Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, last week, with the help of Pakistani authorities, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured and taken into custody. This represents the highest ranking al Qaeda official to be apprehended in the war on terrorism and, according to some experts, Mohammed is the most important terrorism related arrest in history. I come to the floor today to publically express my gratitude to the government of Pakistan and to President Musharraf in particular. The arrest, along with the intelligence information gathered at the scene, brings us one giant step closer to dismantling the al Qaeda terror network. You don't have to dig too deeply into the recent press stories to see the significance of this event. From the Washington Post: U.S. authorities said they expect a trove of leads from the search of Mohammed's living quarters . . . From the New York Times: Al Qaeda Hobbled by Latest Arrest . . . From Time magazine: Pakistani authorities nab Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the al- Qaeda bigwig who helped mastermind the Sept. 11 attacks. It is important to note the context in which this significant accomplishment was achieved. Pakistan today is dealing with internal terrorist elements that want to turn that country into a radicalized, terrorist state. There are whole areas of the country in the mountainous boarder with Afghanistan--which are outside the control of the government. And while the campaign against the Taliban was a crucial first step in the war on terrorism, it has also shifted many of the radicals who were operating there into this part of Pakistan. Against this backdrop, it would be easy for President Musharraf to yield to the threats and intimidation of these elements within his society. We have seen all too well what happens when leaders neglect their responsibility to educate and lead their people rather than cave to popular mob mentality. Even in Europe, we have seen elements of this in the performance of Schroeder and Chirac. But despite some public pressure, President Musharraf has taken a bold and strong stance against a fundamentalist future for his country. He understands that it is in Pakistan's best interest to rid the country of the terrorist cells that are acting as parasites on the Pakistani people. He understands that the best way to bring investment, jobs, health care and security for his people is to join the realm of the responsible world. It is easy to underestimate the amount of courage this type of leadership takes. Sitting in our comfortable democracy in the U.S., it seems the obvious choice. But I call on my colleagues to take a moment to remember the immense problems that Pakistan is dealing with: because of tensions in the region, and the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan's economy has suffered a huge loss. And despite my best efforts with some fellow colleagues, the U.S. has yet to provide the one thing Pakistan really needs: a better deal on textiles. Textiles and textile products are Pakistan's main export. As a result of the war effort, invaluable orders for textile products made and exported by Pakistan have been canceled due to perceived instability in the region and a lack of confidence that such orders will ultimately be delivered. According to the Pakistan Textile and Apparel Group, Pakistan has witnessed a 64 percent reduction in orders for clothes that would be made from last year alone, by the 14 largest apparel factories in Lahore, Karachi, and Faisalabad. As a result, employment in these factories has dropped 32 percent from a year ago. The Pakistani government has estimated the overall decline in orders at 40 percent. This has very real consequences for the future of Pakistan, its stability, and its ability to forge a future of economic prosperity for its people. As a weakened market for Pakistani textile exports ultimately renders human development programs within Pakistan less effective, especially the primary education element, young Pakistani's are faced with the prospect of no education and therefore no quality employment. An all- to-frequent alternative to this prospect is for young Pakistani's to attend Madrasas--Islamic religious schools run by mullahs--where too often basic skills and primary education are supplanted by religious teachings used to indoctrinate young Pakistani's into following the perverted version of Islam followed by Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the Taliban. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to work with me in the Congress to provide the President with authority to assist Pakistan in the textile market immediately. Such action is vitally important to the stability of our important ally, and victory in our Nation's war against terrorism. Failing to take quick action only strengthens our enemy. The war on terrorism will only be won through the continued cooperation of important countries like Pakistan. The very least we can do in this body today is to recognize this support and to say thank you for it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I draw the attention of my colleagues to an event that happened yesterday which was very impressive--catching a key terrorist in Pakistan. It was the front page top story in virtually all of our newspapers around the country, probably around the world, with his picture. This is a person we have sought for some period of time. This was a big catch. I do not want to focus on the individual. What I want to focus on is the cooperation we received from Pakistan and from the Pakistani authorities in making this possible. This capture could lead us to many more terrorists in the al-Qaida network who plague us, and it is very important for us. I particularly want to thank the Pakistani authorities, the Pakistani Government, President Musharraf, and others who helped in this cooperation to get this done. President Musharraf and his government, in facing a population in Pakistan that is frequently not pro United States, has worked very closely and very carefully with us in dealing with terrorists and now has yielded one of the largest, if not the largest, terrorist captures we have had in recent times, if not in recent memory altogether. That is something we should take note of, and we should be appreciative of those who have cooperated with us. Not all governments around the world cooperate with the United States. Not all are in as difficult a situation as Pakistan is where a substantial portion of the population does not want their government to be working with the United States, and yet we had the two come together taking on the issue of terrorism, even though it is difficult in their own country to do it, and we netted a major terrorist capture. We still want and we are still looking for, if he is alive, which he apparently probably is, Osama bin Laden, but second to him, this is probably the largest capture we could ask to have taken place. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. I do say thank you to the Government of Pakistan for its help in this capture of a major operative in the war on terrorism.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise today to acknowledge Future Business Leaders of America-Phi Beta Lambda, (FBLA-PBL), and its work to improve the America in which we live. Over the past 60 years, FBLA-PBL has been training America's business leaders. This week--February 9-15--over a quarter million FBLA-PBL members observe FBLA-PBL Week in their local chapters and communities all over America. Through partnering with businesses and performing community service projects, FBLA-PBL members gain an understanding of the rights and responsibilities in becoming tomorrow's business leaders. Certainly, in light of recent corporate scandals, FBLA-PBL's dedication to promoting business ethics is of great importance. Business cannot advance without such virtues as cooperation, courage, honesty, industry, innovation, practicality, and realism. It needs the rule of law, respect for the truth, and an educated populace. No matter how strong the business model, a loss of confidence in these basic values can be catastrophic--not just to individual investors, but to the company or institution. This is exactly what happened in the collapse of Enron and problems with WorldCom and others. Now, more than ever, America needs strong, moral leaders. I wish FBLA-PBL well as they continue in the effort of helping to train and instill the values of corporate citizenship for America's Future Business Leaders.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Regular order.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague for responding to the question. I find it so odd that would be a charge brought against him. He worked for the Clinton administration, the Janet Reno Justice Department.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If you would yield for a question, I had the pleasure of serving on the Judiciary Committee last session of Congress, although we didn't get a lot of judges on through and cleared, and we are trying to clear those now. But Miguel Estrada was up last session of Congress. One of the charges against him, by a number of people, was that he is an ideologue, he is a right-wing ideologue. I would ask the question: It is my understanding Mr. Estrada worked with the Clinton administration for the Janet Reno Justice Department. And it would seem highly unlikely to me that a right-wing ideologue would be hired to work for the Clinton Justice Department. But that is the charge that is being brought against him; is that correct?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on January 16 the crew of STS-107 launched from Cape Canaveral, FL through the skies to space. They were sent on a mission to further space exploration and had the work of more than 70 international scientists onboard. The Columbia crew of seven had a research mission in the space, physical, and life sciences. After a nearly flawless mission, the world witnessed their tragic death as the Columbia Space shuttle shattered above the Earth upon its return on February 1. As is well known now, this crew, doing the work of international scientists, were quite international themselves. The diverse group of human researchers spanned the globe, hailing home to the United States, India, and Israel. Each country celebrated in their own way their national heroes upon the launch of Columbia. But now, these countries join together in sharing our sorrows with each other in the aftermath of such a heartbreaking tragedy. These people each brought something special to the mission of NASA. CDR Rick Husband first dreamed of being an astronaut at the age of 4 and worked throughout his life to become an astronaut, fulfilling his dream in 1994 when he was selected by NASA. Pilot Willie McCool was the most steady and dependable of men; his friends considered themselves blessed to know him. Payload CDR Michael Anderson always wanted to fly and along the way of achieving his goals, he became a role model for African-American children across the United States. David Brown, mission specialist, probably most accurately said what we believe now, that, ``This program will go on,'' no matter what happens. Kalpana Chawla traveled an arduous path to becoming an astronaut and represents so well the diversity aboard the Columbia. Born in India, she moved to the United States to fulfill her dream of reaching the stars. She has now done that and more. Laurel Clark was a physician and a flight surgeon who loved her work and her family. From aboard the shuttle Laurel said, ``Life continues in a lot of places and life is a magical thing.'' She could not have captured the feelings of so many any more accurately. Ilan Ramon, who brought so much attention and pride to this mission, was the first Israeli astronaut. The son of a Holocaust survivor, he brought with him aboard the shuttle a picture that a Jewish boy had drawn before he died in the Holocaust. The diversity of this crew so accurately represents the diversity in the missions of NASA. Even through the cold war era and into today aboard the International Space Station, NASA has been a leader in international relations. Taking giant steps for mankind, NASA often times set the example for the rest of the world to follow. It is in that spirit that we sent the Columbia crew to do their work, and it is in that spirit that we will continue their work. NASA has, from its inception, been charged with making the impossible possible. From the early days of the Mercury Program, through the advancements in Gemini and the triumphant successes of Apollo, NASA has given us a sense of national pride. Yet we mustn't let our pride fool us into thinking that NASA's work is commonplace. Each time a shuttle launches and a mission is accomplished, it is a miraculous, humbling event. The mission of these seven astronauts did not end when the Columbia went down. No. Their mission will go on. Space exploration is in our blood, a part of our national heritage. Manned space flight will continue, and these heroes would want it to. We will move on with space exploration and we will do so with pride, ensuring that these seven lives were not lost in vain. America is strong. She is steadfast. And she is brave. God has called these mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, but we will not forget them. We will never forget the inspiration they gave to so many hopeful citizens on Earth. We must persevere and we must move on, for the honor of these seven fallen heroes. As chairman of the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee here in the Senate, I plan to take an active role in ensuring that the dreams of these seven astronauts are not forgotten. As NASA determines what went so terribly wrong, we will be diligent in doing everything we can in the Congress to give NASA the support it needs to make sure we press forward with scientific advances, and that nothing like this happens again. Our next step will be to determine what the future of space exploration holds for Americans--what our goal is and how we get there. The tragedy that NASA is enduring will not dissuade or discourage America from venturing into space. Our commitment to space exploration is firm. For the families of the seven, I send my prayers. As Psalm 19 states, ``The heavens declare the glory of God . . .''. The heavens are now declaring the glory of these seven heroes. There are seven more stars in the heavens tonight, and with each setting of the sun, the spirits of our seven heroes will shine brighter. Every time we look up into the starry night, we can remember the lives of the seven cherished heroes aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia and be proud, proud of their dedication, their diversity, and their dream. I express my heartfelt sorrow and condolences to the families and friends of these seven astronauts. I will never forget the sacrifices they made in the name of exploration. May God bless them and their families.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I am delighted to join my colleagues in talking about the situation in Iraq and what the President has said and what some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying, that we need to wait, and wait longer. I will make a few simple points. I have served on the Middle East subcommittee since I have been in the Senate. I have chaired it for a good portion of the time. I have worked on the issue of Iraq since 1996. I have worked with the Iraqi opposition. I have held hearings on this topic. We have had meetings with the then UNSCOM inspectors. We have really worked the full gamut of what is taking place in Iraq. My colleagues on the other side want to wait longer. We have waited 12 years. How much longer do we need to wait? They want to allow the weapons inspectors to work longer. We had them in there for a number of years and then Saddam Hussein threw them out. They have only been back for a short period of time. I remind my colleagues that we were not finding anything when the weapons inspectors were there prior to 1998. We did not find anything until we had some high level defections on the part of the Iraqis. That is when we started finding things. Iraq is a country the size of California. It has a dedicated leader who is seeking to thwart the will of the international community to disarm. He is trying to hide items that may be the size of a 5-gallon bucket. He is manufacturing biological weapons and moving them on mobile units the size of a van. He is trying to hide them in a place the size of California, and there are only 120 inspectors in Iraq, as the President suggested last night, in some sort of scavenger hunt. The idea was not that we would go into Iraq and have to find these items. It was that Iraq would step forward and disarm and say we agree, we are going to disarm. That was what they were supposed to do, come forward and disarm. Instead, we have this hide-and-seek that Saddam continues. It is what he did when we had weapons inspectors in Iraq previously. It is what he continues to do now. What happens if we wait? Let's say we agree we are going to wait. Maybe we will find something, maybe not. What if we do find something else? Is that going to be enough for us to move forward and say we need to completely disarm Saddam Hussein? I think we are left with a similar set of circumstances-plus, if we do not do anything. Let's say we do not do anything, we let this go on for another couple of years because there is not an impetus now to really move. Saddam has biological and chemical weapons. He has terrorists on his soil. At any time, he can easily start distributing the chemical and biological weapons to terrorists, who know no bounds. I could easily see us in 2 years with a special committee of the Senate, holding hearings as to how did these biological weapons come in from Iraq, that were distributed to terrorists, to be used against U.S. citizens. I think it is a clear possibility that it would occur. Nobody wants to go to war. None of us want to do that. That is an absolute last option. We have been working for 12 years with economic sanctions. We have been working for 12 years with no-fly zones. We have been working with the Iraqi opposition. We have been doing everything we can, and yet now we are at this point in time where he has terrorists and weapons of mass destruction together on his soil, and more people are saying, wait. Wait for what? So they can distribute them further? So that he can attack us? I realize we all have difficulty with moving forward to a war situation. We do not want to do that. We want to respond if somebody comes at us. The problem with this new war on terrorism is that the terrorists, when they attack, attack civilian targets. They want to try and kill as many people as possible. By our waiting, we actually invite them to come forward. Some might suggest if we act, we are going to further foment difficulty in the region of the United States. I point out that even prior to September 11, we had 10 years where there were attacks on the United States, on our people, in foreign places by these terrorist groups. We had two embassies in Africa that were attacked by terrorist groups. We had the USS Cole attacked by terrorist groups. We had Khobar Towers. They have attacked us for a period of 10 years. People are saying, show restraint or else they will act more. We have seen it for 10 years, showing restraint. Then we had September 11, and we responded aggressively in Afghanistan. That was a fully appropriate way to respond. If we wait for the terrorists, they will continue to come at us. If we sit and wait, it does not mean they will stop. They will not stop. They have not stopped in the past. They are going to continue to come at the United States because they do not believe in what we believe. They are attacking our sets of values by attacking our civilians, our civilian population. No one wants to go to war. That is the last thing anyone wants. In this situation, not to move forward is to invite more catastrophic events to happen to our citizenry and to citizens around the world. Remember, terrorists go at soft targets. They go at the twin towers. They do not go at military targets. They did go at the Pentagon, but they went at Bali most recently. They will continue to go at civilian targets. They will go at the soft targets. If they have biological and chemical weapons, they will kill that many more people if we fail to act. I was raised in Kansas. On Saturday night, we would watch ``Gunsmoke.'' That was a great show and a favorite of mine. At the end of every ``Gunsmoke'' episode, Matt Dillon walks out on Main Street and the bad guy walks out on Main Street. They face off. The bad guy pulls the gun, Matt shoots, and the other guy goes down. That is the way every show ended: Nice, clean, good versus evil. Evil at the last minute is allowed to walk away. He could walk away or he is going down. He never does. He pulls his gun, and Matt Dillon always shoots him down. There is a sense of honor that we always let the other side, the bad side, go first. You get to pull the trigger because you always have a chance to walk away. What if we do that with terrorists? We have a sense of honor that we should let the other side go first. If you let terrorists go first, they do not walk out on Main Street of Dodge City and face Matt Dillon. They go around the back alleys. They are looking for people who are sleeping. They are looking for families. They are not looking for someone who is armed. They are looking for soft targets to hit, kill, and destroy. That is what they will continue to do. Now, taking the other side of the argument, what if we do move? What if Saddam Hussein is moved out of power, as has been the stated policy of the United States since 1998 with the Iraq Liberation Act which President Bill Clinton signed into law? What if Saddam Hussein is removed from power by a coalition of the willing--it will be an international coalition--what takes place then? We have a group of people, Iraqi opposition and others, who have been working on a democratic Iraq with opportunities for all people, for human rights, for people to be able to vote and to express their desires for that country. We have a country that sits on 10 percent of the world oil supplies and an ability to rebuild itself, an educated population that is willing to change. They want to change now. Iraqi opposition is united. We are hearing from people inside of Iraq who want to see a change. People inside the Iraq Government, inside the Iraq military, want to get out and into a different situation. Look at the seeds of change sown within Iraq and that region, if you have coming forward a democracy, with human rights, with religious freedom, with freedom for women, with people able to vote and participate and a marketplace that allows people to participate. Look at the future for the people there in that region, in that country, if that is what takes place. There is a substantial positive benefit. It all is with risk. It all has risk. Whether you choose to act or whether you choose not to act, they both have risk. After looking at this matter for some period of time, the option of not acting has far more risk--little, if any, upside potential--than the choice of acting. And the choice of acting has a downside potential. But it has substantial upside potential, and it does not have the downside that not acting has. Clearly, the President and his Cabinet and the people have thought this through. It is an extraordinarily difficult choice. Saddam Hussein still has the choice. He can still choose today to disarm and to engage in the international communities and comply with the 12 U.N. resolutions that have followed in the 12 years since he invaded Kuwait. I point out, we need to remember: Saddam Hussein has attacked two adjacent countries. He has used chemical weapons against his own people and against the Iranians. He has used these weapons in the past. He has threatened to attack, and has attacked, his neighbors in the past. This is not a good man. He is not good for the world. He is certainly not good for the region. He does not get better with time, nor does the situation get better with time. The obligations only get worse. For all these reasons, I applaud what the President has done. I applaud that he came to the Congress in the first place asking for a resolution. He got it. He got broad bipartisan support. I applaud that he went to the United Nations and got a resolution with broad international support. He has done the things we have asked. And now he is coming forward and saying: Look, Saddam Hussein, the time is running out. Either act now or actions will be taken. The President has done most of the things we have asked him to do. He has tried to engage the world and get an international coalition. A number of other countries will join. We should back the administration at this point and not try to do more second-guessing or buying of time for Saddam Hussein to develop more weaponry, to develop more terrorist networks to supply and provide the things the terrorist networks want to be able to threaten and to kill our people. For all these reasons, I hope we will not back a resolution calling for allowing of more time and, instead, support the administration's efforts as they move forward, trying to find a peaceful solution but, if not, forcing Saddam Hussein to choose whether he is going to hold on to his weapons of mass destruction or whether he is going to hold on to power. It is a difficult choice the President has to make and we have to make. We have looked at this pretty thoroughly. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Miss Daisy Rose Beck who passed away on September 7, 2002, after losing a hard fought battle with leukemia. She retired from the U.S. Federal Service in 1995 after serving America for 54 consecutive years. She holds the record for length of employment as a female GS-level employee. From the early 1960s through 1995, her duties included personal secretary for the four-star U.S. army generals who pulled tours of duty in the Republic of Korea, commanding the United Nations Command, ROK/ U.S. Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea and the 8th U.S. Army. In addition, she was one of the workers at the German War Crimes Trial at Nuremberg. Daisy Rose Beck was very quiet, friendly, efficient, respectful, and very much loved by all who met her. Daisy served for decades in places where most Americans only served a single year. She is a true American, hard working, efficient, intelligent, courteous, kind, and yet focused and dedicated to the success of a mission. These days we face harsh enemies around the globe. We Americans have a proud tradition of doing what is right with fairness, kindness, and courage. Daisy Beck epitomizes these qualities. She is a wonderful, positive role model for all Americans in times of adversity.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for recognizing me. I rise in opposition to the Mikulski amendment to this omnibus appropriations bill. Succinctly put, we held a hearing 4 or 5 years ago on this very particular point. Much of it has been covered in the discussion and the debate so far, but if we want to have an efficient Government, we need to allow the private sector to compete. What we need to do as well is make sure this 47-year-old Federal policy--which states ``the government should not be involved in commercial activities''--is complied with and is enforced. The goal of the FAIR Act was to eliminate the Government's direct competition with the private sector while at the same time providing a better utilization of taxpayer dollars. This is going both ways: So we do not have direct competition with the private sector, which we should not do, which is against Federal law for us to do, and at the same time provide a better utilization of taxpayer dollars so we concentrate the Government workers in areas where only the Government can do the work. This seems to me to be good management and good objectives. In 2001, the FAIR Act inventory noted that over 840,000 Federal jobs were noninherently governmental. President Bush's Competitive Sourcing Initiative requires Federal agencies to conduct public-private competition on 15 percent of the jobs listed on the FAIR Act inventory. This seems to be minimal at best. The Mikulski amendment prohibits the President from establishing or enforcing goals for competitive sourcing. This is not the direction in which we should go. In addition, it would severely impede our ability to manage the Federal Government. We need that management flexibility at this time. Where we have budget deficits that are rising, we need to get those down and to use every tool we have at our disposal to be able to keep those budget deficits down as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can. This amendment would prevent improving the performance of the Government's many commercial activities. We certainly do not need to do that. The amendment goes against the congressionally mandated findings of the Commercial Activities Panel which unanimously adopted the principle of competition. Competition has been good in this country. It is the basis for what our economy is--so that things can grow based on competition. For those reasons, I will oppose the Senator's amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to focus the body for a few minutes on January 20, 2003, when we will pause to remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man who changed the course of history and America's conscience. Dr. King is really one of those few individuals throughout history who has so nobly exemplified the principles of sacrificial love and devotion. He changed a country, and he gave his life in the process. I want to read a short excerpt from a speech he gave the night before he was assassinated. On April 3, 1968, 1 day before he was killed, Dr. King said the following in a speech: I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead, but it doesn't matter with me now. I've been to the mountaintop and I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life; longevity has its place, but I am not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go up to the mountain, and I have looked over and I have seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land. He said that April 3, 1968, the day before he was killed. I want to particularly focus on that last sentence: . . . but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land. In order for our Nation to reach the promised land Dr. King referenced, we must see a racial understanding, a racial reconciliation. We are still working at it and we still have a ways to go. We need to do it through education, through cooperation, through communication, and we need to do it every way we can. For several years now, several of us have been working together--I have particularly worked with Congressman John Lewis on the House side to create a national museum of African-American history and culture on The Mall here in Washington--in our front yard. I am proud to say that I have had the support of many Members of this Chamber on this issue, including Senators Sessions, Specter, Dodd, and Clinton. I am confident that when the Presidential commission, which we created, submits their report on the creation of this much needed piece of American history, this body will vote to create this museum--a museum that not only means a great deal to African Americans, but to this whole Nation as well. I don't pretend that the creation of a museum will be a cure-all for racial reconciliation. It is, however, an important and, I think, a very productive step toward healing our Nation's racial wounds. I hope it can be a museum of reconciliation at the end of the day, and that we will be expanding on Dr. King's philosophy of understanding the plight of one another through education. As we celebrate the life and legacy of one of our greatest national leaders, we need to return to those basic values which Dr. King promoted. His values are work, family, charity for our fellow man, and, most importantly, the recognition of a higher moral authority, which empowered his life so much. I had the opportunity last year to meet in Atlanta with Dr. King's wife, Coretta Scott King. She brought up again that point of view that empowered him, which was the power of faith that was evident in all that he did. Only through those qualities he expressed and lived by will we become a nation truly worthy of Dr. King's legacy. According to Dr. King, I will quote again: The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but at times of challenge and controversy. A true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others. Indeed Dr. King exemplified those qualities in his life, and I invite all of my colleagues to join me in continuing this legacy. We will be introducing--probably within a month--the bill on the national African American museum. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this. I think it is going to be an important statement. We have tried now for some 73 years to get this sort of museum--I have not personally, but a number of groups have. It is time that this happens in order to tell the difficulties, trials, tribulations, and triumphs of the African-American people. It is my hope that through this understanding we will start to improve and create bonds and a racial reconciliation in our land. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 13

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, and I will not object. I think there is a lot of good debate points being raised. But I hope we don't start this session the way we ended much of last year, which was getting in great debates about big topics and at the end of the day not passing anything. I think that is really where we ended, and we fouled up on a lot of bills last year--big bills. There were significant bills that we would work for weeks and months on and we didn't get them done. We have a chance to do something here. I think everybody is agreed that there is more that could be done. That would be good, but we don't have that agreement. We can start this session off with doing something or nothing. I hope at some point in time we can get to the point of doing something. We have a reasonable proposal that is agreed to by the basic principles in this proposal at least. Let's pass that. Let's start this session off with getting something that is going to be helpful for people. It may not be perfect for everybody, and that is obvious, but we can get something done here. It will be significant and it will be important and helpful. I hope we can move that forward and get this cleared through.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to take time previously allocated on the floor to speak. I want to make a couple of comments about homeland security, and in particular about the INS. I have been privileged to serve for the last couple of years as ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. Immigration is a subject on which we have focused. We passed two major pieces of legislation already in this Congress dealing with immigration issues--trying to strengthen our borders and trying to give the enforcement agencies some better information, and also better information for the INS and the State Department about terrorists abroad before they get here. There are two good pieces of legislation that we passed. What we are attempting to do in this bill is to restructure the INS. The reason I want to talk about the INS is that it is a troubled agency, by anybody's definition--whether you are pro-immigration or anti-immigration. I hear everybody complaining about the INS. It just does not function well from any perspective that you look at. It may be an impossible task. Some people may look at it as just impossible. We have too many people seeking entry into the country each year. The number varies. There are over 250 million entries into the country each year by people who are legally seeking entry into the country. And 1 person may come in and out 10 times. That is 10 entries. But still, you are talking about a large number of entries by people, who are not U.S. citizens, into this country each year, making this a difficult job. It is a troubled agency. It is not functioning well. We need to change it. A lot of that is put in the bill. I am pleased about some of the ideas that I and several others put forward that are incorporated into the INS restructuring that is in the homeland security bill. There is a clear distinction between the enforcement and services functions at the INS. We recognize the importance of keeping immigration enforcement and services in the same department. Some people wanted to split them. I think that would work poorly. I think you need to have the same functions together. They are there. There are clear distinctions between the enforcement and services functions, which clearly need to be delineated, but they need to work together. Those are two positive features of this reorganization. I must be frank as well. I think there is some failing that we want corrected in the INS restructuring portion of this homeland security bill. I am concerned that the new Department be true and coordinated well--both in the enforcement and services functions. It looks to me as if some of the restructuring may not have good lines of clear distinction in organization and functioning in the enforcement services functions the way it is set up. I am concerned about the services component of the Department of Homeland Security being effectively coordinated with the enforcement. I am troubled about how this is set up. I have communicated those concerns to Governor Ridge, and I am hopeful that those concerns are going to be taken seriously. I think we need strong leadership at the head of the immigration services office. It has to be a strong leader. That is a function of who is picked--not a function of how it is structured. But if we weaken that services component of it, and if we don't have somebody who has knowledge, stature, and ability to communicate this going forward, I think we are going to be left with a continuing troubled agency. I think the leadership has to have the ear of the Secretary of the new Department. Part of my concern is this is built to the side--not built into the positive agency--to the side of the Secretary. If you do not have a strong voice there, if they do not have the ear of the Secretary, I think we are going to have some real problems in this immigration portion. We want strong and effective immigration enforcement. We don't want the invaluable services of citizenship, family, and business petitions, asylum, and the many public service components of immigration to be forgotten. We don't want that. We want a strong enforcement, and we want to provide homeland security. But we also are a nation of immigrants. We need to take people who are legally here and build this society. We want strong security. We should never compromise our values or lose sight of the immigration benefits to our culture or to our economy. It is critical that we monitor the development of this new Department to ensure the immigration services component receive the attention and resources it deserves. I have shared these concerns with Governor Ridge. I am comforted by the fact that he is aware of those facts. One of the other aspects I want to make note of is the issue of the immigration courts. I want to quickly commend this legislation for keeping the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice. It didn't move over homeland security. I think permitting the Attorney General to retain control of the immigration court system is going to be positive. I think those are some problems we need to revisit. We should do so in the future. It is time we pass the homeland security legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, yes, I would like 5 minutes, if that is possible, to speak on the homeland security bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. From Senator Thompson. I believe he has some time remaining.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I seek 5 of those 7 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. From Senator Thompson. I believe he has some time remaining.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I seek 5 of those 7 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to take time previously allocated on the floor to speak. I want to make a couple of comments about homeland security, and in particular about the INS. I have been privileged to serve for the last couple of years as ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. Immigration is a subject on which we have focused. We passed two major pieces of legislation already in this Congress dealing with immigration issues--trying to strengthen our borders and trying to give the enforcement agencies some better information, and also better information for the INS and the State Department about terrorists abroad before they get here. There are two good pieces of legislation that we passed. What we are attempting to do in this bill is to restructure the INS. The reason I want to talk about the INS is that it is a troubled agency, by anybody's definition--whether you are pro-immigration or anti-immigration. I hear everybody complaining about the INS. It just does not function well from any perspective that you look at. It may be an impossible task. Some people may look at it as just impossible. We have too many people seeking entry into the country each year. The number varies. There are over 250 million entries into the country each year by people who are legally seeking entry into the country. And 1 person may come in and out 10 times. That is 10 entries. But still, you are talking about a large number of entries by people, who are not U.S. citizens, into this country each year, making this a difficult job. It is a troubled agency. It is not functioning well. We need to change it. A lot of that is put in the bill. I am pleased about some of the ideas that I and several others put forward that are incorporated into the INS restructuring that is in the homeland security bill. There is a clear distinction between the enforcement and services functions at the INS. We recognize the importance of keeping immigration enforcement and services in the same department. Some people wanted to split them. I think that would work poorly. I think you need to have the same functions together. They are there. There are clear distinctions between the enforcement and services functions, which clearly need to be delineated, but they need to work together. Those are two positive features of this reorganization. I must be frank as well. I think there is some failing that we want corrected in the INS restructuring portion of this homeland security bill. I am concerned that the new Department be true and coordinated well--both in the enforcement and services functions. It looks to me as if some of the restructuring may not have good lines of clear distinction in organization and functioning in the enforcement services functions the way it is set up. I am concerned about the services component of the Department of Homeland Security being effectively coordinated with the enforcement. I am troubled about how this is set up. I have communicated those concerns to Governor Ridge, and I am hopeful that those concerns are going to be taken seriously. I think we need strong leadership at the head of the immigration services office. It has to be a strong leader. That is a function of who is picked--not a function of how it is structured. But if we weaken that services component of it, and if we don't have somebody who has knowledge, stature, and ability to communicate this going forward, I think we are going to be left with a continuing troubled agency. I think the leadership has to have the ear of the Secretary of the new Department. Part of my concern is this is built to the side--not built into the positive agency--to the side of the Secretary. If you do not have a strong voice there, if they do not have the ear of the Secretary, I think we are going to have some real problems in this immigration portion. We want strong and effective immigration enforcement. We don't want the invaluable services of citizenship, family, and business petitions, asylum, and the many public service components of immigration to be forgotten. We don't want that. We want a strong enforcement, and we want to provide homeland security. But we also are a nation of immigrants. We need to take people who are legally here and build this society. We want strong security. We should never compromise our values or lose sight of the immigration benefits to our culture or to our economy. It is critical that we monitor the development of this new Department to ensure the immigration services component receive the attention and resources it deserves. I have shared these concerns with Governor Ridge. I am comforted by the fact that he is aware of those facts. One of the other aspects I want to make note of is the issue of the immigration courts. I want to quickly commend this legislation for keeping the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice. It didn't move over homeland security. I think permitting the Attorney General to retain control of the immigration court system is going to be positive. I think those are some problems we need to revisit. We should do so in the future. It is time we pass the homeland security legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, yes, I would like 5 minutes, if that is possible, to speak on the homeland security bill.