceded to a shake up of the Palestinian cabinet. A wave of Palestinian terrorism ensued and it appeared that no Palestinian leader, at that time, had the will or the desire to contain terrorism much less stamp it out so that President Bush's Roadmap for Peace could proceed. On my way from the airport in Tel Aviv to the hotel in Jerusalem, I made a brief visit to a town called B'nei Berek, a small Orthodox suburb of Tel Aviv. B'nei Berek was established shortly after the founding of Israel. In the intervening 50 year period, this town has turned into a thriving city of over 200,000 people--a very special place for the Orthodox community in Israel. While I was there I met with one of the most respected and senior Rabbis in Israel. This man lived in a very modest apartment on an average street, and you would never know that he was one of the most important theological scholars in Israel. His home was lined with volume after volume of theological text, but he spoke plainly and deliberately about the importance of his faith and the role of faith in the lives of the Jewish people. The history of the Jewish people seemed to be etched onto his face and into his eyes. On this same trip I met with the Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Former Israeli Defense Force General Ephraim Eitam and Ambassador John Wolf, who is charged with monitoring the implementation of commitments in the peace process. One evening, I went on a tour of the Western Wall and the tunnels that run underneath the current level of buildings around the old city wall. The tour took over an hour and explored some of the most exciting history about Israel, Jerusalem and the Temple. There is a point in the tunnels that leads to an old entrance into the old city that, if opened, would lead to a special place below where the Temple once stood. This place, I'm sure my colleagues as children in Sunday school learned, is called the Holy of Holies. The Temple was built around this place, and it could not be entered except by the High Priest on Yom Kippur. It is the place, described in the Book of Genesis, where Abraham was to sacrifice his son Isaac. It is also the place where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. This was a unique experience. Jerusalem is a special place. It is extremely important to the peace process. In my hand is the ``Jerusalem Resolution,'' a proposition which I hope will propel the peace process forward by moving two big issues forward. This resolution seeks to make it U.S. policy that prior to the recognition by the U.S. of a Palestinian State, the U.S. Embassy must be moved to Jerusalem and that Jerusalem be declared as the undivided capital of Israel. This resolution would establish an important, tangible asset on both sides for advancing the peace process. For the past decade, we have attempted to forge a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis on a design of land for peace. This model has failed. We should attempt a new way. If we address two major issues at the outset of vital interest to the ultimate desire for peace, we can help to create a powerful momentum for peace. This bill pushes for the resolution of the status of Jerusalem in conjunction with the recognition of a Palestinian state. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for three thousand years, and is the center of Jewish faith and culture. Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's Government, and is the only capital city designated by the host country in which the U.S. does not maintain an embassy nor recognize it as the capital. In this resolution, three months prior to the recognition of a Palestinian state, the United States must move its embassy to Jerusalem and the status of Jerusalem must be resolved by the international recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I hope that my colleagues will join me in my effort. The peace process is in need of a major paradigm shift. We can't continue to bog ourselves down in the mechanics of the process. We must think grand about this problem and move beyond the status quo. This resolution is a challenge to this body to change its perspective on this issue. I hope in the coming months we can engage in serious debate over peace and the way toward it in the Middle East.