Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business to pay tribute to Paul and Sheila Wellstone. It is a difficult thing to do. It is a difficult thing for all of us to do. It is easier for me, right now, to imagine Paul standing over there and articulating a great point, a great point that would be for the consideration of some group of people or an individual about whom he would be deeply concerned--he was clear, passionate, and very forceful in his advocacy for them-- rather than to think of him as being gone but he is. You cannot really measure the height of a tree until it is down. That is, unfortunately, again, the case for Paul and Sheila Wellstone. He was a really tall man. They were really tall trees in what they did. I had the great fortune to be able to work with both Paul and Sheila on an issue we cared a lot about--the trafficking of individuals across country borders, generally for reasons of prostitution but also for other purposes. We found this was going on. Actually, Sheila discovered this was happening by visiting with a number of Ukrainian women, some of whom had been trafficked themselves when the Soviet Union fell, when the superstructure that was the Soviet Union came down. It turned out that gangs, groups came in, the Mafia-type organizations, to operate in the former Soviet Union, and they would run a number of different things. They would run drugs, they would run weaponry, and they would run people. It turned out the trafficking of people was actually their third most profitable operation. It was a real despicable thing they were doing. They would actually go into communities, trick young ladies, generally--sometimes young boys, but generally young girls--saying: We have this great bit of excitement for you. We are going to be able to have you travel to Europe or to the Middle East. With the fall of the Soviet Union, they didn't see hope or opportunity in their own country, and they would sign on, only to have their papers taken away once they crossed the border. They would be put into a brothel, in some cases chained and tortured until they would submit to prostitution. And then they would even be moved from brothel to brothel. It was a real seamy, dirty, ugly thing that was taking place. It was a dark side of the globalizing economy. It was a dark side of the fall of the Soviet Union. And Sheila found out about it by meeting with Ukrainian women. Now, I am sure there were not many votes at all in Minnesota that were going to hinge on whether or not Paul or Sheila were going to work on the issue of the trafficking of young girls from the former Soviet Union, Nepal, and India, or from other places. Generally, there was trafficking from poorer countries into richer countries. But Paul was such a champion of the value and the beauty of each person and the needs and the dignity of that individual, and Sheila was as well, that they were willing to put this issue forward and fight for it over a period of a couple years, until we could get the bill passed. Sheila found out about it. She brought it to Paul's attention. He learned about it and talked with some of these women who had been trafficked. I started to hear about it. I met with women who had been trafficked and found out about the despicable nature of this new form of human slavery, a human slavery of which one person even wrote a book entitled, ``Disposable People,'' because it happened in a situation where they would be moved from one brothel to another, and then, as they would get sick or diseased--in some cases they would get tuberculosis, AIDS--the owners would even throw them out on the street and say: Well, we are done with that one. It was just the most ugly act. I remember being in a home for girls who had been trafficked and returned to Nepal. There were 50 girls, 16 to 18 years of age. Many of them had been trafficked when they were 12 to 14 years of age. And a lady was helping run this home. This was a recovery house for girls after they would come back from the brothels. This woman was trying to teach them a trade, trying to get them back into the community in Nepal. She would point around the room and say: That girl has tuberculosis and AIDS and she is dying. This girl is dying. That girl has this disease; I don't know if she is going to make it. These were girls who were 16 years of age who should have been in the very flower of their lives, and they were all dying. They saw it. They were willing to fight for these other people. And we were able to get through legislation on sex trafficking. Paul joked with me afterwards. He is a more liberal Member and I am a more conservative Member. After that legislative session, he commented that he moved from being the most liberal Member to the second most liberal Member of the Senate, and he blamed it on working with me. I said: Well, just hang around with me, Paul, and we will get you reelected. He had that kind of humor. He was a friend. He was a friend that was not scared of ideology splitting people apart. He had his beliefs; I had mine. We all do. But he did not let that separate him. He did not judge a person's soul by their ideology. He judged people by their character and their heart, where they would be willing to stand. I would often see him come over to greet and talk with Jesse Helms. He and Jesse disagreed on a number of issues, but they both had passion, soul, and heart. That is what they respected and loved about each other, and that is what I continue to see and love about Paul and Sheila Wellstone, that passion, heart, and soul that would carry them forward. I do not know that there is a better quote one could put forward than from Dr. Martin Luther King. He once noted that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. If we measure Paul and Sheila by that measurement, they stand as a very tall tree. Paul knew controversy. He knew difficulty. He knew challenge. It rallied him. It made him taller. It made him stronger. It was not comfort that he sought. It was not comfort that he wanted to have. I have often thought that in this life it is challenges that build us, it is not comfort that builds us; that God has created us to meet challenges, not to sit back and to eat bon-bons or to let things go by in a measurable way, but He puts challenges in front of us. The more we are willing to accept, the more He is willing to give, and the more He is willing to test us. Paul and Sheila accepted challenge after challenge, controversy after controversy, always with a pure heart, wanting to do the right thing to help people, regardless of what it might mean to themselves. They were there to do it and they wanted to do it. They relished doing it and they grew in doing it. He was a spirited fighter. I remember reading about--certainly I was not in this body then--when Hubert Humphrey served in this body and was dying of cancer and they had a tribute to him in Time magazine. I remember so vividly reading about it. The title of it was ``Happy Warrior,'' because he was a warrior and he was happy about it, that his course, his challenge, in life was to be a warrior. He relished in the opportunity to be a warrior. I did not know him personally, but he could not imagine, as I understand his personality, that there would be any calling any better than to be a warrior. Paul followed in those footsteps in a great and magnificent way. He was a happy warrior, happily fighting for his cause, happily pressing forward, knowing that people disagreed with him. I disagreed with him often, but I could never disagree with that passion. Nor could I ever disagree with that heart. We developed a really good friendship. He is a man I was very fond of and I am fond of even now. As I say, it is hard to think of him being gone. I suppose that is because he and Sheila really probably still are here. My prayers have been with them, with the other people who went down in that plane. So tragically their lives were ended early. None of us will know why on this side of eternity, but we can always learn and grow from him. We are caused to grow in our life by each person with whom we come in contact. I was caused to grow in a very profound and very personal way by my contact with Paul and Sheila. I am indebted to them. I pay tribute to them and what they have done. God bless them.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will clarify the status of North Korean refugees. As a Nation, the United States is the world's leader in the protection of refugees. The world takes its lead from the United States when reacting to asylum-seekers, and the example we set have far- reaching implications for those who flee persecution. For this reason, we have stood firm against excuses for the denial of basic human rights and life's basic liberties. The tenuous status of North Korean refugees in China is well documented. As we all know from news reports, including several news programs, that few North Koreans are able to seek asylum and refuge, be it in China or elsewhere. The few that do, however, are functionally barred from seeking asylum in the United States or being admitted to the United States as refugees. As I understand it, the State Department has expressed concerns that the legal hurdle to admitting North Koreans refugees is the fact that South Korea automatically conveys its citizenship to any escapee from North Korea who makes it to South Korea. In short, the State Department claims it cannot, as a matter of law, consider any North Korean to be a refugee. I am not persuaded that this is the case, but even if we assume that to be true, we must stand firm for the proposition that the moral obligation that we have for refugees everywhere seeking basic human liberties should not be laid aside because of that legal technicality and it should not preclude the United State from providing refugee protections to North Korean refugees. The bill I am introducing today clarifies and fixes that technicality. It says quite simply that, for asylum and refugee purposes, a North Korean is a North Korean. This bill in no way detracts from the generosity of the South Korean government or the South Korean people. It does not encourage refugees to choose the United States over South Korea as a safe haven. Far from it, since those refugees who are able to reach South Korea will go there and will be afforded the rights that refugees escaping from persecution rightfully deserve whether under various international conventions or the South Korean Constitution. Instead, this bill recognizes the physical obstacles facing North Korean refugees and removes the technicality that compromises our ability to help them. The bill I am introducing today has the support of the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights, Amnesty International, the International Rescue Committee, the U.S. Committee on Refugees, Immigration and Refugee Services of America, among others.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, with Senators Nelson, Lieberman, Murkowski, Sessions and Miller, to honor one of our Nation's most stirring songs, ``God Bless America.'' This patriotic masterpiece was written by Irving Berlin, a man whose background as an immigrant to our shores gave him a keen understanding and appreciation of our nation and how important its existence was. The United States has long been a symbol to peoples across the world, of opportunity, freedom, and the rule of law, but at the time of ``God Bless America,'' the US's importance was even more plain. This is because the song was originally written in 1918 during the height of the First World War, and then released for the first time in 1938 as the clouds of war again gathered over Europe. When Berlin first wrote ``God Bless America'' in 1918, he intended it to be a solemn paean to his adopted nation as he looked across the ocean to a war-torn Europe. Unfortunately, its somber and serious tone made it incompatible with the musical revue he was working on at the time. When the drums of war again sounded on distant shores, Berlin realized his song had a purpose, and knew it was time to offer it to an anxious country. After revising the lyrics to reflect the difference twenty years and one Great War make, he introduced the song on Armistice Day 1938, a simple song of peace, yet one that reminded both Americans and people of all nations that our Nation was a great one. This song accomplished exactly the author's intent--it so eloquently expressed his love for our country that it has provided for all of us a means to express our own love and feelings. It is why we have sung it so many times over the past year since those terrible events of September 11, and why we will continue to sing it for the years to come. It captures the feelings every citizen shares, of love, of pride, of patriotism, of sacrifice, and of freedom. An instant sensation since its release, the power of this song to uplift and comfort us particularly in the dark days of this past year, reminds all of us of the strength of words to inspire. For that reason, the time has come to give this song its long overdue recognition. That is why today I propose legislation to designate ``God Bless America'' as our national ``song.'' This is not to replace our rousing national anthem, which is an unforgettable salute to our hard-fought and triumphant birth as a Nation, but to offer recognition to ``God Bless America.'' For ``God Bless America'' is truly the perfect tribute for a Nation rising from the ashes of September 11 to reclaim our firm and unwavering belief in the goodness of man and the universal rights of liberty. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the lyrics of the song be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, with Senators Nelson, Lieberman, Murkowski, Sessions and Miller, to honor one of our Nation's most stirring songs, ``God Bless America.'' This patriotic masterpiece was written by Irving Berlin, a man whose background as an immigrant to our shores gave him a keen understanding and appreciation of our nation and how important its existence was. The United States has long been a symbol to peoples across the world, of opportunity, freedom, and the rule of law, but at the time of ``God Bless America,'' the US's importance was even more plain. This is because the song was originally written in 1918 during the height of the First World War, and then released for the first time in 1938 as the clouds of war again gathered over Europe. When Berlin first wrote ``God Bless America'' in 1918, he intended it to be a solemn paean to his adopted nation as he looked across the ocean to a war-torn Europe. Unfortunately, its somber and serious tone made it incompatible with the musical revue he was working on at the time. When the drums of war again sounded on distant shores, Berlin realized his song had a purpose, and knew it was time to offer it to an anxious country. After revising the lyrics to reflect the difference twenty years and one Great War make, he introduced the song on Armistice Day 1938, a simple song of peace, yet one that reminded both Americans and people of all nations that our Nation was a great one. This song accomplished exactly the author's intent--it so eloquently expressed his love for our country that it has provided for all of us a means to express our own love and feelings. It is why we have sung it so many times over the past year since those terrible events of September 11, and why we will continue to sing it for the years to come. It captures the feelings every citizen shares, of love, of pride, of patriotism, of sacrifice, and of freedom. An instant sensation since its release, the power of this song to uplift and comfort us particularly in the dark days of this past year, reminds all of us of the strength of words to inspire. For that reason, the time has come to give this song its long overdue recognition. That is why today I propose legislation to designate ``God Bless America'' as our national ``song.'' This is not to replace our rousing national anthem, which is an unforgettable salute to our hard-fought and triumphant birth as a Nation, but to offer recognition to ``God Bless America.'' For ``God Bless America'' is truly the perfect tribute for a Nation rising from the ashes of September 11 to reclaim our firm and unwavering belief in the goodness of man and the universal rights of liberty. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the lyrics of the song be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will clarify the status of North Korean refugees. As a Nation, the United States is the world's leader in the protection of refugees. The world takes its lead from the United States when reacting to asylum-seekers, and the example we set have far- reaching implications for those who flee persecution. For this reason, we have stood firm against excuses for the denial of basic human rights and life's basic liberties. The tenuous status of North Korean refugees in China is well documented. As we all know from news reports, including several news programs, that few North Koreans are able to seek asylum and refuge, be it in China or elsewhere. The few that do, however, are functionally barred from seeking asylum in the United States or being admitted to the United States as refugees. As I understand it, the State Department has expressed concerns that the legal hurdle to admitting North Koreans refugees is the fact that South Korea automatically conveys its citizenship to any escapee from North Korea who makes it to South Korea. In short, the State Department claims it cannot, as a matter of law, consider any North Korean to be a refugee. I am not persuaded that this is the case, but even if we assume that to be true, we must stand firm for the proposition that the moral obligation that we have for refugees everywhere seeking basic human liberties should not be laid aside because of that legal technicality and it should not preclude the United State from providing refugee protections to North Korean refugees. The bill I am introducing today clarifies and fixes that technicality. It says quite simply that, for asylum and refugee purposes, a North Korean is a North Korean. This bill in no way detracts from the generosity of the South Korean government or the South Korean people. It does not encourage refugees to choose the United States over South Korea as a safe haven. Far from it, since those refugees who are able to reach South Korea will go there and will be afforded the rights that refugees escaping from persecution rightfully deserve whether under various international conventions or the South Korean Constitution. Instead, this bill recognizes the physical obstacles facing North Korean refugees and removes the technicality that compromises our ability to help them. The bill I am introducing today has the support of the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights, Amnesty International, the International Rescue Committee, the U.S. Committee on Refugees, Immigration and Refugee Services of America, among others.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, former Secretary Kissinger is probably one of the best minds, if not the best mind, in foreign policy in the world. He dealt with the cold war. He was directly involved in that, and he has been a very astute student. And now he is a student of what takes place today in the war on terrorism that we have. Listen to just a couple paragraphs of what he says about these weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a country that also works with and provides support and housing for terrorists. He says this: If these capabilities remain intact-- That is, weapons of mass destruction-- they will become an instrument--actual and symbolic--for the destabilization of a volatile region. There he is speaking of the entire Middle East. And if Saddam Hussein's regime survives both the Gulf War and the anti-terrorism campaign, this fact alone will compound the existing terrorist menace. He points out in this statement that he thinks going at Iraq will have a very positive impact on terrorism, and if we do not go at Iraq, our war against terrorism will just devolve into an intelligence operation, and that would be the likely continued status of it. He handles another argument. I will read another quote from Secretary Kissinger: It is argued that dealing with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq weakens the war against terrorism. The opposite is more likely to be true. Eliminating such weapons in Iraq is an important aspect of the second phase of the anti-terrorism campaign. It demonstrates American determination to get at the root causes and some of the ultimate capabilities of what is, in essence, a crusade against free values. That is what Secretary Kissinger goes on to say in this presentation. He argues that this is an essential part of the war against terrorism, if we are to effectively deal with this terrorist threat and the problem that we have. And not to overrepeat this, but I do not think one can overrepeat it. It is a little bit like a doctor's prescription dealing with your health where you are, and here are the possible problems you have. Here is what we know that Saddam Hussein has. Gaps identified by UNSCOM in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard. UNSCOM reported to the U.N. Security Council in April 1995 that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program and had failed to account for 3 tons of growth material for biological agents. In 2001, an Iraqi defector reported visiting some 20 secret facilities in Iraq for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Saddam continues to pursue nuclear weapons, and has used chemical weapons against his own people, as well as his neighbors. I do not think I need to remind people about what he has done in his region. He has attacked Iran, invaded Kuwait, and he has launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. That is why we will have had, and have today, strong allies in the region opposed to Saddam Hussein continuing. I want to look at the positive, the upside of dealing with Saddam Hussein. We have a lot of difficulty, a lot of potential problems to deal with, but what happens if you get Saddam Hussein out of power? I think there are significant, positive steps moving forward in that region. It is interesting to note that from 1920 until the late 1950s, Iraq had a constitutional monarchy, a bihouse parliament that had authority over budgets and ministers. They have a history of some democracy. It was not the level of democracy we have, but they have that in their historical background. Ten percent of the world's oil supplies are located in Iraq. They have an educated urban population. They will embrace and encourage and move forward with democracy on a rapid basis. Now, it is not going to be completely free of any hitches, but I think the potential in developing an active, vibrant, working democracy in Iraq is significantly greater and higher than what we are seeing in the situation in Afghanistan, which is moving forward but with a lot of difficulty. They do not have the natural resources to build. They do not have a historical basis of democracy with which to work. They have a number of warlords in the area, which does not exist in Iraq. There is reason to believe that the upside potential with Iraq, and the spread of democracy and human rights and religious freedoms and pluralism will be significant in Iraq. And that will spread throughout that region. These are a set of values, of human values, for which the United States stands and has stood for years, and we have been very positive in this. Yet we have not pushed this set of values generally in that region of the world, in the Islamic region of the world. There is something like 49 countries and 2 democracies in that region of the world. And a number of people wonder why there is the push for human rights, democracy, and religious freedom everywhere else and not there. And we have kind of hemmed and hawed and ``well, I don't know,'' and we have allies there, and we are dependent on the oil, and we don't want to upset things in the region. The truth is, we need to stand for the things there that we stand for everywhere else. And if we do that, and push that in Iraq, it is going to be a flower that will bloom there in the desert. It is going to show the way to a number of countries. It is going to involve the people. And the people are going to be able to grow and possess that beauty of liberty that they seek and know and want. We will be able to help put it forward and move it into action in that region. These are very difficult times for us. There are difficult times in the region. But I think the question clearly before us is whether we should move forward. I think the answer is definitely yes, that we should move forward. This is a time for us to be very humble and wise about what we need to do and definite about how we move forward. We do not make this choice lightly, nor without the understanding that with this action comes difficult consequences to some of our finest citizens in the Armed Forces and potentially of terrorist attacks to our allies and to us. We would do well to remember the words of Psalm 140: Grant not, God, the desires of the wicked one; do not grant his conspiracy fruition. . . .As for the head of my besiegers, let the mischief of their own lips bury them. Once again, we have come to deal with a very difficult situation where we are called upon to stand up to the threats of evil and tyranny--something we have had to do many times in the history of this wonderful Nation. As daunting as this is, it is not a responsibility we can shirk. Saddam has made the case against himself. He has buried himself with his own lips and his own actions. We cannot ignore this. And we should not put off for another year, or a few, a difficult matter that will only get worse. If we do not take this action now, we are unlikely to any time in the near future. Now is the time for us to act. I support the bipartisan resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. I hope all the American public is praying for us, and praying about this for wisdom, for protection, for limited loss of life, and for the right thing to be done. This is a tough moment. It is a different stage for us. It is a ways and means of handling something we have not done in the past where we go in and try to take care of a situation before it kills many people. We need those prayers for wisdom and wise action. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, this bipartisan resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Statement of The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, September 26, 2002 Mr. Chairman, Congress is considering one of the most consequential expressions of its views since the end of the Cold War: what action the United States should take to deal with the threat posed by illegal stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and their potential growth. President Bush has reaffirmed America's commitment to a cooperative would order by asking the United Nations to rectify Iraq's defiance of a large number of U.N. resolutions mandating the destruction of these stockpiles as well as Iraq's flagrant breach of its pledge to do so as a condition for the suspension of the Gulf War in 1991. But were the world community, by fudging its response, to opt for the risk of a greater threat in the future, can American and a coalition of the like-minded acquiesce in stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Thus the Committee will need to consider not only the risk of action but also the consequences of inaction. The Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be growing in an international environmental in which their danger merges with the threat of terrorism. For on September 11, 2001, the world entered a new period in which private, non-state organizations undertook to threaten national and international security by stealth attacks. The controversy about preemption is a symptom of the impact of this transformation. At bottom, it is a debate between the traditional notion of sovereignty of the nation-state prevalent since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the adaptation required by both modern technology and the nature of the terrorist threat. Osama bin Laden's base was on the territory of a national state, though his was not a national cause. Highly disciplined operatives are scattered around the globe, some on the soil of America's closest allies and even within America itself. They enjoy financial and organizational support from a number of states--most frequently from private individuals ostensibly not under the control of their governments. Bases for terrorists have been established in several countries, usually in areas where the governments can plausibly deny controls are actually not in control, such as in Yemen, Somalia, or perhaps Indonesia and Iran. Having no territory to defend, the terrorists are not subject to the deterrent threats of the Cold War; having as their aim the destruction of social cohesion, they are not interested in the conciliating procedures and compromises of traditional diplomacy. Unlike the previous centuries, when the movement of armies foreshadowed threat, modern technology in the service of terror gives no warning, and its perpetrators vanish with the act of commission. And since these attacks are capable of inflicting catastrophic damage, traditional notions of sovereignty have to be modified with respect to countries that harbor terrorist headquarters or terrorist training centers. The problem of preemption is inherent in the nature of the terrorist challenge. The accumulation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in violation of U.N. resolutions cannot be separated from the post-Afghanistan phase of the war against terrorism. Iraq is located in the midst of a region that has been the hotbed of the special type of global terrorist activity from which the attack on the United States was organized. And the consequences of weapons of mass destruction have many similarities to those of terrorism. They can be used without warning; their impact is catastrophic. In some circumstances, their origin can be uncertain. If the world is not to turn into a doomsday machine, a way must be found to prevent proliferation--especially to rogue states whose governments have no restraint on the exercise of their power. Cold War principles of deterrence are almost impossible to implement when there is a multiplicity of states, some of them harboring terrorists in position to wreak havoc. The Cold War world reflected a certain uniformity in the assessment of risk between the nuclear sides. But when many states threaten each other for incongruent purposes, who is to do the deterring, and in the face of what provocation? This is especially true when that which must be deterred is not simply the use of weapons of mass destruction but the threat of them. Suicide bombing has shown that the calculations of jihad fighters are not those of the Cold War leaders. The concern that war with Iraq could unleash Iraqi weapons of mass destruction on Israel and Saudi Arabia is a demonstration of how even existing stockpiles of weapons turn into instruments of blackmail and self-deterrence. Procrastination is bound to magnify such possibilities. The existence and, even more, the growth of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq poses a threat to international peace and stability. The issue is not primarily whether Iraq was involved in the terrorist attack on the United States. The challenge of Iraq is essentially geopolitical and psychological. Its policy is implacably hostile to the United States, to neighboring countries, and to established rules that govern relations among nations. It possesses growing stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, which Saddam Hussein has used in the war against Iran and on his own population. Iraq is working again to develop a nuclear capability. Saddam Hussein breached his commitment to the United Nations by preventing the operation of the international inspection system he had accepted on his territory as part of the armistice agreement ending the Gulf War. There is no possibility of a direct negotiation between Washington and Baghdad and no basis for trusting Iraq's promises to the international community. By what reasoning can the world community--or America--acquiesce in this state of affairs? If these capabilities remain intact, they will become an instrument--actual and symbolic--for the destabilization of a volatile region. And if Saddam Hussein's regime survives both the Gulf War and the anti-terrorism campaign, this fact alone will compound the existing terrorist menace. By its defiance of the U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has in effect asserted the determination to possess weapons whose very existence compounds the terrorist threat immeasurably. Global terrorism cannot flourish except with the support of states that either sympathize or acquiesce in its actions. To the extent that these countries observe the flouting of U.N. resolutions, the weakening of international norms, and the defiance of America, they feel less restrained in acquiescing in or ignoring terrorist activities. For the nations of the world to accept the existence of growing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction where the new form of terrorism has been spawned is to undermine restraint with respect not only to weapons proliferation but to the psychological impulse toward terrorism altogether. The campaign in Afghanistan was an important first step. But if it remains the principal move in the war against terrorism, it runs the risk of petering out into an intelligence operation while the rest of the region gradually slides back to the pre-9/11 pattern, with radicals encouraged by the demonstration of the world's hesitation and moderates demoralized by the continuation of an unimpaired Iraq as an aggressive regional power. In short, the continuation of illegal proliferation, the global dangers which it involves, the rejection or infeasibility of a viable inspection system, and the growth of terrorism require action, preferably global, but as an ultimate resort of America's, together with those countries prepared to support it. It is argued that dealing with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq weakens the war against terrorism. The opposite is more likely to be true. Eliminating such weapons in Iraq is an important aspect of the second phase of the anti-terrorism campaign. It demonstrates American determination to get at the root causes and some of the ultimate capabilities of what is, in essence, a crusade against free values. Enforcing U.N. resolutions in Iraq does not compete with the capabilities needed to pursue the second phase of the anti-terrorism campaign. In all likelihood, such action will strengthen it by additional deployments to the region. Nor should it weaken the cooperation of other countries in the anti-terror campaign. Assisting in this effort is not a favor other countries do for the United States but ultimately for themselves. And what exactly will they decline to support without risking their entire relationship to the United States? The fight against terrorism will take many years. To wait for its end before acting is to guarantee that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction multiply. At the same time, while reserving the option to act in concert with only the nations it can convince, the United States is wise to appeal to cooperative action of the world community. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States has a special unilateral capacity and, indeed, obligation to lead in implementing its convictions. But it also has a special obligation to justify its actions by principles that transcend the assertions of preponderant power. It cannot be in either the American national interest or the world's interest to develop principles that grant every nation an unfettered right of preemption against its own definition of threats to its security. The case for enforcement of established resolutions should be the opening move in a serious effort of consultation to develop fundamental principles that other nations can consider in the general interest. The United Nations is therefore challenged to come with a control system that eliminates existing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--together with procedures to prevent their being rebuilt. the control system must go far beyond the inspection system negated by Saddam Hussein's evasions and violations. It must prevent any possibility for local authorities to harass informants or to impede free access to the inspectors. It should be backed by standby authority and perhaps a standby force to remove any obstacle to transparency. Moreover, any system of inspection must be measured against the decline in vigilance that accompanied the previously flawed system's operation. Nor can it be achieved at the price of lifting sanctions while Sad Dam Hussein stays in office. For that would provide the Iraqi regime with the means of rearmament as a reward for ending its violations. Indeed, the rigorous measures required to implement the U.N.'s own resolutions are almost surely incompatible with Hussein's continuation in power. In the end, enforcement of U.N. resolutions should be coupled with a program of reconstruction for Iraq. Because of the precedent-setting nature of this war, its outcome will determine the way U.S. actions will ultimately be viewed. And we may find more nations willing to cooperate in reconstruction than in enforcement, if only because no country wants to see an exclusive position for America in a region so central to international political and economic stability. Reconstruction will require dealing with how to preserve the unity and ensure the territorial integrity of a country that is an essential component of any Gulf equilibrium. A federal system to enable the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish ethnic groups of Iraq to live together without domination by one of them is surely appropriate. But any serious planning would have to consider the means to prevent autonomy from turning to independence, which, in the case of the Kurds, would put Turkish support for the military phase at risk. And all this would have to take place in the context of a government capable of resisting pressures from the remnants of the old regime or from neighboring countries determined to destabilize the emerging system. The United States has put forward a reasoned definition of the dangers: the possession of weapons of mass destruction by governments that have demonstrated their willingness to use them, have professed hostility toward America or its allies, and are not restrained by domestic institutions. Can the world community reject that definition of the danger? However the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is resolved, the longer-range goal must be to devise a system for dealing with new attempts by additional countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction or biological and chemical weapons. We are only at the beginning of the threat of global proliferation. The nations of the world must face the impossibility of letting such a process run unchecked. The United States would contribute much to a new international order if it invited the rest of world, and especially the major nuclear powers, to cooperate in creating a system to deal with this challenge to humanity on a more institutional basis. Congress has an opportunity to vindicate a system of international order. I urge you to give the President the authority to enforce the appropriate U.N. resolutions together with the world community if at all possible, in concert with like-minded nations if necessary.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this presentation. I think there are a couple of clear points one can make in response, and then I will comment. We have been dealing with Saddam Hussein with our men and women in uniform for 12 years. We have been occupying positions in the Middle East. We have been flying over the regions that Saddam has. We are flying the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. We had weapons inspectors in there for the 12 years, until they were kicked out 4 or 5 years ago. After Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, after there was a United Nations agreement, and after basically he agreed to an armistice, and after inspectors, he said: I will take out all weapons of mass destruction, and I will turn them over to the international community. And he has not done that. We know that. He has failed to do that. We have had economic sanctions against Iraq for a period of years now. They have not worked. There is such a sieve in the region that he is able to get oil out and goods in without any problem. We have worked with the United Nations. We had some 16 resolutions that passed through the United Nations. It is as if some of the debate on the floor is that we are just now starting to try to deal with Saddam Hussein, when I think you have to look back over the past 12 years. We have been dealing with this dictator and this despot for 12 years in every way conceivable. I think the conclusion most people have is that 12 years ago we should have gone into Baghdad and removed him at that time. That is the real conclusion people come to. Yet, for reasons of the Congress or the international community--whoever you want to say in that point of time--there was no agreement to kick him out. Since that time, it has not changed. He is the same guy who has these weapons of mass destruction. It has just gotten worse in that period of 12 years. I would analogize it to having cancer. If you have cancer, you have a couple of options: You can deal with it. You can go in and have surgery to remove the big areas that are spreading. You can try to contain it for a period of time through different therapies. Or you can ignore it and just say: It does not affect me today. I am fine today. Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. He has biological weapons. He is working on nuclear weapons. He has missile capacity to deliver all of these. That is the cancer that exists. We can say we feel fine today; we are fine. What if he decides to launch any one of those? What if he does it not at military targets but at civilian targets, at one of our allies, or even at us? Are we fine then? I can just see us having a commission after that period of time asking: Why didn't we catch these terrorists? We were working on Iraqi soil before they attacked the United States. We should have gone in there. Did we not know enough? Were we not sufficiently concerned about it in a similar way that we are having hearings now about why we didn't do things prior to September 11? Did we see the clues and the situation building up prior to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon being hit? Did we not see this coming? Let us apply that same standard to Saddam Hussein and the nexus he provides between the weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. They are clearly there. I just articulated the weapons of mass destruction that he has. He is also working on such things as smallpox. We think he may be trying to do something with that. He is working on all sorts of things. Yes. Weapons of mass destruction. What about the terrorist connection that is there? Abu Nidal's organization was headquartered there for a period of time. He just died, or he was killed recently, for whatever reason. Al-Qaida leadership is in Iraq. Hussein has worked closely with a number of terrorist organizations in and on his soil. They are there. You have the mix of these two sitting side by side--a toxic mix that the United States cannot countenance. I respect a number of people who think this isn't the way we do things. Democracies have real difficulty declaring war. That is a very good thing. This is just something we don't like. We want somebody to come and hit at us first, before we go on to war. You can look through the history of the United States and the acts where we were hit and then we responded. That is the way we are most comfortable in dealing with these tough, difficult issues about whether you go to war with a foreign nation. It is good that we wrestle with that and with this situation. It is like in the old television show ``Gunsmoke.'' At the end of the ``Gunsmoke'' episode every week, it ended the same way: Matt Dillon walks out on the main street of Dodge City. The bad guy walks out on the street on the other end. They stare at each other for a little while. The bad guy has a chance to walk off, if he wants to. He also gets to draw first. He draws first. Then Matt Dillon draws. The bad guy goes down. There is a sense of fair play and honor about that. There is a set of rules. The bad guy gets to shoot first, but you are going down in the process. If you are going to do that; you have a chance to walk away. If you decide not to, that is your choice. That is the way we like to do things, because there is a sense of, Do we really want to bother somebody else to this degree? Is this the right thing to do? Saddam Hussein doesn't operate that way. The terrorists today don't operate with those same sorts of rules of decorum in operation, and the rules of boxing, if you will. These are people who don't go out on Main Street with Matt Dillon. They sneak around behind buildings and try to get at innocent people and women and children. They don't go straight at our military. They attack people in civilian positions. Their object is to disrupt. It is not to protect a nation state. It is not to confront the military. It is to kill as many civilians as they can. Can we afford, in that type of atmosphere and that new way of operating, to have terrorists force us to sit back and say: OK? Are we going to wait until somehow they attack us, or try to get botulism in our food supply, or try to get anthrax into a broad area of the United States, or one of our allies, or try to make a weapon with smallpox, and then we will go at them? The cost of doing that is to spread a cancer; the deaths of many people. This is not something we can countenance. It is not something-- when my primary duty and the primary duty of the elected Members of this body is to provide for the national defense--that we can countenance. It is not something we can do. I want to read from some testimony Henry Kissinger gave 2 weeks ago before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I ask unanimous consent that his entire testimony be printed in the Record after my comments.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Nevada. I would like to speak for 15 minutes. I think there are other people who would like to speak, as well,

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we are on the judicial reauthorization bill that just received cloture. I was happy to see that taking place. I draw attention to the body to one particular provision that is important. It is J-1 visas. These visas are granted to people who were born in another country, other than the United States, but trained according to medical standards in the United States, in passing medical boards in the United States, and then able to serve throughout the United States. I know the Presiding Officer's State and my State are dependent on people born in foreign countries being able to provide medical services in Kansas. We have 105 counties and 20 that would be medically underserved if not for this feature called J-1 visas for medically underserved counties to have medical personnel, as I previously described. Within the provision of the judicial reauthorization bill, it allows for 30 J-1 visas on a per State, per year basis to work with recruitment of medical personnel. My State of Kansas is dependent on this feature. Twenty of our 105 counties would be medically underserved if not for J-1 visas. There was a problem within the old program that the oversight was not sufficient. After September 11, a number of people were concerned about who was getting into the United States under these J-1 visas: Are they properly supervised and properly observed, or is there potential for untoward elements that would come in this way that might seek to do harm to the United States? That was an area of concern. We were concerned about everyone coming to the United States at that point. This was another area where people had deep concerns. This program, as we have revised it, has supervision in place to watch this program and to meet the needs of States like Kansas where we have significant areas of medically underserved populations and at the same time meet the security needs of the United States so we do not allow in an individual who seeks to do harm to the rest of the United States. I worked in the Judiciary Committee. We worked on the Immigration Subcommittee. This bill got through the House of Representatives. Congressman Jerry Moran from my State worked over there. We have met everyone's concerns to get this passed through the needs of States such as my own, particularly for rural States because this is a chronic issue, with significantly underserved areas, aging population in some counties that need more and more services and have more and more difficulty getting medical personnel into the areas. This is working under the J-1 category for medical doctors. We are using it for medical technologists. In the future we will need it for broader categories within health care as well, potentially for physical therapists and nurses, to get adequate personnel in places that are needed. It will be a valuable feature, looking into the future. Overall, the judicial reauthorization is a good bill, one that we should pass. It is significant. We have not had one of these reauthorizations for some period of time. It is certainly the time to be doing this, to bring this issue forward. I commend the chairman and ranking member and those who have worked very hard in the conference committee to move this issue forward. Iraq

Mr. BROWNBACK. As we look and move forward on the issue of Iraq and war with Iraq and the potential of providing the President military authorization, I hope the body and the Members and people across the country and across the world look at the potential of a post-Saddam Iraq. Former Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and I worked, when he was in the Senate, with a group called the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group of opposition leaders, to try to bring to the forefront opposition groups, bring them together, and move forward with the track that once Saddam is out, moving forward with a democracy, with human rights, civil liberties for the people of Iraq. I think a lot of times we get caught too much in the downside potential. It is not only whether we can get Saddam out. It is not only what are going to be the problems of doing this. Sometimes we do not see the upside potential. There is clear downside potential in taking on Saddam Hussein, there is no question about that--potential loss of lives of our troops, our people, terrorist threats, potential loss of life in the region, loss of life in Iraq. It is undeniable. It is also unquestionable and undeniable that Saddam Hussein has killed a number of people already, gassed his own people, attacked Iran, gassed the Iranian people. He has continued to rule by fear. He has killed people within his own Cabinet and his own family. This is a man who is familiar with evil and has exercised it. What about after Saddam Hussein? What then? You have a country in that region that has a history of rudimentary democracy. From 1921 until 1958, they had a constitutional monarchy, where you had a monarch but you also had a parliament that was elected by the people. They had control over budgets and ministers in the various areas of the Cabinet. It is not the level of our democracy today, but probably the level of the English democracy in the mid-1800s. They had a functioning democracy where they elected people and they had real legitimate authority within that. There is that basis. This is one of the oldest civilizations in the world where Iraq is. They would say this is the cradle of civilization, it has been there for thousands of years--and it has. It is an urban society. Eighty percent of the population are in urban areas. It is a well educated populace that is there. It is also sitting on 10 percent of the world's oil supply. So it has the ability to generate enough income to rebuild and grow itself. My point in saying all of that is that post-Saddam, when you get this man, who has brought so much evil to that region of the world and to the rest of the world, out of there, you have the basis of a real, growing, healthy, vibrant, democratic, free-market society. People are going to be free, and they are going to have liberty, and there is going to be great joy there for that possibility, and to be able to move forward in a region of the world that has not known much in the way of democracy. Outside of Israel and Turkey, you don't have democracies in that region of the world. You don't have any freedoms. You have a lot of resources, but you have a lot of poverty. That is because systems matter, and they have had systems that have been totalitarian in nature. Iraq has a history that is different. Until 1958, when there was a military coup, this was an operating country with many democratic features within it. They can build on that. Once that is established in Iraq, you move forward and press for democracy, and that is going to infect the entire region for democracy, human rights, religious freedom, pluralism, tolerance, free markets. Then it is going to be able to spread throughout. As former Secretary Henry Kissinger said at a hearing we had last week, he views that if we go in and deal with Iraq, it is going to have a very positive, salutary effect on the war on terrorism. It is going to say to a number of countries that we are serious about dealing with terrorists, we are serious that countries that house and support terrorists are our enemies; you are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism. If we do not go at Iraq, our effort in the war on terrorism dwindles into an intelligence operation. If we go at Iraq it says to countries that support terrorists--and there remain six in the world that fit our definition of state-sponsored terrorists--you say to those countries that we are serious about terrorism and we are serious about you not supporting terrorism on your own soil. This is going to be a big statement we will make. It is with a great deal of difficulty and it is with a great deal of cost. But the option of doing nothing is far worse than the option of doing something and acting now. The upside potential of our acting and helping allow the Iraqi people their freedom to be able to move forward with a democracy is significant upside potential, within that region, for liberty and freedom to expand throughout that area. We will have this debate on granting military authority to the President, which is going to be a significant debate in this body. Hopefully, we will look at all the issues, and I think we will. Particularly, we should look at things such as: Is Saddam Hussein going to be able to get weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and out of the country to attack other people during this period of time? I hope we will also look at the downside of not doing something and the upside of helping people pursue freedom and liberty, such as what has the potential of taking place in Iraq and pursuing a democracy there. I point out to people who are not familiar with this, Saddam Hussein does not control the whole country. He doesn't control the north of Iraq, the Kurdish region. It was reported that a number of Kurdish troops who are there are outside of his control. He has sporadic control in the south of the country. He controls it during the day; at other times, he doesn't. His main control is in the center, in the Baghdad region of the country. This is not a homogeneous population, nor is it completely under his authoritarian rule. We will be able to work with populations in both the north and south to build pressure on him in the center of this country when we move forward, addressing and dealing with Saddam Hussein. It is a big issue. It is a big issue for the country. It is a big issue for the world. It is a big issue for liberty. It is a big issue, dealing with a very militant, politicized strain of Islam in that region, and particularly in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein seeks to exploit. You know, he would not view himself associated with it, but he is certainly working to exploit that at this point in time. This is an important argument and discussion for this country and for the world. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, with the passage of the Judiciary reauthorization bill, this body will pass a provision to extend our program to allow states to recommend J-1 visa waiver for physicians willing to practice in medically underserved areas. It is one of the great privileges of my life to represent one of the most rural States in the Nation. For many around the world, Kansas represents rural life in America. The image is quaint; and, somehow insulated from the world by a field of wheat that arcs off into the horizon. However, as my colleagues from the heartland know, that image does not represent modern rural life. In the Beloit co-op, Kansans gather as often to talk about global commodities futures as they do the weather. Our farmers are as likely to be reviewing GPS Satellite readings as they are next years model line of John Deeres. And, when they go to the doctor, rural Kansans are very likely in the waiting room of an Indian or Canadian citizen. Just as Kansas relies on the world as a market, we rely on the world as a source for our health professionals. Since 1993, ninety-eight (98) waivers have been granted allowing foreign born physicians to remain in the country to practice medicine in the state of Kansas. Over fifty (50) physicians currently practicing in Kansas are in the state as a result of a J-1 visa waiver. Twenty (20) counties in the state of Kansas are considered fully served as a result of foreign born physicians who received J-1 visa waivers. Section 11018 of the Judiciary reauthorization bill before us represents a literal life-line for rural America. The Senate passage of the bill also represents the hard work of several very dedicated legislators, including my fellow Kansan, Representative Jerry Moran and our colleague from South Dakota Senator Kent Conrad. It was their persistence and the hard work of several groups including: The American Hospital Association; the American Academy of Family Physicians; the Farm Bureau; the American College of Physician; the National Association of Community Health Centers; the National Rural Health Care Association; the American Immigration Lawyers Association and others, that kept this issue moving throughout this Congress. Of course, there are many important provisions in this bill. However, for Kansans in the vast rural areas of the State, ensuring access to a doctor is one of the most significant. I thank the Chairman and Ranking member for fighting to ensure that this provision made it into the conference report.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in offering tribute to my friend and fellow Senator, Jesse Helms. As my dear friend so loved to say, even a blind hog finds an acorn sometimes. So I hope my poor words may be able to rise and find the acorn here in a proper tribute to Senator Helms for the years of service and contribution he has made to this great country and what he has given to the world. I know today many of my colleagues are lauding him for his grit and determination, his principled stands, and his ability to always fight the good fight even if it was a lonely and sometimes frustrating fight. Senator Helms has always done so. He has always stood firm despite the opposition and the disapproval. We have had a number of colleagues already speak about these traits and speak of them in laudatory terms. In fact, he was known for telling his staff and his allies that it did not matter, if they stuck to principle, if they lost. What mattered was they stuck to principle. All the other things would fall by the wayside, but you have to stand by your principle and you have to fight for it regardless of whether you win or lose. That was a great lesson to me, coming to this body, of the service that we have here for the world. You fight for your principles. There is so much to say about Jesse Helms, my dear friend. There is much to say that is obvious. There are some things to say that are not known very well publicly. I know from personal experience about his traits and his attributes that so many people are talking about--his determination, standing by principle. I served with the Senator when I first came to the Senate. I haven't been in this body a long time, but I served with him the entire time on the Foreign Relations Committee. I know he always treated new Members in a manner unlike most people treat new Members. He treated new Members with a great deal of respect, with a great deal of courtesy, which is the way he treats everybody--it is a true Biblical principle. You don't treat the great and the lesser any different. He always did that for new Members. I came into the Foreign Relations Committee, the first meeting I had there, sitting way at the end of the bench. There was not a seat further away from the chairman where I could sit. They had to actually build another seat there to give me a space to sit. And then he calls on me first at the committee, which had me quaking in my boots at the time. I was ready and prepared to sit for a couple of hours and wait my turn and build up some knowledge. But it was his trait and his standard that each year when he had a new Member come in, he recognized him first at the first meeting. It was very kind of him to do that, to welcome people. That was just his nature and his characteristic, and it was always done. It is no surprise that he has always been voted by the Washingtonian magazine as the nicest Senator, which I think is quite a tribute when we look back. I have on my wall a picture of Mother Teresa and a quote from her. She says: At the end of life we are not going to be measured by the positions that we achieved or the things we accomplished or the wealth we had. What we will be measured by is the amount of love with which we did the work we had. We will be measured that way. It doesn't matter if you are a Senator presiding in the Senate, the President of the United States, if you work at any job anywhere--it is not the accomplishment of the physical that you do, it is not the accumulation of money you accomplish, it is not the wealth, it is the love you express in the job that you have. Senator Helms has expressed a great deal of love to everybody and has had a high degree of success and will be very rich in rewards. These are the examples he has given to so many of us so constantly. It is such a beautiful tribute. He has a robust sense of humor that many have not had the pleasure of being able to experience, although I have. One of my favorite facts about the Senator--Senator Smith just mentioned it--is when you go into Senator Helms' office, he has on the walls every cartoon that has ever been done about him. There are quite a few of them. They are scattered around the walls. A number of them Senator Smith said are not glowing in their comments, but he puts them up. I think it is quite a tribute there as well that he would show both sides, so anybody who comes into his office can see the caricature that is made by anybody. I think that is a good trait of humility. Humility is the first grace. We need much humility. In addition, one of his prize possessions is a big rubber stamp that says ``No'' on it. Needless to say, he has wielded it often and with passion. But in reality it was not just saying no or being Senator No, though those working on treaties and nominees over the years may have believed so, he was actually one of the most effective compromisers in the Senate. Yes, it is true. That is what happens when everyone knows exactly where you stand and that your word is your bond. For Senator Helms, his word was definitely his bond. One of the facts to know about Senator Helms, though, is what a true gentleman he always was. Several people have spoken about that. No matter how bitter a foe or how fierce a disagreement, he was always kind to his opponent. You are to love your friend and you are to love your enemy. He practiced that Biblical admonition as well if not better than anybody I have ever seen. A foe who might be fierce in disagreement, in most cases would, afterwards, and even during the debate, admire and like his opponent. For example, he has always truly liked Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, though most on the outside saw them as no more than simple enemies. He and Madeleine Albright had a marvelous relationship, even though they would disagree on probably the complete course of the meal, soup to nuts. But they had a wonderful personal relationship--although even that, too, is too simplistic an analysis. Clearly, not enough to really say about his character, it is a true sign of character to understand the best results come from fighting worthy opponents and to be willing to graciously acknowledge and admire these opponents. It was a lesson I took to heart, seeing how he fiercely defended his principles, yet how much he cared for and always took time to honor those he fought against and with whom even disagreed. He honored them. He did love his opponents. He took almost as much care in those cases as he did with his own staff--many of whom are here, as was noted. Senator Helms is also known for being deeply devoted to his staff, considering them his family and treating them as such, practicing an open-door policy and complete loyalty and always ensuring that he knew what was going on in each staffer's life. As in so many areas, he did not just preach family values, he practiced them. This has been a great lesson to me as well. So many times you get busy and you feel you are just trying to suck things out of your staff--I need this information; I need that--when our true role is as a shepherd, to feed them, to care for them, to tend them, and to nourish them. These are people with whom we have an unusually positive relationship. Senator Helms does that well. One of the reasons he and I bonded was something that we share--the adoptive children we have. He has unmeasurable effort he has made for adoptive children and for adoptive parents across the country, and even around the world. He has always cared incredibly deeply about children and those less fortunate. That is just one area of many where he has truly put his energy and where his beliefs are. There is a personal story that is just too personal to tell. But it is about his adoptive child in a red cap that Senator Helms told me about. It is too personal to say here, but it is such a touching story, a tribute to a man adopting a child, the gift that child was to him, and the gift he was to that child. But I think the most important things to consider when contemplating the Senator's great and illustrious career are some of the things he would probably say are his proud achievements--his long and true marriage to his beloved Dot, volunteering for the Navy right after Pearl Harbor, the Jesse Helms Foundation, his solitary action as a lone Republican stumping for a gentleman by the name of Ronald Reagan back in 1976, and his unlimited love for children. Throughout his lifetime, but especially during his career in Congress, he has never forgotten the children, including them and introducing them to worlds they may never experience; for example, inviting the pages, who are so often overlooked by all of us despite their hard and dedicated work, to his Jesse Helms Foundation dinner, assuring that all of them will be introduced to everyone attending the dinner. Senator Helms has often been seen as the Rock of Gibraltar, an oftentimes lonely role, yet always a steadfast defender of American and Republican principles. He is so much more than that. He is a kind and gentle soul who has brought humor, compassion, and character to this august body. He has been and always will be a role model of the true gentleman. In his Second Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul writes: ``I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.'' Senator Helms has certainly done so. You have fought the good fight, you finished the course, you kept the faith. God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for as long as I might consume regarding the tribute to Senator Helms, and ask for that privilege as well for the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I think it is important that we work off actual words and not headlines, off actual words and not interpretations, and off actual words and not feelings towards words. That is the reason I wanted to enter into the Record the specific wording the Vice President used in the speech that is being commented upon a great deal by a number of Members. The headline that was out was not something that was said by the Vice President. I think it is important we get the actual words he used on Monday. I want to also make something very clear. The Vice President did not at all challenge the patriotism of any Member of Congress--House or Senate, Republican, Democrat, or Independent. He did not challenge any of that. He didn't mention any member by name other than the one he is supporting, and who is running for the House of Representatives. He spoke at length about Saddam Hussein, about the need for homeland security, and about the need to move these bills forward. There was no accusation whatsoever about any lack of patriotism on anybody's part. He is supporting, in this case in Kansas, the Third District candidate, Adam Taff, a man who is a former military man, an F-18 pilot, who fought in the gulf war the first time around, and who is running for Congress. This particular individual actually served as an F-18 pilot in the military when Vice President Cheney was then Secretary of Defense. Here is a person, a candidate, Adam Taff, who actually worked for the Vice President when he was Secretary of Defense, in a military capacity, and he does push forward his military credentials, as any candidate for office would push forward his credentials for office. And Adam Taff claims his military credentials. I think that is fully laudable and appropriate. I think it is important to make clear that the Vice President didn't challenge any patriotism whatsoever and did not reference the Senate in any of his comments. Again, as I stated, I have here his actual comments that have been submitted for the Record. I think there has been far too much protesting about this when what we really need to do is get homeland security passed and get an Iraqi resolution dealt with and I hope passed. I hope we can get a resolution, work together in a bipartisan fashion, and get an overwhelming majority for the Iraqi resolution. If we need to adjust words on it, I think that is fully appropriate because we need to show to the world a united front and that this distraction today is just that--a distraction. Homeland security we should have passed some time ago. We have been on it now for 3 weeks. We have been on it primarily because of special interest issues and not because of interests for the country. I think we need to get that bill posted and cleared in this Congress. It would be an important thing for us to do. It is the time for us to get that done. We have dawdled too long on it. But these allegations coming forward today that somehow there has been a challenge to the patriotism of other Members of this body are simply not supported by the facts. They are not supported by the facts anywhere. They are not supported by what the Vice President said in Kansas. We clearly need to deal with the facts instead of trying to divert attention by saying there is an accusation going on which is not built upon the facts--allegations that are coming forward challenging the patriotism of people who have served in the military and in this body. Nobody is challenging that. There is a clear challenge that we are not getting homeland security passed. We have been 3 weeks at it. There is a clear challenge that we have to get an Iraqi resolution passed before this body goes out for the election period--possibly an extended recess, or coming back in a lame duck session, whichever actually takes place. We really should get this bill moved forward. I think if people want to do away with these accusations, the best thing we can do is pass the homeland security bill and pass an Iraqi resolution that we work and mold together here as a body, and get that passed by an overwhelming majority in this body. I urge my colleagues; I think it would be wise for us to lower our decibel level on this, look at the factual material, and not go after misleading headlines but actually examine the record and move forward with these two very serious pieces of business. It is important that we do that. The Vice President has not--and I don't think in the future will-- challenged anyone's patriotism. People disagree on political issues. They disagree on issues of policy. That is clear. That is why we have a body that debates these issues. Some people view homeland security one way, and some people think we ought to support giving the President the authority to take whatever means necessary to remove Saddam Hussein. The former Vice President articulated a couple of days ago, saying no, that this is something we don't need to do and shouldn't do at this time. That is the former Vice President's opinion. Others have a different opinion on that. But we would be wise to debate what those issues are, and the specifics, and not allege issues of character which are not being challenged by the President or by the Vice President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue that has been in the press much today, and I think there is a great deal of misinterpretation taking place about the President's and the Vice President's comments regarding homeland security and the war on terrorism. I make specific reference to a speech that Vice President Cheney gave in Kansas on Monday. I was at that event. I heard the speech. I was there supporting the candidate for whom the speech was given. Adam Taff, a fine candidate, is running for Congress in the Third Congressional District in Kansas. I want to make it very clear--and I want to enter into the Record a copy of the Vice President's words verbatim. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Vice President's speech which he gave on Monday in Kansas be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I want to take a moment to recognize the guest Chaplain, Cecil Washington, from Topeka, KS. He has traveled here with his wife Audrey to be the guest Chaplain today. She is in the gallery. I have had the pleasure of knowing Reverend Washington for many years. He has a distinguished record as not only a dedicated and caring minister but as a fellow traveler, helping those in need along the way in many places, as I have seen him do in Kansas and across the country. Reverend Washington is deeply rooted in the Topeka community. He is committed to nurturing and guiding individuals in taking command and control of their lives. In fact, Reverend Washington founded and is director of the Prayers Answered, Lives Saved Recovery Group, or PALS. This organization provides Bible-based, Christ-centered addiction support for all substance abuse users. His organization has helped countless individuals redefine their lives and begin to make positive life choices for themselves and their loved ones. Reverend Washington also knows the importance of self-sufficiency. He is the past president of Jobs Partnership of Topeka. He has worked tirelessly to help see that the individuals with whom he works develop the skills necessary to become self-sufficient and sustain their independence. In addition, Reverend Washington has served in many capacities in the State of Kansas. He is the past Chaplain of both the State house of representatives and the State senate of Kansas. He has also served on a number of advisory committees and boards. Currently, Reverend Washington is the pastor and founder of the New Beginning Missionary Baptist Church in Topeka, KS. He founded this church in March of 1998, which has a very expansive and growing congregation. Finally, Reverend Washington is a sought-after minister, lecturer, and is the author of the book ``The Triple Solution For Our Double A Problem,'' published in 2001. It is probably a good book for everybody to read to get a triple solution to double problems. I am proud to have him here today. As I mentioned, he is joined by his wife. I encourage Members of the Senate, as they come to the Chamber, if they get a chance, to meet Reverend Washington. I think they will be blessed. He has shared quite a testimony. Some of you may recognize that he used to sing with Marvin Gaye, the Four Tops, and the Supremes. He has a voice, as you heard, and gave that for the ministry that the Lord might use it in another way. He is quite an individual and has been a good friend. I am glad to have him here as the guest Chaplain. I have a statement I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record from Congressman Jim Ryun of the second district in Kansas, which serves the Topeka area.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Madam President. Good morning. And I thank the Senator from Nevada for his recognition, and the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me to speak briefly.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with the ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee in introducing and the National Cancer Act of 2002. We believe that this is the proverbial first step of the thousand mile journey toward the goal of making cancer death rare by the year 2015. First, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that we are not the first in the Senate to drop a cancer bill. Indeed, fired the first salvo in our Nation's conflict with cancer with the passage of the National Cancer Institute Act back in 1937. This law, established the National Cancer Institute, (NCI), within the public health service and directed the Surgeon General to promote cancer research. In 1971, responding to the call of President Nixon, Congress officially declared war on cancer with the passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971. This law established the Director of the National Cancer Institute as one of two Presidentially appointment posts within all of the National Institutes of Health. In addition, the '71 Act gave the Director the ability to bypass the normal budget process and submit the NCI budget directly to the President, a privilege that is entirely unique throughout the Executive Branch. With our declaration of war our Nation saw the establishment of the President's Cancer Panel, the National Cancer Advisory Board, the International Cancer Research Data Bank and the first cancer center. The stated goal of the country that had just landed a man on the moon was to cure cancer within a decade. Since 1971, we have seen 31 years pass, six Presidents sworn in, 15 sessions of Congress, and ten different bills signed into law with the goal of ending the prolonged war on cancer. This year over half a million Americans will die from cancer. It is for them, and for the 1.2 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer, and for the millions of cancer survivors who are living beyond this disease that we introduce this bill today. Ours is the time is history when we must reinvigorate the battle. Thanks to advances in treatment and increased screening and early detection, between 1990 and 1997, for the first time in history, the number of cancer deaths and diagnoses have declined. However, to whom much is given, much is expected. The National Cancer Act of 2002, answers the call and lays out a battle plan for the next, and hopefully final attack in the war on cancer.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with the ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee in introducing and the National Cancer Act of 2002. We believe that this is the proverbial first step of the thousand mile journey toward the goal of making cancer death rare by the year 2015. First, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that we are not the first in the Senate to drop a cancer bill. Indeed, fired the first salvo in our Nation's conflict with cancer with the passage of the National Cancer Institute Act back in 1937. This law, established the National Cancer Institute, (NCI), within the public health service and directed the Surgeon General to promote cancer research. In 1971, responding to the call of President Nixon, Congress officially declared war on cancer with the passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971. This law established the Director of the National Cancer Institute as one of two Presidentially appointment posts within all of the National Institutes of Health. In addition, the '71 Act gave the Director the ability to bypass the normal budget process and submit the NCI budget directly to the President, a privilege that is entirely unique throughout the Executive Branch. With our declaration of war our Nation saw the establishment of the President's Cancer Panel, the National Cancer Advisory Board, the International Cancer Research Data Bank and the first cancer center. The stated goal of the country that had just landed a man on the moon was to cure cancer within a decade. Since 1971, we have seen 31 years pass, six Presidents sworn in, 15 sessions of Congress, and ten different bills signed into law with the goal of ending the prolonged war on cancer. This year over half a million Americans will die from cancer. It is for them, and for the 1.2 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer, and for the millions of cancer survivors who are living beyond this disease that we introduce this bill today. Ours is the time is history when we must reinvigorate the battle. Thanks to advances in treatment and increased screening and early detection, between 1990 and 1997, for the first time in history, the number of cancer deaths and diagnoses have declined. However, to whom much is given, much is expected. The National Cancer Act of 2002, answers the call and lays out a battle plan for the next, and hopefully final attack in the war on cancer.