Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I will speak to the pending business, which is the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the circuit court of appeals. She is a highly qualified person who really needs to be recognized. We need to move through this rapidly. The last 2 years, I was honored to be able to serve on the Judiciary Committee. We held extensive hearings on Priscilla Owen to be a circuit court judge. She went through those hearings in an extraordinary fashion. It was a learning experience. It was as if a professor was there teaching and going through with us, here is how I decided this case, here is hornbook law on this, here is how this should be decided, here is how I viewed the issue. She really has a fine-tuned legal mind. I was impressed by the legal mind she has. I was impressed by the common sense she had with it as well. It was as if this was a highly trained legal mind well adapted to being able to judge, but also with a sense of values of the people, which is as one would expect because she was elected to the Texas Supreme Court. She has been around the public. She knows how people think. When a lot of people look at the judiciary in the United States, they do not feel like they get a sensible approach to judging a fair amount of time. She is an extraordinary person to have both that depth of mental training and ability and a sensible touch that the people really desire and want to have in somebody on the judiciary. What I am most distressed about is it appears as if now we are going to get our second filibuster of a circuit court judge from the Democratic Party. In the past, we have not had filibusters of judges. We have had them at a Supreme Court level but not the circuit or district court level. Now it appears as if we are going to get our second filibuster of a judge in a matter of a couple of months. This, of course, is to raise the vote standard so she does not have to get 51 votes, she has to get 60 votes to be able to go on the circuit court of appeals. This is not advice and consent of the Senate, which is what our standard is held to. We are to give advice and consent on judges. They should be appointed by the administration and then there should be advice and consent. That should be a 51-vote margin. It should not be a 60-vote margin that now the other side is attempting to establish. This is a very distressing situation we are getting into. How many more judges are we going to see like that who are nominated for the circuit court? Are we going to continue to put them forward and the other side will say we are going to filibuster for whatever reason? How many of these is it to be? I recognize what the strategy is. It is to keep the circuit court reduced of judges, not to allow this President to appoint his judges, not to allow him to put his print upon the judiciary. I recognize that is what is happening on the other side of the aisle, but when they do that, one needs to recognize the long-term policy implications of so doing. Now they are saying a President cannot appoint his or her judges to the bench; that when they were elected and selected by the people of the United States, now they cannot appoint people to the court; that the other party, if they can control 51 votes, can block the President. This is not about advice and consent. It is about blocking a President from appointing his judges to the Federal bench. We have not seen this strategy before. It was always the President puts forward his nominees, we hold hearings, and then if they can be blocked with 51 votes, they are blocked, but not filibustering of circuit court judges. This is a dangerous area. On the other hand, we could say the other party is looking at this saying this represents a two-fer for us: We cannot only block the President from getting his judges on the bench, we can block the Senate from doing other business. We do not normally take weeks on end to do a Federal circuit court nominee, but that is what we are ending up doing with Miguel Estrada and now with Priscilla Owen. We are spending weeks on end of Senate floor time on a circuit court judge. That is not how the system is set up. These nominations should be taking a couple of hours, at most, for debate and voting, and then we should be moving on and debating fiscal stimulus, how do we get this economy growing, how do we create more jobs. We have a number of issues in regard to rural development. How do we get more people to move out into rural areas of Kansas. We have plenty of issues on foreign policy to debate. What about the new Iraqi leadership? What about the relationship of the United States to the U.N.? There is a whole litany of issues we could be taking floor time up with, but instead we are on circuit court judges that should be debated in an hour or two, voted up or down by advice and consent of the Senate, as it says in the Constitution, and moving forward. We are taking up valuable time instead, weeks on end, with circuit court judges that should have a clear vote up or down. This hurts the country on two fronts. It hurts on the judiciary, on not having the people appointed to the bench that we need to have, and it hurts us by not being able to do other business we should be focused on in the Senate. That is not a useful way for us to conduct business in the Senate. I urge the other side of the aisle to please step forward and stop the filibuster of circuit court judges. That is not the way we need to operate to be able to get the business done. On top of that, we have circuit courts around the country that in some cases have only half of the judges that are necessary. The other half have resigned or left office and so we have enormous vacancies. Some people would say they like it that way because then two circuit court judges can pick a third one--maybe it is two liberal circuit court judges can pick a district court judge, bring them up to a three- judge panel to have a liberal-leaning panel and we can set policy and set law that way. But that is not the way the system is set to operate, even though it does operate that way. We really need to move forward in this area. I do not normally come to the floor to harangue about what is taking place in the judiciary, but in this case this is beyond the pale. This is not what should be taking place. It is hurting us and it is hurting the country.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, rural America has been depopulating at an alarming rate. The same is true for the rural counties in Kansas. In fact, over half of the counties in the State are losing population. We are going to stop that trend. Senators, like Ben Nelson and I, who grew up in small towns know a little secret. Rural America is a great place to live. However, for rural towns to compete with urban areas for talented young people, they have to be able to provide the basics--like high quality health care. For the hospitals represented here today to be able to provide high quality health care for rural America, they have to be able to count on Medicare for fair reimbursement. For quite a few hospitals in Kansas, 70 and 80 percent of their caseload is paid for by Medicare. For the communities these hospitals serve, fair Medicare reimbursement is vitally important. Unfortunately, much of the regulation that comes out of CMS is based on economics of scale. The actuaries and accountants in Baltimore produce payment systems and formulas for reimbursement. The assumption is that the hospitals that are the most efficient will be the most successful. Unfortunately, efficiency is often a product of volume. If you treat 5,000 stroke patients in a year, you are probably going to be more efficient than if you treat only 5. Efficiency is a laudable goal, but it shouldn't be the only goal of Medicare. Particularly, when it comes to providing health care in a hospital with fewer than 50 beds. That is why Senator Nelson and I are introducing the ``Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act of 2003.'' Rather than rely on formulas calculated by CMS bureaucrats in Baltimore, the hospitals covered under our bill will rely on cost-based reimbursement. In addition, the bill recognizes that these hospitals don't have the volume to cover bad debt from patients and to keep up with growing demands for new technology and infrastructure. This bill will create a new Rural Community Hospital designation within Medicare for rural hospitals with fewer than 50 beds. These hospitals will be eligible for cost-based reimbursement for impatient and outpatient services; a technology and infrastructure add on; cost based reimbursement for home health services where the provider is isolated; cost based reimbursement for ambulance services; and the restoration of Medicare bad debt payments at 100 percent. And the cost of the bill, which we believe with stabilize health care in rural America, is less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of annual Medicare expenditures. This is an important bill for rural hospitals; and I don't think you can overestimate the importance of rural hospitals to the communities they serve.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, rural America has been depopulating at an alarming rate. The same is true for the rural counties in Kansas. In fact, over half of the counties in the State are losing population. We are going to stop that trend. Senators, like Ben Nelson and I, who grew up in small towns know a little secret. Rural America is a great place to live. However, for rural towns to compete with urban areas for talented young people, they have to be able to provide the basics--like high quality health care. For the hospitals represented here today to be able to provide high quality health care for rural America, they have to be able to count on Medicare for fair reimbursement. For quite a few hospitals in Kansas, 70 and 80 percent of their caseload is paid for by Medicare. For the communities these hospitals serve, fair Medicare reimbursement is vitally important. Unfortunately, much of the regulation that comes out of CMS is based on economics of scale. The actuaries and accountants in Baltimore produce payment systems and formulas for reimbursement. The assumption is that the hospitals that are the most efficient will be the most successful. Unfortunately, efficiency is often a product of volume. If you treat 5,000 stroke patients in a year, you are probably going to be more efficient than if you treat only 5. Efficiency is a laudable goal, but it shouldn't be the only goal of Medicare. Particularly, when it comes to providing health care in a hospital with fewer than 50 beds. That is why Senator Nelson and I are introducing the ``Rural Community Hospital Assistance Act of 2003.'' Rather than rely on formulas calculated by CMS bureaucrats in Baltimore, the hospitals covered under our bill will rely on cost-based reimbursement. In addition, the bill recognizes that these hospitals don't have the volume to cover bad debt from patients and to keep up with growing demands for new technology and infrastructure. This bill will create a new Rural Community Hospital designation within Medicare for rural hospitals with fewer than 50 beds. These hospitals will be eligible for cost-based reimbursement for impatient and outpatient services; a technology and infrastructure add on; cost based reimbursement for home health services where the provider is isolated; cost based reimbursement for ambulance services; and the restoration of Medicare bad debt payments at 100 percent. And the cost of the bill, which we believe with stabilize health care in rural America, is less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of annual Medicare expenditures. This is an important bill for rural hospitals; and I don't think you can overestimate the importance of rural hospitals to the communities they serve.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to add another voice of support for the Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003. Earlier today, the President visited Bethesda Naval Hospital with his wife Laura and spent time with some of the courageous men and women who have been wounded while fighting both to secure the safety and freedom of all Americans, as well as on behalf of a people starving for access to our ideals of liberty and justice for all. After this visit, he was visibly moved by the bravery and patriotism he witnessed, and he noted a special moment for him. I'd like to quote his comments from the press conference now: ``I think the thing that stood out the most to me was seeing two wounded soldiers swear in as citizens of the United States. One man from Mexico, one man from the Philippines. People who had gone overseas. People who had risked their lives for peace and security and freedom. They wore the uniform of the United States military. And Laura and I got to see them sworn in as citizens. It was a very profound moment. We were both honored to have witnesses this. ``You know, we got an amazing country where so powerful, the values we believe, that people would be willing to risk their own life and become a citizen after being wounded. It's an amazing moment. Really proud of it.'' The President's words speak to exactly why this legislation is so important--and so worthwhile. These men and women are willing to risk their own lives on our behalf, even though they are not yet citizens of this country. It is why I once again strongly encourage the Senate to lend its support to this bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy today in introducing legislation to honor the contributions of immigrants who have shown their dedication both to this country and to creating a better future for themselves by joining the military. The Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003 will do two important things: it will offer easier access to naturalization for immigrant men and women of our Armed Forces, and it will establish immigration protections for their families if they are killed in action. In this time of war, it is especially important to recognize those who are fighting as we speak to preserve our freedom and our way of life. This is particularly true for those immigrants who have too often given their lives to defend our principles. In fact, after just 2\1/2\ weeks of our current conflict, of the 71 U.S. service members killed, seven missing and seven captured, eight of those killed, two of the missing, and two of the captured are immigrants. Most important, only four of the immigrants were U.S. citizens when the war began. There are more than 30,000 noncitizens on active duty in the U.S. military--approximately 2 percent of the total U.S. forces. In the Reserves and the National guard are another 20,000 noncitizens. These immigrants have proven a dedication to our country by joining the military or the Reserves or National Guard, a dedication which should be recognized and rewarded. The bill we are introducing will do that. First, it provides easier access to naturalization to members of the armed service who are already lawful permanent residents. Currently, being a member of the armed service allows a permanent legal resident to reduce their wait time for naturalization from 5 years to 3 years--our legislation would reduce the time to only 2 years. It would also ease this process by allowing naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies abroad at U.S. embassies, consulates, and overseas military installations, and by waiving naturalization fees. In addition, the bill provides for the immediate families of immigrant service personnel killed in action by either giving them the opportunity to legalize their immigration status or by allowing them to proceed with their own applications for naturalization as if the death had not happened. By protecting their immigration status, this element provides critical acknowledgment of the sacrifices that the families of our military members make as well. Finally, the bill also remembers those courageous men and women who ensure that in times of war or hostility, our country is ready and our recruiting needs are met. While we have seen success in Iraq in recent days, this war is not yet over--in fact, we have truly only reached the beginning of the end, not the end. As such, we must keep in mind that more and more Reserve and National Guard units are being called to active duty. Therefore, we have not forgotten the bravery of those who have immigrated and filled our ranks. Our legislation says that naturalization benefits similar to those conferred on members of the regular forces on duty will also apply to lawful permanent residents who are members of the Reserves or National Guard. In other words, they will have expedited naturalization during times of war or hostile military operations. This Nation has long reserved the Congressional Medal of Honor for those select war heroes of unsurpassed courage. It is our highest honor and our greatest praise--and one out of every five recipients of this honor have been immigrants. This accounting of the bravery and spirit of the immigrants in our Armed Forces speaks to the fact that they are as dedicated and as willing to sacrifice on our Nation's behalf. The Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act is an important piece of legislation that both honors and rewards immigrants to this Nation. They are already legal permanent residents-- this simply ensures that they have the opportunity to truly become a part of this country through citizenship. I urge the Senate to give its full consideration to this bill and to lend its support.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy today in introducing legislation to honor the contributions of immigrants who have shown their dedication both to this country and to creating a better future for themselves by joining the military. The Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003 will do two important things: it will offer easier access to naturalization for immigrant men and women of our Armed Forces, and it will establish immigration protections for their families if they are killed in action. In this time of war, it is especially important to recognize those who are fighting as we speak to preserve our freedom and our way of life. This is particularly true for those immigrants who have too often given their lives to defend our principles. In fact, after just 2\1/2\ weeks of our current conflict, of the 71 U.S. service members killed, seven missing and seven captured, eight of those killed, two of the missing, and two of the captured are immigrants. Most important, only four of the immigrants were U.S. citizens when the war began. There are more than 30,000 noncitizens on active duty in the U.S. military--approximately 2 percent of the total U.S. forces. In the Reserves and the National guard are another 20,000 noncitizens. These immigrants have proven a dedication to our country by joining the military or the Reserves or National Guard, a dedication which should be recognized and rewarded. The bill we are introducing will do that. First, it provides easier access to naturalization to members of the armed service who are already lawful permanent residents. Currently, being a member of the armed service allows a permanent legal resident to reduce their wait time for naturalization from 5 years to 3 years--our legislation would reduce the time to only 2 years. It would also ease this process by allowing naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies abroad at U.S. embassies, consulates, and overseas military installations, and by waiving naturalization fees. In addition, the bill provides for the immediate families of immigrant service personnel killed in action by either giving them the opportunity to legalize their immigration status or by allowing them to proceed with their own applications for naturalization as if the death had not happened. By protecting their immigration status, this element provides critical acknowledgment of the sacrifices that the families of our military members make as well. Finally, the bill also remembers those courageous men and women who ensure that in times of war or hostility, our country is ready and our recruiting needs are met. While we have seen success in Iraq in recent days, this war is not yet over--in fact, we have truly only reached the beginning of the end, not the end. As such, we must keep in mind that more and more Reserve and National Guard units are being called to active duty. Therefore, we have not forgotten the bravery of those who have immigrated and filled our ranks. Our legislation says that naturalization benefits similar to those conferred on members of the regular forces on duty will also apply to lawful permanent residents who are members of the Reserves or National Guard. In other words, they will have expedited naturalization during times of war or hostile military operations. This Nation has long reserved the Congressional Medal of Honor for those select war heroes of unsurpassed courage. It is our highest honor and our greatest praise--and one out of every five recipients of this honor have been immigrants. This accounting of the bravery and spirit of the immigrants in our Armed Forces speaks to the fact that they are as dedicated and as willing to sacrifice on our Nation's behalf. The Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act is an important piece of legislation that both honors and rewards immigrants to this Nation. They are already legal permanent residents-- this simply ensures that they have the opportunity to truly become a part of this country through citizenship. I urge the Senate to give its full consideration to this bill and to lend its support.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the military campaign to disarm Iraq and free the Iraqi people has been a display of America's technology, power, and compassion. Our fine men and women in uniform have demonstrated that they are not only fully capable of defeating anything that comes their way, but also that they are dedicated professionals even when confronted with the worst sort of cowardice and terrorism. Amidst fake surrenders and using innocent women and children as defensive shields, our troops have stayed on target and have kept civilian casualties to a remarkable minimum. We now have word that our troops have found what may be chemical weapons on warheads. If proven, this will indeed be the answer to those who claimed that Saddam was not an imminent threat. It is unfortunate that some of our so-called allies, namely France, could not see this danger. But it is a reminder to every American--of just how important it is for the U.S. to act in preserving our security--and not to defer our defense to countries that refuse to face today's new threats. When completed, military action is only half the battle. In order to secure a long-term peace in the region, and consequently, security for our Nation; we need to ensure a strong and vibrant democracy thrives in a new post-Saddam Iraq. There have been numerous questions raised about the likelihood of such a transition. But based on my long experience in working with the Iraqi opposition, I strongly believe a better day is around the corner for Iraq. It will not be easy, but it is very likely. Allow me to explain a few reasons why this is not mere optimism. Iraq is not Afghanistan--the problems we have seen in reconstructing Afghanistan will largely not be present when it comes to Iraq for many reasons. First, Iraq is a resource-rich nation and can afford to pay for its own reconstruction. Second, Iraq is not filled with religious radicals that plagued Afghanistan. And third, Iraq does not have armed warlords to settle with. In fact, Iraq has a history of having an educated and sophisticated population with a unique focus in the fields of technology and medicine. This will be a huge asset which will make a transformation to democracy more plausible. There will need to be an extensive ``de-Bath'ification'' of the nation--just as in Germany it was necessary to ``de-Nazify'' much of that country's leaders following WWII. Even after this process, there will remain numerous ethnic, tribal and religious factions within the country that will likely have strong differences of opinion. But that is true of nearly every society and hardly a reason to believe there could be no democratic government. In fact, it makes it more likely that those differences will finally be recognized and worked out through a more productive manner than the use of brute force. Iraq has a historical model for a federated democratic system--Much like Britain, Iraq used to have two parliamentary bodies. Opposition groups are working to reconstruct that model now to replace the existing regime. This is important because it shows that democracy as a concept, is not something that is being imposed on the Iraqi people, but rather, something that is being brought back to them from their own people. The U.S. should continue to work with all the Iraqi opposition groups in order to assist in this noble goal. Iraqi opposition leaders have already held elections to replace Saddam--Just last month, members of numerous Iraqi opposition groups met inside northern Iraq and elected six leaders to help in the transition to a democratic government once Saddam Hussein is gone. These opposition members come from very diverse religious and ethnic backgrounds. But they agree on the basic principles--that Iraq should be a federated democracy which respects the freedoms of religion, speech, and respects human rights. These Iraqi exiles have returned to fight for their homeland side by side with American forces. They have been flown into southern Iraq and are working with the local people there, as we speak, to help unify and embrace a peaceful transition to democracy. I had an opportunity to meet with many of these now elected Iraqi leaders in a meeting with them in London this past December. I saw then, and I see now, the unity that they are creating. It is not always picture perfect. Democracy never is. But too often, there has been a tendency to write off the important work and success of these leaders. We should not underestimate them. We should instead, use our energies to help make their dreams for a peaceful and prosperous Iraq, into a reality. Iraq's ultimate success will have to come from the Iraqi people--and it will! This is also why I believe we will see a strong, democratic Iraq in the near future. The people of this country have suffered under the rule of a tyrant. They have watched as their neighbors in Iran increasingly rise up to protest against the tyranny of the Islamic regime. They see the destitution that years of terrorism has brought to the Palestinian people. Democracy is the only way forward--and the people of Iraq know it. We don't have to convince them of it, but we do have to help them implement this dream. That will be the role for reconstruction in the months to come. If there is a danger that we face in looking at reconstruction policy in Iraq, it comes from holding on to the old belief system that the Middle East just can not handle democracy. Sadly, there are many in various government agencies who strongly cling to this view. We must make sure that those who hand out the funds to rebuild Iraq are on target with the President's vision. We will only get one chance to do this right. We must not revert back to the lobbying of dying regimes in the region. We must stay true to the bold vision that democracy in Iraq is coming. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA, Act. We need accountability in Federal spending. With our Nation at war and with a recovering economy, the Congress needs to take concrete steps to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being efficiently used by the Federal Government. Indeed, few things are more upsetting to my Kansas constituents than to see wasteful Federal spending. Kansans often say to me: ``I do not mind paying my taxes, but it is infuriating to see my hard-earned money being poorly spent by the Federal Government. If I am going to work hard to earn this money, I want it spent wisely.'' These are real concerns that need to be addressed. The bipartisan legislation that I introduce today with 13 original cosponsors would help to provide accountability to Federal spending by establishing a commission to review Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies. The Senate is already on record strongly supporting this concept through an amendment that I offered to the Senate Budget Resolution. On March 21, the Senate passed S.A. 282 to the budget resolution by a voice vote. S.A. 282 briefly describes the CARFA Act, expressing the sense of the Senate that a commission should be established to review Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies, and that the commission should submit to Congress: (1) recommendations to realign or eliminate wasteful agencies and programs within agencies; and (2) legislation to implement its recommendations. The CARFA Act is modeled on successful commissions of the past. If enacted, the 12-member presidentially appointed commission would conduct a 2-year review of Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies, using a narrow set of criteria in its review. Upon completion of its evaluation, the commission would submit to Congress both its recommendations of agencies and programs that should be realigned or eliminated, and proposed legislation to implement its recommendations. As with successful commissions of the past, the Congress would consider this legislation on an expedited basis with a comment period from the committees of jurisdiction. Within the expedited timeframe, the Congress would take an up-or-down vote on the legislation as a whole without amendment. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA, Act. We need accountability in Federal spending. With our Nation at war and with a recovering economy, the Congress needs to take concrete steps to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being efficiently used by the Federal Government. Indeed, few things are more upsetting to my Kansas constituents than to see wasteful Federal spending. Kansans often say to me: ``I do not mind paying my taxes, but it is infuriating to see my hard-earned money being poorly spent by the Federal Government. If I am going to work hard to earn this money, I want it spent wisely.'' These are real concerns that need to be addressed. The bipartisan legislation that I introduce today with 13 original cosponsors would help to provide accountability to Federal spending by establishing a commission to review Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies. The Senate is already on record strongly supporting this concept through an amendment that I offered to the Senate Budget Resolution. On March 21, the Senate passed S.A. 282 to the budget resolution by a voice vote. S.A. 282 briefly describes the CARFA Act, expressing the sense of the Senate that a commission should be established to review Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies, and that the commission should submit to Congress: (1) recommendations to realign or eliminate wasteful agencies and programs within agencies; and (2) legislation to implement its recommendations. The CARFA Act is modeled on successful commissions of the past. If enacted, the 12-member presidentially appointed commission would conduct a 2-year review of Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies, using a narrow set of criteria in its review. Upon completion of its evaluation, the commission would submit to Congress both its recommendations of agencies and programs that should be realigned or eliminated, and proposed legislation to implement its recommendations. As with successful commissions of the past, the Congress would consider this legislation on an expedited basis with a comment period from the committees of jurisdiction. Within the expedited timeframe, the Congress would take an up-or-down vote on the legislation as a whole without amendment. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues today and support this magnificent bill, the Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment Act of 2003. This was a long fought endeavor--one that is worthy of the effort--and an endeavor that will continue to promote the act of charity, but also serve as a catalyst for those who need help in gaining self-sufficiency. As you may know, the motto of my State, Kansas, is, Ad Astra Per Aspera or ``to the stars through difficulty.'' Indeed this is not only true of my State, but true of our Nation as well. The act of charity and benevolence is a hallmark of our great Nation and this bill will help to continue that legacy and provide a pathway for success for those in need. During the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on our Nation, we saw the best of America in one of the darkest times of our Nation's history. Though as a Nation we were physically and emotional battered, we were able to rise up and come together as one Nation united, determined to help those in need. Many organizations such as the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and countless other charities and nonprofit organizations stood together with the men and women who attended to the victims and their families. The strength and resolve of our Nation was truly remarkable through the benevolence shown to the families of those lost on that tragic day. It is time now that we help these and many other charitable organizations continue to help those in need. This bill, the CARE Act, will do just that. This act provides charitable giving incentives in the form of tax deductions for individuals and couples who do not itemize their tax returns--$250 for individuals and $500 for couples. It allows IRA holders to make charitable contributions from their accounts, and provides an enhanced charitable deduction for donations of food and books to charitable organizations. Additionally, it provides an expedited review process for organizations seeking a 501(c)(3) status designation, which makes it easier to qualify for Federal grants and contracts. Along those same lines, the bill requires the IRS to expedite the 501(c)(3) application for any group that needs that status to apply for a government grant or contract. To further help in this arena, the bill requires the IRS to waive the application fee for groups whose annual revenues do not exceed $50,000. I am also pleased that we are encouraging savings accounts for those in our society who are in the lower income brackets. The Individual Development Accounts, IDA, section provides a tangible incentive for folks to save and become self-sufficient, which not only provides financial security but increases the participants self-esteem which is priceless. Participants are able to withdraw these matched funds for a first home purchase, higher education costs, or to start a new business. Lives are dramatically changed by this program and I am pleased to see the Senate backing this important incentive. Lastly, I would like to highlight an issue that I am passionate about, an issue of the value of human life. I am very pleased that this bill will provide additional funding--$33 million to be exact--for helping teenage mothers achieve self-sufficiency by strengthening Federal support for locally run maternity group home programs. As we know, this was an important agenda item in the 1996 Welfare Reform bill. Under the 1996 law, minors are required to live at home under adult supervision or in a maternity group home in order to receive benefits. Teenagers who are provided the opportunity to live in these homes are more likely to continue their education or receive job training--this is paramount for not only economic stability but for the efficacy of the participant as well. These young women, who enter this program are less likely to have a second pregnancy, and more likely to find gainful employment that allows them to end a dependence upon Federal Government programs. I am positive that this bill will continue to financially aid those organizations that reach out to those in need and will help them to build on the success they have already seen in their communities. Indeed in my own State, I have, for several years, toured charitable organizations such as the Grace Center, which is a home for unwed mothers, and Bread of Life, which is an inner-city church that is leading community revitalization by partnering with schools and neighborhood organizations to provide scholastic, mentoring and bible study programs. As a nation, we are strongest in our ability to provide assistance to those in need, and to provide individuals with the tools necessary to succeed. Dr. King once said, ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and confidence, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.'' These organizations embody the epitome of Dr. King's statement. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation, support those organizations who have committed their lives to helping others and who are indeed helping individuals through difficulties reach for the stars.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mt. Carmel Regional Medical Center in Pittsburg, KS for its 100 years of providing healthcare services to the people of Crawford County and the surrounding region. From a handful of Sisters of St. Joseph of Wichita and only a few doctors a century ago to more than 800 employees, 200 volunteers and 50 physicians, Mt. Carmel Regional Medical Center has remained true to its founder's directive to ``Do all the good you can, to all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, and just as long as you can.'' On a rainy April morning in 1903, Mother Bernard Sheridan and five Sisters answered a call to serve in a region where countless immigrant miners and their families had flocked to work in the coalfields, a place where injury and illness were rampant. One of the Sisters described the deplorable conditions: ``When the miner's wife or children fell ill as a result of these unsanitary conditions, or when the miner himself was carried out of the pit broken and bloody or overcome by gas or powder fumes, there was no sickroom but the hot, crowded, dust-covered, fly-infested shack.'' With faith and little more than $5 in her pocket, Mother Bernard opened a hospital to serve those as they would ``that God should deal with themselves and their loved ones.'' The hospital was the first of many healthcare ministries the Sisters would later sponsor throughout Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and California. The little hospital could accommodate 20 patients at the time of its opening, and there was no paid staff. The six women worked 7 days a week attending to the nursing, cooking, laundry, cleaning and minding of the furnace. Eighteen-hour workdays were common, and when time allowed, the sisters slept in the attic. To aid in the hospital's survival, the Sisters worked out an agreement with the Santa Fe Operating Companies to care for the firm's employees for $80 and 15 tons of coal a month, an early example of managed care. The Sisters also created Kansas' first prepaid hospital insurance plan. For 25 cents a month, miners and their families were assured hospital care for as long as it was needed. Moreover, addressing their own nursing shortage, in 1904, the Sisters opened a school of nursing which continued into the 1970s when it was transformed into the present day university nursing education program. Mr. President, 100 years later, Mt. Carmel Regional Medical Center is a state-of-the-art facility serving nine counties of southeast Kansas, and it continues to be a leader in meeting community need with creativity and innovation. Mt. Carmel has overcome the early-day adversities of Kansas blizzards and oven-hot winds, numerous epidemics, war, drought, floods, mine strikes and shutdowns; to present day difficulties of escalating operating costs, third party payer cutbacks and work force shortages. So well did the hospital adapt, that it was recognized by the American Hospital Association in 1991 as one of the three best hospitals in the Nation to respond to the changes in health care. Mt. Carmel continues to meet the needs of those it serves, identifying health care issues and addressing them with the same ingenuity and collaboration its founder relied upon in the beginning. It holds fast to its mission of providing healthcare to all, regardless of ability to pay. Mt. Carmel has addressed the region's need for comprehensive cancer care with the creation of a certified community cancer center; and it is now aggressively fighting heart disease through the opening of a regional heart center. It has collaborated with others to create high quality, affordable childcare for working families and has provided accessible healthcare services through the creation of a community health clinic, recently transformed into a federally qualified health center. It has developed one of the few free dental clinics in the State, and a prescription drug assistance program to aid those who cannot afford them. Mt. Carmel has developed a congregational health ministry that actively involves and encourages area churches not only to take care of their own, but to put their faith in action for the betterment of their community. On the occasion of its centennial, Mt. Carmel Regional Medical Center looks to the future as it completes the most significant expansion and renovation in its history. A $16.5 million Outpatient Services project doubled the facility's ground floor square footage and included the opening of the heart center, and the installation of one of the most powerful MRI units in the region. Also completed were a new emergency department, expanded diagnostic imaging and surgery center, new occupational health and pre-op testing departments, expanded laboratory, pharmacy, medical records, patient registration, and financial services. So much has changed since Mother Bernard Sheridan embarked on her first healing ministry 100 years ago. Mt. Carmel has grown, adapted, and positioned itself as a healthcare leader and visionary, while never forgetting its mission to do all the good it can. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to all that has and will be done by Mt. Carmel Regional Medical Center as its looks forward to yet another century of service.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in offering a tribute to the late distinguished Senator Patrick Moynihan, a role model, an inspiration, a friend, and my fellow Senator. I can only hope that with my poor speaking skills, in comparison certainly to his, I can do justice to his many virtues and innumerable contributions he made to this Nation. I know today many of my colleagues are lauding him for his principled stands, even if it meant feeling exiled in Siberia. He many times fought the lonely and oftentimes frustrating fight, but he knew what was right and that sustained him through the years of criticism and controversy and, ultimately, was normally proven right. He was a great role model. In fact, when I first met the Senator from New York, one of the things that came to my mind was what the German poet, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, once said: Talents are best nurtured in solitude; character is best formed in the stormy billows of the world. He also said: He who is firm and resolute in will, molds the world to himself. I can't think of anybody to which this statement applies better than to Senator Moynihan. He has always been willing to stand upon his principles, in solitude if necessary, to weather the stormy billows of the world, to truly mold the world to himself. He has been someone who has been the epitome of being firm and resolute in will, no matter the criticism, the controversy or the circumstances. In fact, when he first wrote his report to President Johnson, for example, 40 years ago, highlighting the rising out-of-wedlock birthrates that were taking place in the country, he felt that this threatened the stability of the family, particularly minority families, one of the building blocks of our society. He was roundly attacked at that time. Rather than seeing this report rightly as a chilling foreboding of problems to come, people chose to turn a blind eye to the truth upon which he so correctly shed light. Now we have reached a stage where the out-of- wedlock birthrates in all the communities in our country have reached dangerous proportions, and everyone is in agreement about exactly how dangerous this is. How many times we have heard, ``Patrick Moynihan was right.'' How many times should we have had to hear it said? Senator Moynihan always understood the overriding importance of the truth, of ensuring that there is substance behind one's politics and not just words. He showed this time and time again. For example, one of the most important chapters of our Nation's story of human freedom and dignity is the history and legacy of the African- American march towards freedom, legal equality, and full participation in American society. Senator Moynihan understood the importance of this history, which is why in the 102d Congress he championed the effort to create a National African American Museum, a vital project upon which Congressman Lewis and I now have spent several years working and which we hope to get to completion. With Senator Moynihan's leadership, at that time the museum idea successfully passed the Senate but, unfortunately, did not pass the House and to this day we picked up his mantle and are still working on it. Senator Moynihan understood why it was so critical to honor this history, truly the history of not just African Americans but of our Nation. His commitment was key to the first efforts. As I seek to move forward the legislation to create the museum, I am honored that I am now carrying on the work he began in this body. It certainly makes for very big shoes to fill, but I am only hopeful that in his memory I may do just efforts justice. Billy Graham once said: Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand the spine of others are often stiffened. This was always true when we associated with Senator Moynihan. Somehow, people seemed to stand a little taller, act more resolute. They even argued better. No one could ever out argue Senator Moynihan, but somehow the challenge of having such a talented opponent made one's own skills sharper. There is so much more to my friend, though, than what is so obviously and publicly known. For example, so many of us here experienced his wonderful and robust sense of humor, something I wish everyone could have had the pleasure of participating in seeing. Senator Moynihan was all of this and much, much more. He was often described as the great statesman of the Senate, a breed that seems more and more difficult to find in politics. He was always a steadfast defender of American principles. He was also someone who brought dignity, character, and humor to this body. He has been and always will be the role model of the true statesman. In the Second Epistle to Timothy, Paul writes: I have fought the good fight, I finished the course, I have kept the faith. Senator Moynihan certainly did so. All of us here and across the Nation have benefited. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I hope once we are able to present the amendment that it will be accepted. We have floated it by both sides and it has been vetted as well. I hope it will be accepted. I will be sending an amendment to the desk that will express the sense of Senate that a commission be established to provide a real means of addressing and eliminating Government waste in domestic agencies and programs within agencies. The Federal Government needs such a commission. We don't need one like the ones we have had in the past that don't have any teeth to them, that simply report but there is never a vote taken on what the commission puts forward. This one will be different in that respect. Indeed, at a time of economic uncertainty and of war, it is imperative that the Government demonstrate real fiscal responsibility and accountability in Federal spending. Whether it is corporate America or the U.S. Government, fiscal accountability is paramount. With the devastating collapses we have had in corporate America, with Enron and WorldCom and others last year, we have seen what happens in the corporate world when fiscal accountability grows lax. Let's take steps now to avoid the same pitfalls at the Federal Government level. Let us ensure public trust by opening the books of Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies, making changes and reforms where necessary, in order to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. Fiscal accountability is what my amendment to the budget resolution is all about. Over the years we have established many useful measuring sticks for fiscal accountability in Federal spending. The Government Performance Result Act, GPRA, comes to mind. However, what measuring sticks such as GPRA lack is an effective means to implement their useful findings. What this resolution calls for is a commission that would incorporate the Federal Government's existing accountability measuring sticks to perform additional research of its own and provide the Congress with legislation, which we would vote on to either accept or reject as a whole, to implement its recommendations or not to accept them. In a few days I will be reintroducing bipartisan legislation that creates such a commission. The bipartisan Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA Act, would fulfill what is addressed by this resolution. It is bipartisan. Senator Miller from Georgia is a cosponsor, and I hope to add a number of others on this bill in the near term. I wish to speak for a minute about the CARFA Act. The CARFA Act provides Congress with a viable proven model to eliminate Government waste and inefficiency. It is modeled after the successful Base Realignment and Closure Commission. CARFA will incorporate the findings of past measuring sticks such as GPRA and will give them teeth. This program will focus on domestic discretionary spending. It will not be focused on military or entitlement programs. It is domestic discretionary programs. Where past commissions and reports failed in that they had no real means by which Congress could implement their findings and recommendations, CARFA will succeed. The scope of review called for by this resolution entails domestic agencies and programs within agencies. I want to emphasize that point. Where BRAC is already in existence and has gone through several rounds in rooting out waste in the Department of Defense and consolidating resources to make them more useful, more viable, CARFA would review Federal domestic agencies and programs within agencies using a narrow set of criteria which should produce significant results and do what BRAC did, consolidating our dollars in more efficient uses in high- priority areas. Over the proposed commission's 2-year review, the commission focused on two particular areas. One, duplicative: Where two or more agencies or programs are performing similar functions which can be consolidated or streamlined into a single agency or program, the commission would recommend that the agency or program be realigned. We do not need duplication within the Federal Government. Second, wasteful or inefficient: Where the commission finds an agency or program to have wasted Federal funds by low-priority spending, it would recommend that such an agency or program be realigned or eliminated. Three, outdated, irrelevant, or failed programs: We have those within the Federal Government. Where the commission finds that an agency or program has completed its intended purpose--I do not think we ever think about that, that a program actually completes its intended purpose, but it happens and we keep spending in the program--has become irrelevant, or has failed to meet its objectives--it was designed properly in the sense that the people at the time had the best of intentions in the design of the program, but it simply did not work to meet the needs at that time--and it would recommend the elimination of such an agency or program. Such a commission, upon completion of its 2-year review, would submit to Congress both its recommendations for the realignment and elimination of domestic agencies and programs, and proposed legislation to implement these recommendations. The Congress would then consider the commission's proposed legislation in an expedited manner, with input from the committees under whose jurisdiction the affected agencies or programs fall. Following the committee's comment period, the proposed legislation would be brought to the floor of each Chamber for debate and a single vote, up or down, without amendment, one vote. If we are going to get serious about priority spending during this critical time in our Nation's history, if we want to get the most use out of every taxpayer dollar that comes to Washington, such a commission is clearly needed. As in any bureaucracy, inefficiency or low-priority use of taxpayer dollars is often a serious threat to the credibility of an agency or a program, much less the legislative bodies that create and sustain them. We must be certain the money we spend is not just allocated in a certain way just because we have historically spent it that way. I do not know of anything that drives my constituents more nuts than to see wasteful Federal spending or programs that have accomplished their purposes but the money is still being spent. There are people who come up to me and say: I do not mind paying my taxes, but it drives me nuts to see the money poorly spent. If I am going to work hard to earn this money, I want it to be wisely spent. Too often there are examples of that not occurring. Priorities do change and our spending must change with them. The CARFA Act is crafted to take these changes into account. Whether one is conservative or liberal or in between, surely we can all agree that low-priority use of taxpayer dollars is an unacceptable strain on hard- working Americans and on our economy. It is certainly no way to operate a business. Yet I feel, as do many of my colleagues, that we continually fail to get the most out of every taxpayer dollar that comes to Washington. Let's change that. CARFA is about maximizing the benefit of all Federal funds. Funds saved through this legislation could be used to pay down the national debt or be channeled to higher congressional priorities. It is my hope this body will agree to this amendment and then proceed to consider and enact the CARFA Act. Truly, this will provide a real tool at the service of the Federal Government to better prioritize spending and shift funds from less beneficial to more beneficial areas. All of us surely support such a move. I believe Americans would greatly benefit from such a commission which has the real potential to help us truly root out inefficiency in the Federal Government in such a way that we can more fully realize the benefits of all Federal funds. That is the spirit of this amendment and the CARFA Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, to vote for this amendment, to adopt it as part of the budget resolution and to show support for the CARFA Act of 2003 by becoming original cosponsors of this important legislation. Mr. President, as we debate the budget, this is exactly what we need to be doing: Finding ways we can prioritize and make sure our spending is efficient. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is acceptable.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to propose an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so I may introduce an amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join colleagues in the introduction of the New Homestead Act. I am very pleased to be a supporter along with my colleagues from North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Alexander Hamilton once made a statement I think is particularly applicable to the current situation we are discussing--what is happening in rural America, particularly in a swath of rural America from Texas north to the Canadian border that includes the State of the Presiding Officer and a number of States throughout the Midwest. He said: To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted. We listen to that and say: What does he mean? In other words, we must encourage and support intellectual activity and enterprise, and the area in which this has been most neglected has been in our rural communities. We must change this before some of these precious entities wither away. Every year, rural communities become emptier and more desolate as fewer and fewer people remain. This out-migration of youth to more urban areas is due to the simple fact of a lack of economic opportunity within these beautiful settings. Although America was originally rural, with most of its people living in rural areas and working on farms, that has changed dramatically over the course of the past century. Today, after decades of decline, less than 2 percent of the Nation's population live on farms in rural areas. In my State alone, over half of the counties are suffering from this youth drain and out-migration. I have a map I want to show to my colleagues. These are counties in Kansas. We have 105 counties. These are the counties that would qualify for the New Homestead Act; that is 10-percent population decline or more over the last 20 years. You can see a huge swath of our State that has extensive out-migration. You can say a lot of different factors caused this. One has been the concentration and growth in agriculture, where there are fewer farmers farming larger tracts of land. That is certainly accurate. It is also the fact that a number of people in agriculture have, because of a lack of income, had to get off-farm jobs. There are not major urban areas in a lot of these places, so they have not been able to find that and they have had to move to major urban areas. So you have had this combination of difficulty in agriculture, difficulty of a lack of jobs on an off-farm basis. It has led to this huge out- migration. If this were just Kansas, it would be problematic enough, but instead of a whole swath, particularly in the Middle West, from Texas sweeping up north all the way to Montana and Minnesota, you have a number of counties like this. I believe nearly 90 percent of counties in North Dakota qualify because of the same feature: Concentration in agriculture, fewer off- farm job opportunities, and people saying: We simply don't have anyplace to work. We would love to live here. We would love to be able to stay here. We have to have a job. We have to be able to make a reasonable income. This is the total population. If you look at the school-age population, it is even worse. It is even a more steep decline. I have been in cities in Rawlins County and far Northwest Kansas where the school-age population has declined nearly a fourth over the last 5 years. So while the overall population is going down like this, the school-age population is plummeting. As young people don't move back in the area, there are not the jobs and opportunities. They are saying: I would love to live here, but I can't. I have been around a lot of rural development efforts that tried to push people back to rural areas. To me, this is a way to pull people back to rural areas, by providing economic incentives, the likes of which we did to populate the region in the first place. This is a region that was populated by the Homestead Act in the first place, telling people, if they will stay there and work 160 acres for 5 years, it is theirs. We had people self-selected. It wasn't people saying: You are going to go, and we will select you, we won't pick you--it was the great American way. This is the opportunity. If you want to do it, it is your choice. You don't have to do it. People took it and moved out. The New Homestead Act is recognizing the new economic realities and saying what can we do to pull people into these areas. These are ideas we tried in major urban areas, we tried them in Washington, DC, and a number of other places where we were having the hollowing out of urban areas, and they have attracted people back to the core in these urban areas. We are trying to take those same proven models, proven tests, to another area that has been hollowed out in the United States. That is why I am excited about this bill. I am hopeful it is something we can move in total, or in part, quickly. We need to do so. We need to move this forward aggressively. It is providing new hope and new vision in areas where a lot of people were of a mind that: I guess nobody is listening or paying attention, and we are going to have difficulty making it. Our community is not going to make it. Here we are saying, no, we want to provide this new hope and opportunity with the New Homestead Act. I hope our colleagues, if they have other ideas that could strengthen this bill, will bring those forward as well. It is a very difficult issue for our State. I am delighted to be supportive of this effort. My colleagues and I are going to push aggressively here and in the House to make it happen. It is simple: rural America--our history, our founding lifestyle--is suffering and the Congress must not turn our backs. Take, for example, the town of Nicodemus, KS, in Graham County. This town was started more than a century ago when some 350 freed slaves left Kentucky and made a new beginning for themselves on the plains of Kansas. For a while, the town prospered, showing a new life to these newly-freed slaves. Unfortunately though, the railroad never moved in--a devastating lost opportunity that was followed by drought, depression, and, finally, a post-war exodus. Suddenly, the town itself and its population seemed almost ghost-like. Today, Nicodemus is without a school, and there is only one full-time farmer left in the area. Unfortunately, this story is not an isolated one, as hard times have hit throughout America. In fact, this kind of situation is happening across our heartland, and we are here today to provide the much needed incentives to preserve rural America and the values instilled there. We must revitalize within our heartland that spirit of creativity and enterprise that has always allowed our nation to grow and adapt. It has long been the key to our success both philosophically and in the wealth of our nation. For example, Americans who once held jobs that relied on the production of natural resources, such as farming, now work in service or technology industries. As a result of new technologies, American industries, including agriculture, have become more profitable with fewer employees. We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure the economic viability of these rural communities, even in light of the major problems and out-migration these areas are suffering. In 1862, the Homestead Act inspired many to move to places like Kansas with promises of 160 acres of free land to those settlers who would farm and live there for five years. Today, we are introducing the New Homestead Act. While we aren't offering 160 acres, we are rewarding those individuals willing to take a risk and locate in a high out- migration county with the opportunity to get a college degree, buy a home, and build a nest egg for the future. Through loan repayment, small entrepreneurship credits, home tax credits, protecting home values, and individual homestead accounts, this bill reaches out to a new generation of Americans. And it is this new generation of Americans that will help rejuvenate rural America. Since our founding, a strong and vibrant rural America has been essential to a strong nation--and this principle remains only more true today. Our continued national well-being depends as much, if not more, on the condition of our less populated areas as on our urban areas. It is my hope that the Senate will take a serious look at this bill and move quickly to implement the provisions we have set forth. I appreciate the work that my colleagues Senators Hagel and Dorgan have done on this bill. Their vision and drive have brought this bill to where it is today, and I hope that the same spirit will help propel this bill through the Senate so that we can start helping our rural communities as quickly as possible. For, as we struggle through economic hard times nationwide, it would be wise to remember a comment George Washington made: A people . . . who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything. I know our rural communities are not only our history, but still have much to offer our nation today. Therefore, let us enable that spirit of commerce, and put these communities on the path to recovery.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Estrada nomination occur at 2:15 today; provided further the order for debate remain from 11:30 to 12:30; I further ask unanimous consent at 12:30 the Senate begin consideration of Calendar No. 36, the Bybee nomination as under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and my colleague on the other side of the aisle for this most spirited debate. We are finally here debating the most difficult and contentious social issue of our day. This is one of those elephants in the living room that we in the country across America have been going around saying is not there; not wanting to focus on it; not wanting to confront it; but it is there. This is it, the issue of Roe v. Wade. I was listening to colleagues, thinking of Mose's admonition: ``Choose ye this day life or death.'' Which will it be? We are finally having the debate, Roe v. Wade. I would like to remind colleagues. I read it again about 3 months ago. It is about federalizing State laws so we are clear on this. It is a lengthy opinion where they said we are going to take all of these State laws in a patchwork regarding allowing abortions, or not allowing it, and we are going to federalize it. We are going to discover a right to privacy and say this is built within the overall thinking of the Constitution, the original Framers. We are going to say there is a right to privacy that applies to reproductive health. We are going to take the State laws of Kansas, California, Iowa, the Pennsylvania and North Carolina law, we are going to take all of those laws, throw them all out, and say this is the law of the land. We are going to say we found it to be constitutional. There are a lot constitutional scholars who have grave questions about the nature of the basic fundamentals in Roe v. Wade, regardless of the issue of abortion, but finding this constitutional right. Lots of people have questions about this decision. I hope fundamentally people will recognize that if you repeal Roe v. Wade, you go back to allowing the States to decide this issue, which is the way it was prior to Roe v. Wade. The States decided this issue. Kansas had a set of laws. Other States had sets of laws. This is how it was resolved and dealt with across the land. That is what we are talking about. People are saying if you repeal Roe v. Wade, everything goes back into a back alley and no abortions would be allowed in the United States. To be factually correct, what happens? This goes back to the States to decide how they will handle this particular issue if you do not have Roe v. Wade. When people paint such a cataclysmic change, we recognize what we are truly legally talking about on Roe v. Wade. What has happened since Roe v. Wade? It has been 30 years now, or a little more. Forty million babies have been aborted in the United States. We are now back and debating this fundamental issue. Really, when you boil it all down, it is what is the legal status of a young human. The Senator from Pennsylvania beautifully put forward the competing issues of interest here of one side--the mother and the child. Fundamentally, you have to look at it and ask yourself and decide why as a country we have not been willing to confront this issue. What is the legal status of the child in utero? What is it? Is it a person or it is a piece of property? It is one of the two. When the child is out of the mother's womb, we have clearly decided. Five seconds ahead of that time when it is in the womb, what is this child? Five months in the womb, what is this child? Is it a person or is it a piece of property? You can say that is an odd way of putting the debate. One of the people who inspired me in this legislative arena was a gentleman named William Wilberforce, a parliamentarian in England. He led the battle for ending the slave trade by Great Britain. They had this debate on the fundamental issue of what is a slave. Is it a person or a piece of property? They even did a Wedgewood plate on this. They had a person in chains as a slave. They put a question around it. ``Am I not a man and a brother?'' They asked society that question. ``Am I not a man and a brother?'' What is the child in the womb? Is it not a person and a brother? When will we decide? We just simply haven't been willing to say it. We have been willing to duck around different avenues on it. Now we are talking about research on the young human. We decided to treat it as property when talking about patenting young human life. You can't patent a person. Therefore, it must be property. But we are uncomfortable stating that in law because somehow it doesn't seem quite right. When we let the child live, it becomes a person under everybody's definition. This actually happened in the slave debate. At one point in time in our Constitution we said a slave is three-fifths of a person because we weren't willing to say it was a person. It is property, so it is three-fifths. We all look back, that was horrible, and that was wrong. We know it was wrong. Now you are finding that courts are hearing cases about frozen embryos and contesting between the mother and the father in a divorce case on whether to implant or not. They are asking the question in the divorce case: What is the frozen embryo, a person or piece of property? Now the courts are having to use the same sort of terms that were used in the slave debate. They are asking, Is it a quasi-human with the potential for life? They are still trying to get around the question of person or property. Which is it? It is one or the other. It is one or the other. The courts are trying to find that in a contorted way. It is not quite either because we don't want to face it now. That is the fundamental question of Roe v. Wade. Is it a person or is it property? Am I not a man and a brother? We have coarsened our society in a period of time since Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, approximately 40 million abortions have taken place in this country. We now have a debate in the Nation about whether we are going to have a culture of life or a culture of death. I think we would all agree we want a culture of life. What does that mean? That means we support and stand for life. We stand for it in all phases of life. We stand for it in all difficulties and all types of life. It doesn't mean somebody who has some physical handicap has any less of a life than what I have or the Presiding Officer or anybody in this room. This is life we want to celebrate. We want to take that celebration to the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. We want them to be able to celebrate the culture of life. We want to project that and send that around the world, that we believe in the culture of life. That is what this debate is about. Choose today life or death, culture of life. Is a young human a person or property? I think scientific evidence clearly teaches over time, if it hasn't already, that this is a person. You can't treat it any other way. I am glad we are having this debate. I am glad my colleague from Iowa raised this issue. It is an important one for us. I hope we can conclude this. We support the culture of life. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of time allotted to me.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding the time. This debate is about a very difficult and very important topic of our era and our day. I believe a true mark of a civilized society is not the level of human dignity it confers upon the strong or wealthy, but a true mark is on how much it confers upon the vulnerable and the oppressed. Clearly an abortion procedure that dismembers and kills partially-born human beings has no place in a civilized society. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the impact of abortions on society is profound. I want to spend some time talking about the impact on society, particularly when you take such a risky procedure as this which is not necessary and allow it to continue within the context of this society today. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some statistics of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment on partial-birth abortions, when they were being conducted in the State, and the reasons they were being done.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would just note, in citing this statistic, it has been cited previously, the statistical year we have available to us, 182 partial-birth abortions were done and reported within the State of Kansas. Of those, when they asked if the abortion was necessary to prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, was the impairment physical or mental, they were asking, are you asking for this abortion, this partial-birth abortion to be done for physical reasons or for mental reasons, all 182 partial-birth abortions done in Kansas this year were for mental reasons. Zero were for physical reasons. The doctors conducting these, the patients doing it, said this is all for a mental reason. The notion that some have put forward that there is not another physical option, that you are jeopardizing the physical health of the mother, the life of the mother by banning a partial-birth abortion procedure is certainly not borne out by the statistics in my State. You would think there should be at least one, maybe five that were for physical reasons of the mother. In our instance, in Kansas, where we require by law that partial-birth abortion be reported, and the reasoning, zero were for physical reasons. These were all for mental reasons that were put forward. I would hope we could put to rest the debate point about we have to maintain this procedure for the life of the mother, the health of the mother. Our experience in the State is that is simply not the reason. I am delighted to be able to provide that to my colleagues for the Record. Regardless of your view overall on abortion, to have this grisly practice of partial birth continuing is something we should not have taking place. It is something we don't need to take place, and it does lead to a more callous society. That is the point I want to discuss, its overall impact on society. I hope we can step back a moment and philosophize a bit about what it does. Aside from partial-birth abortion, it has become increasingly clear that the impact abortion has had on society is in itself profound. I am quite convinced the widespread acceptance of this brutal practice has already significantly coarsened public attitudes toward human life in general, particularly toward the most vulnerable in society, whether they are unborn or old or infirm. This coarsening of public attitude over the past several years has made other assaults against the dignity of humans and human life more acceptable and more accessible. It is one of those slopes that you start down. If you say as a society, partial-birth abortion, we really don't like it that much but we will go ahead and let it take place, when you say it from a large legislative body such as this one, the Senate, the House of Representatives, to say we really don't care for it but we will let it take place, and we know what this procedure is and we know most of it, if not all of it, is on a choice basis of a mental concept, it is not on physical consequence for the mother, we know most of this is about a mental choice on the mother's part, and yet we are going to let this continue, what message does that send overall to society? What does it say to the country? What does it say to the world? Does it make other assaults on human dignity possible? Euthanasia; assisted suicide; let's do embryo research; now let's clone human beings. We continue to move upon that path of saying the human being is not sacred; it is not precious; it is another entity; and we can countenance that such coarseness takes place, and it continues to move us on down that road. Mother Teresa was quoted as once saying that ``if we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?'' That is a really good question she was asking. If we accept that a mother would do this, particularly a partial-birth abortion procedure, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? We all have a duty, an obligation, as citizens of the United States to stand up against such a moral outrage as partial-birth abortion. Human life is sacred. It is a precious gift. Human life is not something to be disposed of by those with more power. 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 continues in that point to be a precious and unique gift, a gift never to be given or to be created again. It is given once. That is it. It seems therefore that in some measure this debate is about whether or not that child prior to birth is a child at all. Is this young human a person? Is it a child or is it a mere piece of property? Some who support partial-birth abortion will argue this young human is not a person and can therefore be disposed of as property, as need sees. To me, this would be a ghastly concept. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a lady whose statue is in this building, one of the women depicted in the portrait monument, foresaw this awful view of humanity, of human life. She wrote a letter to Julia Ward Howe in October of 1873 and 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 is a quote from 1873. The Congress must speak out against this atrocity. We must speak out against this degradation of human life. These are life issues of enormous consequence, and they are issues by which history will rightly judge us. I thank those who have brought the debate forward. I know everybody who has entered into it does so with deep convictions, deep desires to do what is right. I hope we would back up as a society and ask ourselves, what coarsening does this do to us; what message is this sending, and what are we really saying about that young human life? Is it a person or is it a piece of property? It is one or the other in our jurisprudence, it has to be. Everything in this building right now, everything in this country is either a person or a piece of property. I am a person; my clothes are property. The building is property. The people in here are personages. What is the young human? We have had this debate before. We really need to consider that that is a child. It is a gift. I want to quote one more time Mother Teresa and her concern on this particular issue and this particular issue of abortion itself. I don't think anybody could question her bona fides for being willing to take care of the weakest and the poorest in society and in the culture overall and her willingness to work and her work being carried on of taking care of the most vulnerable in society. She said this one time about the whole issue of abortion. She spoke very passionately, clearly about this topic. She said: 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. We are confronted with an issue that is difficult and has been in front of us before. We have a chance for the first time in a number of years to limit a particular ghastly abortion procedure. It has been adequately described over and over. This is the time. This is the place. This is the moment for the Senate to pass this bill, to pass it without amendment, to get it on through to the House and to the President, who will sign it into law. We can do something that really will send a right signal to society, a right signal overall to the culture, away from the coarsening and towards a life that does support a culture of life and not one of death. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate some hardworking students who are paying attention to a neglected area of all of our education--our own history and founding. Fortunately, there are programs such as ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program,'' which is the most extensive educational program in the country, and was developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This program, which is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress, finally addresses this woeful lack of knowledge in a systematic and thorough way. In fact, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C., to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People'' program. What an experience! I am especially proud to announce that the class from Hays High School from the town of Hays will represent my home State of Kansas in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience, they have gained much-- including a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The three-day ``We the People'' national competition is difficult, yet true to life as it is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The ``We the People'' program-- which provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels--not only enhances students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, but it also helps them identify the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. At the same time, critical thinking exercises, problem-solving activities, and cooperative learning techniques help develop participatory skills necessary for students to become active, responsible citizens. Independent studies done by groups as diverse as the Educational Testing Service, Richard Brody at Stanford University, and researchers at the Council for Basic Education discovered that participants outperform comparison students, develop a greater commitment to democratic principles and values and are more enthusiastic about their work. Clearly this is a deserving program! The class from Hays High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, D.C. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the ``We the People'' national finals.