Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume debate on the House message to accompany S. 3, the partial-birth abortion ban, until 10:30 a.m. At 10:30 a.m., the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 2691, the Interior appropriations bill. It is the majority leader's intention to have amendments offered and debated throughout the day tomorrow. Rollcall votes, therefore, will occur throughout the day as well. Senators will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 226, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK. We have two victims here: the child and the woman. I am also particularly concerned that the widespread acceptance of this brutal practice of partial-birth abortion has already significantly coarsened public attitudes toward human life in general, particularly toward the most vulnerable in our society, whether they are the unborn or old and infirm. This coarsening of public attitude over the past several years has made other assaults against the dignity of human life possible, assaults such as partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, destructive embryo research, and now even human cloning where we would research on humans, we would patent a person and then research on them. Furthermore, new studies in groups are coming forward addressing the horrible impact, as I noted earlier, on women who have had abortions and what this abortion's impact is on the woman. We all have a duty, an obligation, as citizens of the United States to stand up against the moral outrage of abortion. Human life is sacred. It is a precious gift. Human life is not something to be disposed of by those with more power. Yet one of the most extreme assaults against human dignity is made against some of the most innocent among us. Whether from the first moments of life, to the moments just before birth, a child is a precious and unique gift, a gift never to be given or to be created again. It seems, therefore, that in some measure this debate is about whether or not that child prior to birth is a child at all. That really is the central question. Is that child, before birth, a child at all? Is this young human a person or is it a piece of property? That is the real debate. One has to conclude this child is a child; it is not property. This harkens back to the slavery debate. I also point out there is new evidence on this, as well. We try to debate: Is the child in the womb a child or property? I note a news article that came out Sunday in this country in the Chicago Sun Times--and also in Australia in Sunday's Herald Sun--which reported that Dr. Stuart Campbell, professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the Fetal Medicine Unit at St. George's Hospital in London, a man who pioneered 3-D ultrasound technology in 2001, said he has seen fetuses moving their fingers as early as 15 weeks' gestation, yawning at 18 weeks, and smiling and crying at 26 weeks. We are seeing this done at 3\1/2\ months. Doctors currently believe fetuses cannot feel pain until at least 12 weeks' gestation when the fetus's nervous system is formed, but we are finding more and more, earlier and earlier, that what this child is feeling, seeing, and knowing, moving their fingers at 15 weeks--is that a child that moves those fingers or is it a piece of property? Is it a robot? Is it a blob of tissue or is it a child? What impact does it have on the mother if that child's life is terminated? At any point in time from that point forward, what impact does it have on the mother when that child's life is terminated? Imagine yourself, what impact does it have on you when your child's life is ended? What impact does that have when you back it up in time? It has a profound impact on the individuals involved. It has a profound impact on society. That is why this process must be ended. That is why we must stop partial-birth abortion. It is hurting everyone. It is hurting the society. It is hurting the people involved. It is hurting the child who is killed in this process. And it is hurting everyone. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the women depicted in the Portrait Monument, foresaw this awful view of human life in a letter she wrote in October to Julia Ward Howe in October of 1873. She said: When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. That was in 1873. That quote is applicable today. The Congress must speak against this degradation of human life. These are life issues of enormous consequence and they are issues by which history and eternity will judge us. Finally, I would like to close with a quote from Mother Teresa, one of my personal heroes. Her concern for the poorest of the poor and her service to them was above reproach. Her work is being carried on today in India and around the world. I am sure it is going to be carried on for years to come. She once said this: Many are concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is the greatest destroyer of peace today-- abortion which brings people to such blindness. And that is why this practice must be ended. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, this practice is going to be ended. It is going to end this year. When this body passes this bill, when the conference finally meets, when the conference report comes back and the conference report is passed, when the President signs this into law, this practice is going to stop. It is going to be the point in time when we as a country start waking up and looking at the huge cost of taking these young lives, of what it has done to us, what it has done to the children, what it has done to the mothers involved, and what it has done to us as a society. But, thankfully, this procedure is going to end this year. I think then we as a country--and we are now--will start waking up, saying: It just isn't right to take this child's life. You end up with two victims, one dead and one wounded, in the process. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 abortion hurtswomen--Medical and Psychological Talking Points 1. 43% of American women will have at least one abortion by age 45. 2. In the U.S., over 140,000 women a year have immediate medical complications from abortion. 3. This includes problems such as: infection, uterine perforation, hemorrhaging, cervical trauma, and failed abortion/ongoing pregnancy. 4. Abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer by 30%. 5. Childbirth actually protects against cancer of the reproductive system. 6. After an abortion there is a higher risk of developing cervical, and ovarian cancer. 7. Abortion can lead to infertility, a serious long-term complication that often goes undetected for many years. 8. Abortion can lead to complications in future pregnancies including: premature birth, placenta previa, and ectopic pregnancy. 9. In the 2 years following an abortion women have a death rate twice as high as women who continue with their pregnancies. 10. A woman who undergoes an abortion has a suicide risk six times higher than women who have given birth to a child. 11. It is minorities who suffer from the greatest number of serious complications and death after abortion. 12. Psychological and emotional complications reported in a 1994 survey of women who had abortions and sought counseling found that they experienced a range of problems including: increased use of drugs and/or alcohol to deaden their pain, reoccurring insomnia and nightmares, eating disorders that began after the abortion, suicidal feelings, and many even attempted suicide. 13. Who is at high risk for developing serious emotional and psychological problems following and abortion? Teenagers; Women who already have children; Women who have abortions after 12 weeks gestation; Women who feel pressured into the abortion; Women struggling with value conflicts. This information is important for every woman to know, but it is especially relevant for parents of teens because of the impact abortion can have on a minor's emotional health, physical health, fertility, and future pregnancies. references 1. Alan Guttmacher Institute 1994 study entitled: ``Unintended Pregnancy in the United States.'' 2. This is based on a complication rate of 11% and assuming the yearly abortion rate is 1.3 million U.S. women a year. Most abortion advocates claim the complication rate is only 1%, but this is inaccurate when the data is analyzed. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the UK, the immediate physical complication rate from abortions is at least 11%, primarily infections that can lead to a host of other problems including pain and infertility. The UK statistics have been recently published in January of 2001. See: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (UK). The care of women requesting induced abortion: 4. Information for women. 2000. 3. For an extended list of research studies documenting these health risks and many others, please see Detrimental Effects of Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography With Commentary Ed. Thomas W. Strahan, published by Acorn Books, Springfield IL, 2001. 4. Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1996 Oct. 50(5):481-496. It is important to note that abortion advocates completely deny these findings, this includes many researchers in the U.S. medical community. But a careful study of international literature indicates a strong correlation between abortion and breast cancer. Much like tobacco companies in the past have simply denied that cigarettes endanger the health of their customers, abortion advocates simply deny any research that indicates that abortion is harmful to women's health and increases their risk for breast cancer. 5. Albrektsen G, Heuch I, Tretli S, Kvale G. Is the risk of cancer of the corpus uteri reduced by a recent pregnancy? A prospective study of 765,756 Norwegian women. International Journal of Cancer 1995 May 16;61(4):485-90, p. 485. 6. La Vecchia C, Negri E, Franceschi S, Parazzini F. Long- term impact of reproductive factors on cancer risk, International Journal of Cancer 1993 January 21;53(2):215-9, p. 217. Albrektsen G, Heuch I, Tretli S, Kvale G. Is the risk of cancer of the corpus uteri reduced by a recent pregnancy? A prospective study of 765,756 Norwegian women. International Journal of Cancer 1995 May 16;61(4):485-90, p. 485. Kvale G, Heuch I. Is the incidence of colorectal cancer related to reproduction? A prospective study of 63,000 women. International Journal of Cancer 1991 February 1;47(3):390-5, p. 392. 7. Frank P, McNamee R, Hannaford PC, Kay Cr, Hirsch S. The effect of induced abortion on subsequent fertility. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993 June;100(6):575- 80. Heisterberg L, Kringelbach M. Early complications after induced first-trimester abortion. Acta Obstetricia et Gynacologica Scandanavica 1987:66(3):201-4, p. 204. 8. Barrett JM, Boehm FH, Killam AP. Induced abortion: a risk factor for placenta previa. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1981 December 1;141(7):769-72. Rose GL, Chapman MG. Aetiological factors in placenta praevia--a case controlled study. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1986 June;93(6):586-8. Taylor VM, Kramer MD, Vaughan TL, Peacock S. Placenta previa in relation to induced and spontaneous abortion: a population-based study. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993 July;82(10:88-91; p. 91. Michalas S, Minaretzis D, Tsionou C, Maos G, Kioses E, Aravantinos D. Pelvic surgery, reproductive factors and risk of ectopic pregnancy: A case controlled study. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1992 June;38(2):101-5, pp. 101, 103. Luke B. Every Pregnant Woman's Guide to Preventing Premature Birth. 1995 [foreword by Emile Papiernik], New York: Times Books; p. 32. 9. Reardon, David C., Philip G. Ney, Fritz Scheuren, Jesse Cougle, Priscilla K. Coleman, and Thomas W. Strahen, Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women. Southern Medical Journal. Vol. 95. No. 8. Aug 2002. This statistic is important to note because many of these deaths are due to complications from the abortion and are documented as such. Thus, the presenting cause of death will be the complication, not the abortion that caused it. 10. Gissler M, Kauppila R, Merlainen J. Toukomaa H, Hemminki E, Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994; register linkage study, British medical Journal 1996 December 7, 313(7070):1431-4. 11. Goldner TE, Lawson HW, Xia Z, Atrash Hk. Surveillance for ectopic pregnancy--United States, 1970-1989. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control Surveillance Summary 1993 December; 42((SS-6)):73-85. Council on Scientific Affairs AMA. Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade. Trends in the mortality and morbidity of women. Journal of the American Medical Association 1992 December 9;268(22):3231-9. 12. The Post Abortion Review, 2, (3): 4-8, Fall 1994, published by the Elliott Institute, PO Box 7348, Springfield, IL 62791-7348. It is important to note that many in the psychiatric community deny any serious emotional trauma after an abortion, but this has happened under similar circumstances before. It took years for the medical community to recognize Post Traumatic Stress in Vietnam veterans; ironically women who have undergone abortion often fit the profile of someone suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (standard for diagnosis of psychiatric illness in the United States). 13. The Post Abortion Review, 2, (3): 4-8, Fall 1994, published by the Elliott Institute, Springfield, IL. See also Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion by Theresa Burke, Ph.D, Acorn Books, Springfield, IL, 2002 for more information on the emotional and physical pain women go through after an abortion. Statistics and citations taken from a compilation of studies in: Women's Health after Abortion: the Medical and Psychological Evidence by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles. Published by the Toronto based de Veber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research 2002. Page 52 makes a very important note on this highly politicized issue: ``There is a marked tendency in the North-American literature on abortion for researchers to minimize their own findings. Those interested in the subject are well advised to read the numerical data and compare them carefully with the abstract or conclusions, rather than relying on either the abstract or conclusions alone. Comparisons are also recommended with literature from European countries, particularly Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries, where population size and sophisticated medical linkage data bases make data collection more accurate and comprehensive.''

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue of banning partial-birth abortion in the United States. We have a unique opportunity to end this grisly practice of partial- birth abortion in this country. Sadly, some in this Chamber have delayed a vote to send this bill to conference and then to the President. That is what needs to take place. This has passed the body repeatedly. The President is ready to sign it. It is time to move forward on this issue. This is an important milestone. This will be the first time since the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade that the Congress will have curtailed in any way the practice that results in the death of an innocent human being and the emotional wounding of the mother. In this process, both are victims--the child and the mother. The partial-birth abortion procedure, which former Senator Moynihan called the closest thing that he had seen to infanticide, is something that needs to be banned once and for all. This comes from both sides of the aisle. This comes from the American public. The vast majority of the American public, over 77 percent, support banning this procedure of partial-birth abortion. They see this as it is, as clearly the late- term killing of a child. And it ought to be stopped. It should have no place in a civilized country. It should have no place in a country such as the United States which stands for human rights and the dignity of the individual. I believe the true mark of a civilized society is not the level of human dignity that it confers on the strong and wealthy. Its true mark is on how much it confers on the vulnerable and on the oppressed. Clearly, an abortion procedure that dismembers and kills a partially born human being has no place in a civilized society. Aside from partial-birth abortion, it is becoming increasingly clear that the impact abortion has on this society, on the people, and particularly on the women who have had abortions, is itself profound. I will talk briefly about the impact of having an abortion on a woman. There are an increasing number of studies coming forward about the woundedness that takes place to a woman. I mention to my colleagues and to those watching a particular Web site titled ``Women Deserve Better.'' I have met with the leadership from this group. A number of the women have had abortions--some of them have not--and deeply regret it, going through years of suffering, emotional suffering, personal suffering, physical suffering, as a result. They have now said: We were not told the story at that time. We were not told the truth of the amount of suffering we would go through. We were told this would take place and it would be quick and easy and it would be over with and that would be it. And it is far from the truth. I cite one study from their Web site ``Women Deserve Better,'' talking about psychological and emotional complications reported in a 1994 survey of women who had abortions and sought counseling, finding they experienced a range of problems. These are the women who have had abortions, including increased use of drugs and/or alcohol to deaden their pain, recurring insomnia and nightmares, eating disorders that began after they had the abortion, suicidal feelings, and many even attempted suicide. This is a report they have cited. They went on to also cite who is at high risk for developing serious emotional and psychological problems following an abortion. They list a number of groups. One was women who had abortions after 12-weeks' gestation. That is certainly the case in partial-birth abortions where you have a gestation that would be over 12 weeks. People should look at this. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record at the end of my comments.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Act of 2003, legislation I view as vital for American consumers and our Nation's educational community as they venture forth into the 21st century digital media marketplace. This legislation responds directly to ongoing litigation between the Recording Industry Association of America and Internet service providers Verizon and SBC Communications. This litigation has opened wide all identifying information an ISP maintains on its subscribers, effectively requiring ISPs to make that information available to any party simply requesting the information. The legislation also creates certain minimal protections for consumers legally interacting with digital media products protected by new digital rights management technologies. I had intended to introduce individual pieces of legislation on these issues--privacy and digital rights management. However, given that both issues are so relevant to consumers in the digital age, I ultimately decided to present them to my colleagues in one comprehensive bill. It has been determined by a Federal court that a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits the RIAA to obtain this ISP subscriber's identifying information without any judicial supervision, or any due process for the subscriber. Today, right now, solely due to this court decision, all that is required for a person to obtain the name and address of an individual who can only be identified by their Intent Protocol address--their Internet phone number--is to claim to be a copyright owner, file a one page subpoena request with a clerk of the court, a declaration swearing that you truly believe an ISP's subscriber is pirating your copyright, the clerk will then send the request to the ISP, and the ISP has no choice but to divulge the identifying information of the subscriber--name, address, phone number--to the complaining party. There are no checks, no balances, and the alleged pirate has no opportunity to defend themselves. My colleagues, this issue is about privacy not piracy. The real harm here is that nothing in this quasi-subpoena process prevents someone other than a digital media owner--say a stalker, a pedophile, a telemarketer or even a spammer from using this quasi- subpoena process to gain the identity of Internet subscribers, including our children. In fact, we cannot even limit this subpoena process to mainstream copyright owners. This past July, SBC Communications received a subpoena request for the personal information of approximately 60 of its Internet subscribers. The copyright owner that made the request is a hard core pornographer named Titan Media. We cannot permit the continued existence of a private subpoena that can be used by pornographers to easily identify Americans. If you have any doubt, all you need to do is look into the generous amnesty program offered by Titan Media to those it accuses of piracy: buy their porn, and they won't use the subpoena to identify you. The threat of abuse is simply too great, as Titan Media has already demonstrated. The Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003 requires the owners of digital media products to file an actual case in a court of law in order to obtain the identifying information of an ISP subscriber. This will provide immediate privacy protections to Internet subscribers by forcing their accusers to appear publicly in a court of law, where those with illicit intentions will not tread, and provides the accused with due process required to properly defend themselves. In addition, the bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to study alternative means to this subpoena process, so that we may empower our Nation's intellectual property owners to defend their rights by pursuing those who are stealing from them, but to do so in a safe, private, confidential manner where consumers are concerned, and without burdening the courts. Transitioning to an FTC process will ensure that there can be speedy verification, due process, safety, and maximum protection for the innocent, while preserving maximum civil enforcement against pirates. I do not offer this legislation to debate the history and merits of the DMCA. I offer this legislation for my colleagues consideration, because I find it untenable that any Internet subscribers' identifying information can be obtained, under government auspices no less, without any oversight or due process. I want to be celar on an important point. This subpoena is mostly being sought by mainstream digital media owners who are seeking to prevent piracy performed using peer to peer file sharing software. While I am as disappointed as anyone that the mighty RIAA would choose to force a little 12-year-old girl--one of the Internet subscribers identified through an RIAA subpoena--and her mother to pay them $2000 for the girl's piracy, I am still opposed to piracy as much as any Member of Congress. I have a strong record on property rights to back that up. I have no interest in seeking to shield those who have committed piracy from the law or hamper the ability of property owners to defend their rights. My concern with this quasi-subpoena process is with the problems it creates. I have made it very clear to all stakeholders that I stand ready to work on alternative legislation if they perefer something else to this provision, but unfortunately that offer has been flatly rejected. This week the Senate voted to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's new media ownership regulations. I opposed that resolution, because I do not believe the FCC's amendments to its media outlet ownership rules are a threat to competition and diversity. However, I do stand with my colleagues in supporting a media marketplace where information flows from numerous sources and our constituents are empowered by a full range of robust digital outlets and new digital technologies available to them in the 21st century media marketplace. While well intentioned, I believe my colleagues are simply focusing on the wrong issues in the current debate over media ownership. Digital rights management, otherwise known simply as DRM, refers to the growing body of technology--software and hardware--that controls access to and use of information, including the ability of individuals to distribute that information over the Internet. Over the past few years the large media companies have persistently sought out new laws and regulations that would mandate DRM in the marketplace, denying consumers and the educational community the use of media products as has been customarily and legally permitted. As a result, the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003 will preclude the FCC from mandating that consumer electronics, computer hardware, telecommunications networks, and any other technology that facilitates the use of digital media products, such as movies, music, or software, be built to respond to particular digital rights management technologies. Consumers and the educational community are legally permitted to use media products in a host of ways. Some of these uses are specifically identified in the Copyright Act as limitations on the rights of copyright owners. Many of these uses are the result of court decisions interpreting one of those limitations, the limitation known as Fair Use, and customs based on those court decisions. As a result, consumers can record cable and broadcast programming for non-commercial, private home use. They can lend DVDs and CDs to friends and family. They can make copies of movies and music in different formats so that they can use them with different types of playback devices. Media products can be used for criticism, research, and a range of other educational purposes that include acts of redistribution. All of these uses of content can be made by consumers and the educational community under the Copyright Act, and none of them require the permission of the copyright owner. The same digital marketplace that has given rise to DRM is also updating the ways consumers and the educational community may use media products in powerful new ways. Broadband connectivity and new digital networking technologies--used in homes, offices, schools, and libraries--raise the prospect of never having to use physical media again. Instead, consumers, employees, students, and library patrons could access legally owned and legally possessed media products that reside on such a network remotely, via the Internet. These developments could revolutionize the information age at its onset. Digital rights management can both help and hinder this evolutionary process. DRM can be a powerful tool for combating digital piracy. It can tether digital content to specific devices, preventing that content from being used on other devices. DRM can also prohibit Internet redistribution of digital media products. DRM also has its downside, especially when it is incorporated into digital media products, and purchased unwittingly by consumers. Some consumers have already become acquainted with DRM in the marketplace this way. Less than 2 years ago music labels began selling copy- protected CDs. Consumers came to find their CDs--that look just like the CDs they have been purchasing for years--would not play on many personal computers, and in some instances became lodged inside them. In addition, they could no longer make the legal practice of converting them into digital MP3 files for use on portable MP3 players. More recently, consumers purchasing the popular tax filing software, Turbo Tax, came to realize they could only use the software on the first computer they downloaded it onto, never mind situations where they desperately needed to complete their tax filings on a different computer. I have no doubt that came as a nice surprise to taxpayers pressing to meet filing deadlines. It is my understanding that many consumers are registering their view on this use of DRM by purchasing competing software not so limited. When combined with government mandates requiring that all consumer appliances use or respond to specific DRM technologies and capabilities, the potential for mass consumer confusion and disservice is clear. I introduce this legislation today, because DRM mandates sought by the major media companies are threatening to create just such an experience for consumers and the educational community. I can think of no greater threat to media and information diversity and competition than large, vertically integrated media and Internet companies using DRM technology mandates to not only control distribution of content, but also the ways in which that content is used by consumers in the privacy of their homes, by teachers in our Nation's classrooms and educational institutions, and by all Americans in our libraries. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission adopted regulations approving a private sector agreement between the cable TV industry and the consumer electronics industry, called the Cable-CE ``Plug and Play'' agreement. The Plug and Play agreement governs how consumer electronics devices, information technology, and cable TV networks work together. Both the cable TV and CE industries should be commended for working together to make digital TV sets ``cable ready,'' and speeding the transition to digital television for consumers. This private agreement includes digital rights management provisions--called ``encoding rules--that are aimed at protecting cable TV programming from piracy, but in a manner that seeks to preserve the customary and legal uses of media by consumers and the educational community to the greatest degree possible. The agreement is technology neutral, in that new DRM content protection technologies may be devised and deemed compliant with the security protocols of the Plug and Play agreement. A proponent of a new content protection technology has a right to appeal to the FCC if Cable Labs rejects that technology, and the FCC will conduct a de novo review based on objective criteria. Unfortunately, the Commission may take a very different approach in protection broadcast digital television programming from piracy in its ``Broadcast Flag'' proceeding, as first proposed by the big media companies, and later joined by a very select group of electronics companies that own the patent in the one DRM technology, 5C approved for use in the proposal. The broadcast flag proposal requires every device that receives digital television content to recognize a ``flag'' that can be attached to DTV programming, and to respond to the flag by encrypting the content using an ``authorized technology'' that would be expressly required by FCC regulation. Unlike the Plug and plan agreement, the broadcast flag proposal makes it difficult for new DRM technologies to be deemed ``Broadcast Flag'' compliant. The principal approval role for alternate DRM content protection technologies is vested in several big media companies and some of the narrow group of electronics companies owning the patent in 5C. In the only circumstance under this proposal where the FCC would have a role in approving a new technology, the baseline for FCC consideration would be the preordained 5C technology and their associated license terms. I hardly consider a proposal to be technology neutral when such important competitive determinations are placed in the hands of invested stakeholders as gatekeepers. Such a proposal deprives the market place of the very qualities the media companies need to fight piracy: competition and innovation. I commend Intel, one of the 5C companies, for recognizing this grim reality and being bold enough to support a different course, as I will outline in a moment. The important of technological neutrality in the Plug and Play agreement versus the tech mandate in the Broadcast Flag becomes very clear when you review the particular provisions of each agreement. In today's world, a DRM technology does not seem to exist that can both permit consumers to use the Internet to legally access content stored in their homes--on a home network for instance--while also preventing the unfettered Internet redistribution of such content. However, because the Cable-CE agreement envisions new DRM technologies, and make it possible for them to be approved for use with cable networks and CE devices, the potential for a new DRM technology that can strike this important balance exists. Since the Flag proposal is so closed off to new technologies, it is unlikely that it will evolve to permit point-to-point redistribution of digital broadcast content over the Internet, for example, from one's home to one's office or from a son or daughter to any elderly parent. Furthermore 5C is capable of completely locking down the ways consumers and the educational community can record or otherwise use DTV content. It is no wonder then that the technical specifications for the actual Flag itself in major media's proposal provides for the possibility that it can be used to send new, more restrictive encoding rules to consumer electronics devices that operate DTV content. The Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003 will ensure that anti-piracy policies for broadcast DTV will provide maximum protections for industry, but in a manner that relies on innovation, competition, and serving the interests of consumers to achieve that goal. First, the bill prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from moving forward with any new proceedings that impact the ways in which consumers may access or distribute digital media products, aside from the two previously mentioned proceedings. This will negate any future efforts by the big media companies to further expand the ways in which they can control how content may be legally used. Second, the bill sets ground rules for the FCC's broadcast flag proceeding. It permits the FCC, if it has such authority, to require consumer electronics companies to detect a Broadcast Flag and prohibit illegal Internet retransmission of digital broadcast programming to the public when it detects the flag. However, this proposal relies on a self-certification requirement, so consumer electronics and information technology companies can deploy competing and innovative DRMs that prohibit DTV piracy immediately, not subject to the whims of industry gatekeepers. Like the Plug and Play agreement this proposal provides a meaningful role for the FCC, not industry stakeholders, to resolve any controversies that may arise with new technologies. In addition to addressing the threat of FCC tech mandates in the broadcast DTV space, this legislation also addresses other important concerns regarding the introduction of DRM into the marketplace, to prevent some of the experiences of consumers with this important technology to date. First, the bill provides on year for all stakeholders in the digital media marketplace to voluntarily devise a labeling regime for all DRM- enabled digital media products, including those made available solely online, so consumers will know what they are buying when they but it. Second, the bill prohibits the use of DRM technologies to prevent consumers from reselling the used digital media products they no longer want, or from donating used digital media products to schools and libraries. Finally, the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission--our Nation's premier consumer protection agency--to carefully monitor the introduction of DRM into the marketplace, reporting to Congress in incidents of consumer confusion and dissatisfaction, and suggesting measures that can ease the impact DRM has on law abiding consumers. The Senate has responded to what many view as the threat of increasing consolidation in the media marketplace. If my colleagues are concerned with consolidation in outlet ownership then I have no doubt they will be equally concerned with Federally-mandated controls over how consumers and the educational community may actually use information flowing through those outlets. Piracy Prevention is a goal we can all work together to pursue. DRM-mandated business models, however, should not be the product of this Congress or any agency under our jurisdiction. The Federal Communications Commission seems to be missing this point. I encourage all of my colleagues to work with me to put the brakes on the FCC. Support the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness of 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Act of 2003, legislation I view as vital for American consumers and our Nation's educational community as they venture forth into the 21st century digital media marketplace. This legislation responds directly to ongoing litigation between the Recording Industry Association of America and Internet service providers Verizon and SBC Communications. This litigation has opened wide all identifying information an ISP maintains on its subscribers, effectively requiring ISPs to make that information available to any party simply requesting the information. The legislation also creates certain minimal protections for consumers legally interacting with digital media products protected by new digital rights management technologies. I had intended to introduce individual pieces of legislation on these issues--privacy and digital rights management. However, given that both issues are so relevant to consumers in the digital age, I ultimately decided to present them to my colleagues in one comprehensive bill. It has been determined by a Federal court that a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act permits the RIAA to obtain this ISP subscriber's identifying information without any judicial supervision, or any due process for the subscriber. Today, right now, solely due to this court decision, all that is required for a person to obtain the name and address of an individual who can only be identified by their Intent Protocol address--their Internet phone number--is to claim to be a copyright owner, file a one page subpoena request with a clerk of the court, a declaration swearing that you truly believe an ISP's subscriber is pirating your copyright, the clerk will then send the request to the ISP, and the ISP has no choice but to divulge the identifying information of the subscriber--name, address, phone number--to the complaining party. There are no checks, no balances, and the alleged pirate has no opportunity to defend themselves. My colleagues, this issue is about privacy not piracy. The real harm here is that nothing in this quasi-subpoena process prevents someone other than a digital media owner--say a stalker, a pedophile, a telemarketer or even a spammer from using this quasi- subpoena process to gain the identity of Internet subscribers, including our children. In fact, we cannot even limit this subpoena process to mainstream copyright owners. This past July, SBC Communications received a subpoena request for the personal information of approximately 60 of its Internet subscribers. The copyright owner that made the request is a hard core pornographer named Titan Media. We cannot permit the continued existence of a private subpoena that can be used by pornographers to easily identify Americans. If you have any doubt, all you need to do is look into the generous amnesty program offered by Titan Media to those it accuses of piracy: buy their porn, and they won't use the subpoena to identify you. The threat of abuse is simply too great, as Titan Media has already demonstrated. The Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003 requires the owners of digital media products to file an actual case in a court of law in order to obtain the identifying information of an ISP subscriber. This will provide immediate privacy protections to Internet subscribers by forcing their accusers to appear publicly in a court of law, where those with illicit intentions will not tread, and provides the accused with due process required to properly defend themselves. In addition, the bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to study alternative means to this subpoena process, so that we may empower our Nation's intellectual property owners to defend their rights by pursuing those who are stealing from them, but to do so in a safe, private, confidential manner where consumers are concerned, and without burdening the courts. Transitioning to an FTC process will ensure that there can be speedy verification, due process, safety, and maximum protection for the innocent, while preserving maximum civil enforcement against pirates. I do not offer this legislation to debate the history and merits of the DMCA. I offer this legislation for my colleagues consideration, because I find it untenable that any Internet subscribers' identifying information can be obtained, under government auspices no less, without any oversight or due process. I want to be celar on an important point. This subpoena is mostly being sought by mainstream digital media owners who are seeking to prevent piracy performed using peer to peer file sharing software. While I am as disappointed as anyone that the mighty RIAA would choose to force a little 12-year-old girl--one of the Internet subscribers identified through an RIAA subpoena--and her mother to pay them $2000 for the girl's piracy, I am still opposed to piracy as much as any Member of Congress. I have a strong record on property rights to back that up. I have no interest in seeking to shield those who have committed piracy from the law or hamper the ability of property owners to defend their rights. My concern with this quasi-subpoena process is with the problems it creates. I have made it very clear to all stakeholders that I stand ready to work on alternative legislation if they perefer something else to this provision, but unfortunately that offer has been flatly rejected. This week the Senate voted to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's new media ownership regulations. I opposed that resolution, because I do not believe the FCC's amendments to its media outlet ownership rules are a threat to competition and diversity. However, I do stand with my colleagues in supporting a media marketplace where information flows from numerous sources and our constituents are empowered by a full range of robust digital outlets and new digital technologies available to them in the 21st century media marketplace. While well intentioned, I believe my colleagues are simply focusing on the wrong issues in the current debate over media ownership. Digital rights management, otherwise known simply as DRM, refers to the growing body of technology--software and hardware--that controls access to and use of information, including the ability of individuals to distribute that information over the Internet. Over the past few years the large media companies have persistently sought out new laws and regulations that would mandate DRM in the marketplace, denying consumers and the educational community the use of media products as has been customarily and legally permitted. As a result, the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003 will preclude the FCC from mandating that consumer electronics, computer hardware, telecommunications networks, and any other technology that facilitates the use of digital media products, such as movies, music, or software, be built to respond to particular digital rights management technologies. Consumers and the educational community are legally permitted to use media products in a host of ways. Some of these uses are specifically identified in the Copyright Act as limitations on the rights of copyright owners. Many of these uses are the result of court decisions interpreting one of those limitations, the limitation known as Fair Use, and customs based on those court decisions. As a result, consumers can record cable and broadcast programming for non-commercial, private home use. They can lend DVDs and CDs to friends and family. They can make copies of movies and music in different formats so that they can use them with different types of playback devices. Media products can be used for criticism, research, and a range of other educational purposes that include acts of redistribution. All of these uses of content can be made by consumers and the educational community under the Copyright Act, and none of them require the permission of the copyright owner. The same digital marketplace that has given rise to DRM is also updating the ways consumers and the educational community may use media products in powerful new ways. Broadband connectivity and new digital networking technologies--used in homes, offices, schools, and libraries--raise the prospect of never having to use physical media again. Instead, consumers, employees, students, and library patrons could access legally owned and legally possessed media products that reside on such a network remotely, via the Internet. These developments could revolutionize the information age at its onset. Digital rights management can both help and hinder this evolutionary process. DRM can be a powerful tool for combating digital piracy. It can tether digital content to specific devices, preventing that content from being used on other devices. DRM can also prohibit Internet redistribution of digital media products. DRM also has its downside, especially when it is incorporated into digital media products, and purchased unwittingly by consumers. Some consumers have already become acquainted with DRM in the marketplace this way. Less than 2 years ago music labels began selling copy- protected CDs. Consumers came to find their CDs--that look just like the CDs they have been purchasing for years--would not play on many personal computers, and in some instances became lodged inside them. In addition, they could no longer make the legal practice of converting them into digital MP3 files for use on portable MP3 players. More recently, consumers purchasing the popular tax filing software, Turbo Tax, came to realize they could only use the software on the first computer they downloaded it onto, never mind situations where they desperately needed to complete their tax filings on a different computer. I have no doubt that came as a nice surprise to taxpayers pressing to meet filing deadlines. It is my understanding that many consumers are registering their view on this use of DRM by purchasing competing software not so limited. When combined with government mandates requiring that all consumer appliances use or respond to specific DRM technologies and capabilities, the potential for mass consumer confusion and disservice is clear. I introduce this legislation today, because DRM mandates sought by the major media companies are threatening to create just such an experience for consumers and the educational community. I can think of no greater threat to media and information diversity and competition than large, vertically integrated media and Internet companies using DRM technology mandates to not only control distribution of content, but also the ways in which that content is used by consumers in the privacy of their homes, by teachers in our Nation's classrooms and educational institutions, and by all Americans in our libraries. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission adopted regulations approving a private sector agreement between the cable TV industry and the consumer electronics industry, called the Cable-CE ``Plug and Play'' agreement. The Plug and Play agreement governs how consumer electronics devices, information technology, and cable TV networks work together. Both the cable TV and CE industries should be commended for working together to make digital TV sets ``cable ready,'' and speeding the transition to digital television for consumers. This private agreement includes digital rights management provisions--called ``encoding rules--that are aimed at protecting cable TV programming from piracy, but in a manner that seeks to preserve the customary and legal uses of media by consumers and the educational community to the greatest degree possible. The agreement is technology neutral, in that new DRM content protection technologies may be devised and deemed compliant with the security protocols of the Plug and Play agreement. A proponent of a new content protection technology has a right to appeal to the FCC if Cable Labs rejects that technology, and the FCC will conduct a de novo review based on objective criteria. Unfortunately, the Commission may take a very different approach in protection broadcast digital television programming from piracy in its ``Broadcast Flag'' proceeding, as first proposed by the big media companies, and later joined by a very select group of electronics companies that own the patent in the one DRM technology, 5C approved for use in the proposal. The broadcast flag proposal requires every device that receives digital television content to recognize a ``flag'' that can be attached to DTV programming, and to respond to the flag by encrypting the content using an ``authorized technology'' that would be expressly required by FCC regulation. Unlike the Plug and plan agreement, the broadcast flag proposal makes it difficult for new DRM technologies to be deemed ``Broadcast Flag'' compliant. The principal approval role for alternate DRM content protection technologies is vested in several big media companies and some of the narrow group of electronics companies owning the patent in 5C. In the only circumstance under this proposal where the FCC would have a role in approving a new technology, the baseline for FCC consideration would be the preordained 5C technology and their associated license terms. I hardly consider a proposal to be technology neutral when such important competitive determinations are placed in the hands of invested stakeholders as gatekeepers. Such a proposal deprives the market place of the very qualities the media companies need to fight piracy: competition and innovation. I commend Intel, one of the 5C companies, for recognizing this grim reality and being bold enough to support a different course, as I will outline in a moment. The important of technological neutrality in the Plug and Play agreement versus the tech mandate in the Broadcast Flag becomes very clear when you review the particular provisions of each agreement. In today's world, a DRM technology does not seem to exist that can both permit consumers to use the Internet to legally access content stored in their homes--on a home network for instance--while also preventing the unfettered Internet redistribution of such content. However, because the Cable-CE agreement envisions new DRM technologies, and make it possible for them to be approved for use with cable networks and CE devices, the potential for a new DRM technology that can strike this important balance exists. Since the Flag proposal is so closed off to new technologies, it is unlikely that it will evolve to permit point-to-point redistribution of digital broadcast content over the Internet, for example, from one's home to one's office or from a son or daughter to any elderly parent. Furthermore 5C is capable of completely locking down the ways consumers and the educational community can record or otherwise use DTV content. It is no wonder then that the technical specifications for the actual Flag itself in major media's proposal provides for the possibility that it can be used to send new, more restrictive encoding rules to consumer electronics devices that operate DTV content. The Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003 will ensure that anti-piracy policies for broadcast DTV will provide maximum protections for industry, but in a manner that relies on innovation, competition, and serving the interests of consumers to achieve that goal. First, the bill prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from moving forward with any new proceedings that impact the ways in which consumers may access or distribute digital media products, aside from the two previously mentioned proceedings. This will negate any future efforts by the big media companies to further expand the ways in which they can control how content may be legally used. Second, the bill sets ground rules for the FCC's broadcast flag proceeding. It permits the FCC, if it has such authority, to require consumer electronics companies to detect a Broadcast Flag and prohibit illegal Internet retransmission of digital broadcast programming to the public when it detects the flag. However, this proposal relies on a self-certification requirement, so consumer electronics and information technology companies can deploy competing and innovative DRMs that prohibit DTV piracy immediately, not subject to the whims of industry gatekeepers. Like the Plug and Play agreement this proposal provides a meaningful role for the FCC, not industry stakeholders, to resolve any controversies that may arise with new technologies. In addition to addressing the threat of FCC tech mandates in the broadcast DTV space, this legislation also addresses other important concerns regarding the introduction of DRM into the marketplace, to prevent some of the experiences of consumers with this important technology to date. First, the bill provides on year for all stakeholders in the digital media marketplace to voluntarily devise a labeling regime for all DRM- enabled digital media products, including those made available solely online, so consumers will know what they are buying when they but it. Second, the bill prohibits the use of DRM technologies to prevent consumers from reselling the used digital media products they no longer want, or from donating used digital media products to schools and libraries. Finally, the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission--our Nation's premier consumer protection agency--to carefully monitor the introduction of DRM into the marketplace, reporting to Congress in incidents of consumer confusion and dissatisfaction, and suggesting measures that can ease the impact DRM has on law abiding consumers. The Senate has responded to what many view as the threat of increasing consolidation in the media marketplace. If my colleagues are concerned with consolidation in outlet ownership then I have no doubt they will be equally concerned with Federally-mandated controls over how consumers and the educational community may actually use information flowing through those outlets. Piracy Prevention is a goal we can all work together to pursue. DRM-mandated business models, however, should not be the product of this Congress or any agency under our jurisdiction. The Federal Communications Commission seems to be missing this point. I encourage all of my colleagues to work with me to put the brakes on the FCC. Support the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness of 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 227, a resolution submitted early today by Senator Bayh.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1618, introduced early today by Senator Rockefeller and others, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I recognize the centennial of Pittsburg State University in Pittsburg, KS. The institution that is today Pittsburg State University opened its doors on September 8, 1903, in a borrowed building in downtown Pittsburg with 54 students and five faculty. From these humble beginnings, Pittsburg State University has grown into a comprehensive state university of regional, national and international stature. In 1903, the fledgling school offered only elementary courses in manual training, domestic science, domestic art, and a few basic academic subjects. Yet by 1912 the school's enrollment had increased to 1,183 students and it was described as a ``College for Teachers.'' In the coming years, dedicated administrators and faculty worked to raise the standards of the institution to the point that it merited and received recognition as a liberal arts college. Following World War II, the campus grew rapidly. Soldiers returning from the war came in droves, thanks to the G.I. Bill, and new buildings emerged all over campus. The college's mission and enrollment continued to expand as well. In 1977, the college achieved university status and assumed its current name, Pittsburg State University. The decade of the 1990s was a time of unprecedented growth of PSU. Enrollment passed the 6,000 mark for the first time in 1991. Major additions ranged from a renovation and expansion of the football stadium to the addition of a 100,000-watt public radio station and the installation of a world-class mechanical organ in McCray Hall. In 1997, the university completed its largest single capital project with the construction of the Kansas Technology Center, a $28-million facility to house the university's nationally recognized technology programs. The Kansas Technology Center continues to play a vita role in the university's growth and development and is a significant economic development tool for the four-state region. As it celebrates its centennial, Pittsburg State University now has an enrollment of more than 6,700 students. The university offers a wide variety of highly regarded programs in its Colleges of Business, Arts and Sciences, Education and Technology. Known as a comprehensive regional university serving Kansas and the four-state region that includes Oklahoma, Missouri and Arkansas, Pittsburg State attracts students from more than 25 states and 40 countries. Among its 55,000 alumni, PSU counts Pulitzer Prize winners, scientists, CEOs of some of the world's largest corporations, and even a former Miss America. Moreover, PSU is also to be admired for the model relationship of kindness and mutual assistance it has maintained with the Kansans in its local community. I welcome this opportunity to commemorate all that Pittsburg State University has done to enrich the lives of its students and its surrounding community. I sincerely commend and thank PSU for its 100 years of faithful service.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of one of the great spiritual leaders of the twentieth century, Dr. William R. Bright. Dr. Bright, or Bill, as a number of us in this Chamber knew him, was a man of great faith, great heart, and great strength. Bill Bright's passing on Saturday, July 19, 2003, leaves a hole in my heart and the hearts of the many individual lives he touched. For this reason, I would like to take a few moments to remember the life and work of Dr. Bright. Bill was born in Coweta, Oklahoma, in 1921. He graduated from Northeastern State University in Oklahoma with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics and a minor in sociology. While a student, Bill already showed promise as an energetic community leader. He served as editor of the university yearbook, was elected student body president, was chosen as a member of Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities, and was selected by students and faculty as the year's outstanding graduate. After graduation, he joined the extension faculty of Oklahoma State University for a time, and then moved to Los Angeles to launch a business career. While in California, Bill attended the First Presbyterian Church in Hollywood, where he became a Christian in 1945 and began an intensive study of the Bible. Never one who lacked commitment to those endeavors he felt were of great importance, Bill engaged in 5 years of graduate work at Princeton and Fuller theological seminaries, while still continuing his business interests. During his studies at Fuller, young Bright became convinced that he personally needed to be working to help fulfill Christ's Great Commission to spread the Gospel to those around him. Looking for opportunity to act on this calling, Bright began by sharing his faith in Christ with students on campus at UCLA, and activity which gave birth to the present worldwide ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ International. Bill worked faithfully to lead Campus Crusade for Christ from its infancy in 1951 to its current size. Campus Crusade has grown to be one of the world's largest Christian ministries, serving individuals in 191 countries through a staff of 26,000 full-time employees and more than 225,000 trained volunteers. What began as a campus ministry now covers almost every segment of society with more than 70 special ministries and projects which reach out to students, inner cities, governments, prisons, families, the military, executives, musicians, athletes, and many others. In addition to touching so many lives by the work of Campus Crusade, Bright reached out to others through the print and visual media. Bill authored more than 100 books and booklets, as well as thousands of articles and pamphlets, which have been distributed by the millions in most major languages. In particular, his 1956 booklet title The Four Spiritual Laws has been printed in over 200 languages and distributed to mre than 2.5 billion people. Bright also commissioned the JESUS film, a documentary of the life of Christ, which has been viewed by over 5.1 billion people in 234 countries and has been translated into 786 languages. While Bill focused on serving others and would not like attention to be drawn to himself, he could certainly not avoid attracting praise for his great works of religious and community service. Dr. Bright held six honorary doctorate degrees: a Doctor of Laws from the Jeonbug National University of Korea, a Doctor of Divinity from John Brown University, a Doctor of Letters from Houghton University, a Doctor of Divinity from the Los Angeles Bible College and Seminary, a Doctor of Divinity from Montreat-Anderson College, and a Doctor of Laws from Pepperdine University. In 1971, he was named outstanding alumnus of his alma mater, Northeastern State University. He is listed in Who's Who in Religion and England's Who's Who in Community Service, and has received numerous other recognitions. Among the most prestigious of these awards was the Templeton Prize for Prgress in Religion in 1996, which is worth over $1 million. Bill, in his charity, donated all of this prize money to ministries training Christians internationally in the spiritual benefits of fasting and prayer. Bill Bright was a man of determination and spiritual vigor, a man who had great faith, great hope, and great love for his Lord and for his fellow man. He was a man worthy of respect and emulation. I, and I know many of my colleagues in this Chamber, extend our deepest condolences to Bill's wife, Vonetta, his sister, Florence, his brother, Forest, his two sons, Zachary and Brad, and his four grandchildren. We know that Bill is now in a place of greater peace than ever he was on earth. We commend him to his eternal rest and we thank him for his many years of faithful service.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for offering this amendment. I join him on it. The amendment my colleague from Wisconsin has described first came to my attention by a constituent and a friend of mine, D.L. Smith, Topeka, KS. D.L. is a great K-Stater, loves his country, has a medium size contracting business. He employs between 57 and 100 Kansans. Founded in 1972, the DL Smith companies provide commercial, institutional, and industrial electrical services and, in recent years, even a little bit of telecommunications. They have been expanding slightly. D.L.'s service trucks can be seen as far west as Salina and as far south as Pittsburg, KS. DL's is a successful medium size business by Kansas standards. It might grow and could become more successful. But it might not be able to grow and could falter. The success or failure of this business will in great part be dependent upon the dispensation of this amendment. This is what he brought to my attention. D.L. said: Look, what is taking place is we are having to compete with these large utility companies that he asserts are using their regulated business to subsidize the unregulated business and drive the small contractors out of business. That is my 15-minute speech, what he said and the examples he gave. What he does now is help in the contracting of electrical services into homes. He is having to compete now with very large utility companies that are looking at other areas they can expand into to be able to do contracting work and, in the process, are driving these small to mid-size businesses out of business. Such diversification on the part of the utility companies has been the cause of significant and continuing harm to many small private sector firms. Utility-owned subsidies and affiliates now operate in almost every imaginable type of business, from auto salvaging to resort management to real estate brokerage to, more frequently, electric and mechanical contracting. Utilities now routinely sell appliances, provide plumbing, heating and cooling, and service contracts, engage in insulation work, sell and install storm windows and doors, provide outdoor lighting and interior lighting fixtures. Normally as a free market Republican, I wouldn't have much problem with that. This is a free country. People can compete the way they want to, the way they choose. The problem with this is, you have a regulated utility that has a clear income source that is dependent upon ratepayers that is set by the Government, and they have a flow of resources that is established by the public sector. And it is a rate of return based upon cost plus. The challenge--and what the D.L. Smiths of the world are feeling--is the subsidization of that regulated business going into the unregulated field and driving small to mid-size contractors out of business. Too many companies are doing a very natural thing--trying to grow, get a little more business here and there for their shareholders to try to be able to hold down the cost of electrical rates to their customers. That is understandable. The problem is, you are using that regulated utility where they don't have competition coming in there to compete against an unregulated field and, in many cases, driving out small to mid-size contractors like the D.L. Smiths of Topeka, KS, and others. Private sector businesses both small and large welcome competition. Unfortunately, there have been numerous instances where utilities have engaged, in some cases, in unfair and abusive competitive behavior which undermines true competition in these impacted markets. The primary obstacle to free, fair, and open competition in these markets is the ability of a utility to provide its affiliates and subsidiaries with artificially lower costs of operation through cross- subsidization and the failure to properly recover the true costs of equipment and services provided by the utility to such unregulated operations. These advantages arise neither from size, nor efficiency, but rather from the corporate relationship such operations have with its related utility. The utility companies are doing, by and large, a great job in serving the public, providing utility rates at as low a cost as possible. That is a good thing. They work conscientiously to do that. We have a number of very good utility companies in the State of Kansas. When they use the cross-subsidization, which is what we are trying to prevent in this bill, to run out small and midsize businesses, that is when we have a problem, particularly when denying access to newly emerging markets, a key to future expansion, job growth, and profitability for this country. For those reasons, I support this amendment. I also recognize my colleagues who wrote the bill, the Senators from New Mexico, particularly Senator Domenici. They are trying to address this issue. We put forward an amendment that we hope will strengthen the bill, help it out, one that doesn't negatively impact the electrical utility businesses, other than to say here is the area in which you can operate. Outside of that, this should be left to other businesses, particularly small and midsize ones, to allow them to grow. The amendment we put forward has broad support from the contracting community, electrical contractors, plumbing, heating, and mechanical contractors because they are feeling this onslaught. Most of my colleagues, I guess, have been contacted by the contractors, most of which are small to midsize businesses operating in communities throughout the country, that want this Feingold-Brownback amendment to be added to the Energy Policy Act of 2003. I recognize the work that the chairman and ranking member have put on this particular topic. We hope this amendment can be accepted because we think it strengthens the bill. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution expressing sympathy for the victims of the devastating earthquake that struck Algeria on May 21, 2003. Algeria, a North African nation and former colony of France, was rocked by an enormous earthquake registering 6.8 on the Richter scale on May 21 killing more than 2,000 people, injuring 10,000 and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless. I rise to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the Algerian people and to encourage the United States to commit itself to help Algerians pick up their lives and move past this tragedy. President Bush committed funds to the Algerian Red Crescent Society, and the U.S. airlifted disaster supplies, including blankets, tents, medical supply kits. It is important that in Algeria's hour of need that we act as a humane Nation. The kindness of a compassionate America can help heal the wounds of Algeria. We must define ourselves as a nation by the goodness and compassion we extend to our fellow human beings who inhabit this world with us. Though it is not simply in our self-interest, we should be careful to view our compassionate acts as instruments of goodwill presenting the case for American leadership to the world. These acts of compassion can serve to further our interests while reinforcing the American ideal as something other nations would want to attain. Thomas Jefferson stated that America ``should have an Empire for Liberty,'' meeting a moral obligation to defend and promote freedom throughout the world. That remains for any American foreign policy, but is only buttressed by our willingness to serve our fellow man. It would be a tragedy in this case if we were to wait for our ship to come in; we should swim out to meet it. Algeria can be the mark where America as a leading moral nation can greet his fellow suffering man with open arms and mercy.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will not speak long. The Senator from Kentucky has covered this very well, as well as the Senator from Arizona. I think it is important that the Senate take up this resolution. It is an important time to do this and it is an important cause. There are two narrow issues I would like to comment on briefly regarding the situation of the neighboring country of Thailand. Thailand has been a strong ally of the United States for some period of time and has worked closely with us on a number of issues in which we have a strong interest in the region. Yet on this issue of Burma, Thailand has not been constructive. As a matter of fact, it has put forward a number of really quite negative comments. The current Thai Prime Minister most distressedly has begun an assault on Burmese exiles living as refugees on the Thai-Burma border, which leads me to the next category on which I think we need to be pressing. I have been to the Thai-Burma border. The exiles, because of the Burmese Government, have fled to the Thai border and are in refugee camps. They are subjected to all sorts of horrific conditions--living conditions that are not appropriate, sanitation conditions that are not appropriate, and then they are being trafficked, as people move through, trying to take young women and children into the sex trade that flourishes in Thailand and other places, but particularly in Thailand. We have seen a rapid slave trade, trafficking in persons. Sex trafficking is taking place because of the Burmese Government and what they are doing, and the complicity of the Thai Government of not dealing with this situation on the border, of not condemning those in the Burmese Government who are causing problems. I rise in support of the bill introduced by the Senator from Kentucky. What is happening in Burma is an extraordinary situation. It is having huge human consequences in the region with people fleeing from the Burmese Government and who then are being trafficked, and we are not getting the help and support we need from a number of countries, particularly Thailand. This seems to be propping up the Burmese regime. This is something about which we should be very clear to our allies cannot continue. I rise in strong support of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. I urge its unanimous passage and world condemnation of what is taking place by the Government of Burma. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President----

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to recognize my staff member Bonjwing Lee on this 15th day of July, 2003. It is with both regret and heartfelt joy that my staff and I see Bonjwing leave my office today. I as well as many of my staff member have had the blessing of knowing Bonjwing nearly the entire 7 years of my tenure thus far in the Senate. Hailing from Kansas City, MO, he first came to service in my office as a bright young college student at Northwestern University and in the subsequent years has become a friend and family member to the Brownback crew and me. For the past year and a half, Bonjwing has worked with me as a legislative aide. Professionally, the ``Jwinger,'' as he is affectionately called by his colleagues, has demonstrated diligence, dedication, kindness, and humility in his work, and his outstanding service has been deeply appreciated. Beyond the office, I am honored to call Bonjwing a personal friend. Through talks we have shared and interactions, I have come to know Bonjwing as a remarkable young man with unique perspectives. I have learned a great deal from his cultural heritage, his religious faith, active endeavors, talents, and amazing experiences, and for this I thank him. Although I lose a valued staff member today and will miss his presence and company, I heartily congratulate Bonjwing Lee on his many successes and prayerfully wish him well as he heads off to take on the rigors of legal study at the University of Michigan School of Law this fall and to an exciting future beyond. As he has taught me that the Chinese never say goodbye, instead parting company with a promise, ``we shall meet again,'' I remain optimistic that our paths will cross again and look forward to my next meeting with Bonjwing. I wish to leave Bonjwing with a verse from the Book of Philippians, IV: 9 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.