Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise to speak about the events of 1 year ago. I am delighted to follow my colleague, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, with whom I have worked and will continue to do so. I add my name to his comments. Today we are gathered to remember those who lost their lives on September 11, to honor those who sacrificed everything for the concept of and belief in freedom. That day and every day since then are stark and simple reminders that freedom is not free and that it is never secure. This is something the people of my home State of Kansas have long understood. Our very motto is ``ad astra per aspera''--``To the stars through difficulties.'' We have lived this every day, every year since before we were a State. It is also a theme our entire Nation embraces today. We were not bowed by last September's attack. In fact, we arose from the ashes stronger and more resilient than ever. ``The greatest victories come when people dare to be great,'' Ronald Reagan said, ``when they summon their spirits to brave the unknown and go forward together to reach a greater good.'' In the days immediately following that fateful day, we summoned our spirits and went forward together. We dared to be great. As you look at the memorials, and as you listen to the speeches of remembrance, think of the sacrifice of all those involved, and of the lives cut short, the promises broken, the happiness destroyed. It is all too easy to cloak these sacrifices in mere platitudes. We must remember exactly what it means to sacrifice and what exactly was sacrificed. These were not nameless, faceless people who just simply acted out some role. These were sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers. They were scared men and women who had thrust upon them the part of hero, and they lived up to the billing. It is also too easy to just call them heroes and walk away. It is not easy to recognize the fear and the strength and the courage they exhibited on that particular day. I have been particularly taken now, reading stories of the heroes of 9/11 and the miracles that happened on that day--stories that we are all familiar with now--Todd Beamer and ``let's roll,'' and the flight that went into the field in Pennsylvania, which was the very flight headed for this building. It probably would have reached its target had they not been heroes on that day. Would this place even be here now? It may have been rebuilt, but would we be back here yet? How many lives would have been lost here? I read last Friday in USA Today about miracles of 9/11. Some police officers, one a rookie, went into the south tower; they were buried in 20 feet of rubble. Three of them were together. The first was killed in the first crushing, but two survived and they were able to crawl around. The second tower came down and they were pinned underneath the rubble and stayed there almost 24 hours. They could see a light about 20 feet up, and they knew there was a possibility they would get out. As they faded in and out of consciousness during the night, one of them had a vision, it said in USA Today. The vision he saw was Jesus coming toward him, bringing him a bottle of water. It gave him strength. He wasn't fearful of death. He was able to reach out with strength and yell for help. They were eventually found by a marine and were dug out from the rubble. That is one of the miracles of 9/11. I think of the heroes that were going up the tower, instead of coming down, on 9/11. It was an amazing day, a tragic day, one we should not and we won't forget. Also, sometimes it is easy to think that perhaps life does not change that much when actually life has irrevocably changed. It is not that life doesn't go on; it certainly does. We must never forget. As author Elie Wiesel said in his Nobel lecture: For me, hope without memory is like memory without hope. Just as a man cannot live without dreams, he cannot live without hope. If dreams reflect the past, hope summons the future. Does this mean that our future can be built on a rejection of the past? Surely, such a choice is not necessary. The two are incompatible. The opposite of the past is not the future, but the absence of the future; the opposite of the future is not the past, but the absence of the past. The loss of one is equivalent to the sacrifice of the other. We must not forget our past or the attacks or the outpouring of generosity and patriotism and simple kindnesses in the days following the attacks. All of this must continue. We cannot return to the safety of our homes and pretend the storms buffeting the lives of people hundreds and thousands of miles away does not affect us. September 11 was a wake-up call that we cannot and will not forget. It has changed us. It has changed us in substantial ways that we can see and feel, and in ways that I don't think we have wrestled with yet. One simple thing: ``God Bless America'' has become a national song-- not the National Anthem but the national song. We gathered again today as Members of the Congress on the steps and sang it as we did on September 11. I hope we can officially continue to do that. Even though it was unofficial today, I hope our national song will become official. We are a nation founded by men and women who are willing to stake their lives upon the conviction of universal rights and freedoms; that this was larger than their own lives and small roles that they felt they would play; that their actions were just a shot across history's bow on behalf of all people who both desired to be free and honored the sense of duty that liberty engendered. On September 11 we saw a number of people step forward to recognize and fight for those universal rights and freedoms, each of us in our own way in our own actions. Today, we still have a torch to carry--for all those who died on September 11, all those who have died in the war against terrorism, and all peoples across the world who desire freedom. These may seem to be the worst of times, but we are resilient and, most importantly, we are a hopeful people and we will prevail. There is a Biblical verse that says: And not only so, but we glory in tribulation also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed. . . . We are a hopeful people. God bless America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I come before the Senate today to address the majority leader's amendment which is intended to direct immediate financial assistance to farmers around the country who are facing an historic drought. Our Kansas State motto is Ad Astra Per Aspera--a beautiful saying that means ``To the Stars Through Difficulties.'' I have always thought that it captured beautifully the spirit of our State. It is part of our character to tackle calamity and to smile at threats that have consumed lesser men. During the August recess I spent several weeks touring our State and meeting with farmers about the drought. Its impact on our crops and our rural communities is staggering. The drought in Kansas is one of the worst in a century. It is compared, by folks who know, to the dust bowl of the 1930's. Crops are withering and dying in the fields right under the watchful and woeful eyes of our farmers--farmers who are helpless to stop the conditions and helpless to prevent the circle of crisis from beginning. For what we all must remember is that blackened crops across the States are not just ``their'' problem or ``someone else's'' problem--it is our problem. The devastation brought on by persistent drought is in evidence all over Kansas. As I toured several affected counties, the widening economic impacts of this drought on our state were mostly overwhelmed by the urgency of the emergency. But by the end of my tour, I was reminded again and again that the true impact of this drought is not the plight of just farm families. The impact that many Kansans have yet to fully comprehend, is the toll this drought is having on our economy. With more than 2 years of lower than average rainfall, it has become clear that our towns are feeling the effects of evaporating capital. As fewer farmers and ranchers collect on their investments, this mean fewer dollars for local coffers and diminished investment in new jobs, our schools and economic activity. Leading economists in our State have estimated that just the crop losses alone have cost Kansans almost a billion dollars. This does not include any other ancillary or downstream economic costs that are sure to mount as this crisis deepens. It is for this reason that I will vote for this amendment, brought by the Senator from South Dakota. While I was disappointed that we were unable to work out a more bipartisan compromise, one that would have encouraged more farmers to purchase crop insurance and would have been balanced by offsets from other places in the budget, I will support this initiative and urge my colleagues to do likewise. This serious drought is a major threat to our Nation's economy, and we should act quickly to get relief to our farmers. This is an issue of key importance to my State. As I said, over the August break I traveled extensively across Kansas and witnessed the drought we are experiencing. We have parts of the State that have had less rainfall than at any time since 1895, including all the Dust Bowl years when we had the terrible experience of the wind blowing soil in dark clouds. During the day you couldn't even see the Sun because there was so much dirt in the air. That was due to both agricultural practices and lack of rainfall. Now we have better agricultural practices, but we have a lot less rainfall. It has been a disaster in a number of areas. There are whole counties that haven't had any rainfall at all. I looked at a lake near Jetmore, KS, that has a normal surface area of about 100 acres and is now down to less than 10 acres. It is because of a lack of rainfall. I saw whole fields where nothing has come up because of lack of rainfall. Fortunately, some areas of the State are getting some moisture now, but it is not enough. The crops have already died for the year. It will help, hopefully, on winter wheat planting that will now begin in some places. What compounds the problem we are having today and why we need the drought assistance is that the new farm bill doesn't work particularly well in a situation such as this. Some agree with the increased impact and use of loan payments. I happen to disagree with the farm bill. The problem is, with the loan payment, you need a crop to be able to borrow against to then use it and to default on it and get paid. That way, if you don't have a crop, you can't use the loan payments. So you are caught that way as well. There is a problem with countercyclical payments. You get in a drought situation, your crop reduces. The supply reduces, and generally where supply goes down, demand stays steady, the price goes up, and the price has gone up for some crops. Not enough; it should be up more. But your countercyclical payment doesn't help because when your price is going down, you get more payment. But when the price is going up, you get less payment. The farmers in Kansas, in particular, are caught in a double vice. They have problems with the new farm bill and its impact because of the drought and the lack of a crop, and then we are getting caught in the loan payment scenario situation we have in the countercyclical payments not being helpful to them. Overall, we need the help. It would be a much better situation if we were this fall getting the double AMTA payment that normally had been coming through this body. That would help more people. It wouldn't be dependent upon crop production. They are not going to have that. That is not going to be the situation. That is why we need this drought assistance. I think it would be better if we had an offset to it. That would be a wiser way, given the budgetary situation we are in today. We could find that in other places. Although some of my other colleagues are saying they don't want to go with an offset. Reaching $157 billion in deficits this year points to the way we should be looking for offsets to be prudent in future years and for future generations so that we don't overspend what we have. To sum up, we need this help. We need it because of the drought. We also need it because of the new farm bill. This will help our farmers at a time and a situation and a place that they need it. It should be offset. I don't know that we will have that vote to be able to move that side of the issue forward. In my State we are looking at a $1 billion loss because of the drought. That is going to impact our farmers and farm families. It will also impact our communities and our entire State. This will be an important measure to get passed. I am hopeful we can make it happen. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is approximately the amount of time I would speak.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will try to do it in around 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I want to talk about trade promotion authority, and I appreciate very much the Senator's graciousness. I met yesterday with members of the administration at the U.S. Trade Representative's office in the Department of Commerce and the President of the United States. I stated to the President that I don't think there is another thing we could do in the near term for us to be able to grow this economy that would be more important than to pass trade promotion authority. I think it is that critical a piece of legislation for us to stimulate the economy. At this point in time, this is critical for us to do. We received economic figures today that showed anemic growth in the last quarter--1.1-percent economic growth. We need to do everything possible to stimulate this economy. Trade promotion authority is the lead piece of legislation that we can do to expand the trade opportunities for this Nation. I strongly believe that. I have worked in the trade field. In 1990 and 1991, I worked in the U.S. Trade Representative's office when we were beginning the negotiations for the NAFTA treaty--certainly a treaty that is not perfect, but one that has expanded trade opportunity and has grown the economy of the United States. The United States has an international economy. From that, I mean to say we have an economy that is based substantially upon trade. My State has an economy that is based substantially upon trade. My family is dependent substantially upon trade. We are in agriculture. We produce grains, cattle, and these are things in which we have a significant trade market. Trade promotion authority will allow the President to negotiate trade agreements and trade tariff agreements that will reduce tariffs. I think people need to recognize that a tariff is a tax. So this will be a tax reduction treaty. It will also open up trading opportunities for the United States and for our trading partners. One of the lead ways we can grow it is by doing this. What trade does when you lower tariffs, lower the barriers to trade, is it allows people to compete based upon the theory of comparative advantage and who can do the best and more. Fortunately for the United States, we have comparative advantages in main economic fields. So we are going to be able to compete more aggressively with more countries because there will be fewer barriers. The United States also has one of the lowest trade barriers. We have fewer barriers to trade in the United States than most nations. With this trade promotion authority, we are going to be able to negotiate trade-opening agreements with a number of countries around the world. It is going to reduce barriers in other nations more than in the United States for their incoming products. We are going to have more ability to go there, and that will expand because of the comparative advantages of the U.S. economy in producing goods and services--though not all goods and services. There are going to be problem areas that we will need to protect in our economy because of difficulties we have, or subsidies in other countries, or because of things they do trying to block our products. We may have to respond in kind at times. The administration is aware of that. They are seeking this authority. It is an authority that we need to grant to the administration. I think with it we are going to see substantial trading blocs expand for the benefit of the United States. We have a NAFTA trading bloc of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. I see that expanding. The administration is pushing to expand to Central America and South America, so we have an entire Western Hemisphere; North and South America will be in one open trading type of bloc. We are also being pursued by other countries to expand trade opportunities with them. These hold substantial opportunities for us to grow. But without trade promotion authority, the agreements will not happen. For those reasons, I am a strong proponent of trade promotion authority. I believe it is important for us to have. I think this is the right time and place for us to do it. This country needs to let this President have trade promotion authority so we can expand agreements. So I will be voting for TPA. I urge my colleagues to do so as well. With that, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for allowing me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to speak on TPA at sometime during the debate for around 7 to 10 minutes. But the senior Senator from West Virginia was in the Chamber preceding me, so I will recognize his attendance here and his seniority.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President, very much. And I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding time to me.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska for allowing me the time and for his proposal. I think it is an outstanding proposal and one that we can do and one that we can afford and one that can provide benefits to some people who really need this help and need it now. It is something I think we could build on in the future. Remember now, we are talking about a group of people who do not have pharmaceutical benefits and need them, people with low income but above Medicaid; low income, and this is taking a big portion of their income. They have to have these pharmaceutical drug benefits. They need it. Here is a proposal where we can do it. If I can just make an observation at the outset: This process cries to go back to the Finance Committee and come out of the Finance Committee. This has not been taken through the Finance Committee. It clearly should have been. This is the largest--this will be the largest new entitlement program that I will have voted on since I have been in the Congress, either the House or the Senate, by far. I think at the end of the day, when the dollars are tallied up, you are looking at a multitrillion-dollar program because once we start a benefit, we do not stop it. This is something that we will start, and will do, and it is going to continue for a number of years. It is something we need to do. But if you are going to start, at the end of the day, a trillion- dollar program in all probability, you need to take it through the right process. It needs to come through the committee that looks at the numbers and figures out how to pay for it. To just pass a benefit and say we are going to do it, and we will figure out how to pay for it after the bills come due, is the height of irresponsibility on our part. I have two charts. I do not want to overburden everyone with lines on a chart, but I want to point out, this is where we are today with these various proposals. This black line represents the total income for Medicare. I call this chart ``The Great Medicare Accounting Scandal'' because I do not think we are accounting for the real cost of these programs. We are being critical of people--and rightfully so--in corporate America for not accounting for real costs and for sliding things around saying: Well, OK, we will capitalize this, but it should have been a direct expenditure and expense. We are criticizing them--and rightfully so--for doing that. What are we doing here? What are we doing here on our accounting? The black line is the amount of money we have coming into Medicare. The red line is the Graham-Kennedy benefit proposal. You can see, in year 1 of the benefit, in the year 2005, the expenditures are more than the income we have coming in from Medicare. In the first year out of the box, you are spending more money than you have coming in in Medicare. That does not count the accumulation that you are going to have up until 2010, when the program, theoretically, ends. But, of course, it does not. We do not terminate benefit programs. It is going to continue past 2010, into 2011, which is the first year the baby boomers start retiring. So you have this group of soon-to-be seniors--72 million baby boomers--in America. Count myself amongst them. That is kind of the big lump in the python coming through, the pig in the python, in the demographic charts in the United States, starting in 2011, where the program is supposed to end in 2010. Of course, it isn't going to happen. On this chart, where would this red line be in the year 2011, when you start getting this large group of retirees coming into the system? It is going to be much higher and be an accounting scandal for us. So how are you going to pay for this? You are either going to cut benefits, which I do not think we are going to do, you are going to raise payroll taxes, which I would think would be the wrong thing to do--we already load so much on people working in the system--or are you going to try to take this from somewhere else in the system, or raise the deficit? Probably you are going to do all of those things, other than cutting benefits. But we are not talking about that in this system right now. Look here, on this chart, at the various other proposals that we have. The purple line shows the total expenditures today, without a benefit. The Hagel-Ensign proposal is shown by the green line. Of the proposals that are coming forward--and I think we need to have a prescription drug benefit--this is the most responsible one that we can handle and that we can do. And we, clearly, should do something. The process cries out for us, right now, to do something now and not just to have something for campaigns. Here is the Democrat proposal. Here is the Republican proposal. But you cannot take those as prescription drugs. That is not income to you. You cannot eat promises. That is what we have sitting out there now. And that is where it seems the debate is heading, unless we can take it back to the Finance Committee and have a legitimate process, one where we would come out with a benefit that people can afford and need to have today. This one has been a very disappointing discussion, to me, in the sense that there is a clear compromise that sits out there that is available to do, and we could cobble together different proposals of any of these bills and figure out how to make it work, and get a bipartisan proposal that we would all support, that would include a prescription drug benefit. That sits out there to be had. That can take place. Instead, we are just saying, no, we are going to take it through this different process. We are going to bypass the Finance Committee on the most expensive entitlement program that I will have voted on as a Member of this body. We are going to bypass the normal process. We will just have a political debate on it that I do not think is edifying for the body and is not the right way to go. On the particular proposal, the Hagel-Ensign proposal, of which I am pleased to support, I also note that it is supported by AARP. Unlike my colleague from New York, who said the AARP does not support it, in today's New York Times, John Rother, policy director of AARP, said this: Another possibility is for Medicare to provide catastrophic coverage for prescription drug expenses over a certain threshold, perhaps $4,000 to $6,000 a year, with no premium. This could be combined with additional help for low-income beneficiaries and a government-authorized drug discount card. That is not my speech supporting Hagel-Ensign. That is from the policy director of AARP in the New York Times today. He is saying: Look, you have the parties. Each have a proposal. They are at a standoff on this proposal. What could we get done so we can move this forward for the benefit of seniors in America? And he describes the Hagel-Ensign proposal. That is what we should do. That is the type of proposal we need to move forward. It would be an appropriate proposal for us to move forward, so we can provide a benefit, we can get it done now, and provide it to people who need it now. They do not need promises. They need action by us. And they could have the action. This is something we need to do, and we need to do it this way today. This chart shows the various lines depicting where the assets in the proposals go. You can see the current projected Medicare trust fund assets, and also the projected Medicare trust fund assets under Graham- Kennedy. You can see where we are taking this proposal. This line is going south, fast, if you get a benefit that you cannot afford. I ask a rhetorical question of all my colleagues: Would we rather encounter the first wave of baby boomer retirees with $660 billion in the Medicare trust fund or would we rather encounter retirees having spent all but $250 billion? That is what these lines point out. We know we have the baby boomer generation hitting in 2011. They start jumping into the retirement pool in 2011. We want to face them with some money built up at that point in time and still have a prescription drug benefit like what is in Hagel-Ensign, or even the tripartisan bill. We can get there with more assets in the bank and still provide today a prescription drug benefit for those who need it today. And they need it today. I really think we should set our Republican and Democrat caps aside and say we can provide this to people who need it today. For the 27 percent of the public who do not have a prescription drug benefit of some type, who are in a low-income category, who need this, we provide a discount drug card or discount card, such as in the Hagel-Ensign proposal. We do that today and still save some money for when the baby boomers start retiring in 2011. I hope we will all look at that and say that is the right thing to do, to provide that benefit. It is the responsible thing to do. And as we look to our future, it is the right thing for workers coming up in this system so that they are not stuck with this huge lug on their shoulders when the baby boomers retire.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask the sponsor of the amendment to yield to me 10 minutes to debate the issue.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Malinda Baehr, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges during the remainder of this debate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to address the body quickly and briefly but importantly on what is happening in North Korea and to North Korean refugees coming out of that country. Prior to the July 4th recess, my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Allen, and I brought to light the plight of North Korean refugees in a hearing before the Immigration Subcommittee. The hearing capped a month of activity that involved the passage of resolution on North Korean refugees in both the House and the Seante. Both resolutions strongly urged the Chinese government not to repatriate North Korean refugees back to North Korea. The House version passed by 406 to 0 and our resolution passed by unanimous consent on June 19, 2002. At our hearing, we heard some very moving testimony from Ms. Lee Soon-Ok, a North Korean defector who suffered more than five years in a prison camp. We also heard from Ms. Helie Lee, a Korean American writer whose memoir, In the Absence of the Sun, movingly highlighted a largely hidden and painful secret shared by hundreds of thousands of Korean Americans and millions of Koreans--more than 50 years of separation among family members and loved ones since the outbreak of the Korean War. Few other country and its people has suffered as much. In addition, Mr. President, I urged Secretary Powell in both a formal consultation and by correspondence on the need of our Department of State to allow the processing of North Korean refugees together with the Chinese government and the Beijing office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. The plight of North Korean refugees, of course, is merely a symptom of a far more pressing issue--how to deal with one of the most repressive and totalitarian states in the world, the isolated country of North Korea ruled by one man, Kim Jong-il. Although news regarding the efforts of many in the NGO community and countless others working in North East China have been slowly filtering into the West, the true nature of the North Korean regime is largely hidden and inaccessible. It was not until the showing of a dramatic video of five members of the Han-mee family being forcibly removed from the Japanese consulate in Beijing that the world began to pay attention. Since then, several other asylum bids have drawn the attention of mainstream media, including the horrifying story of baby-killings in North Korean prison camps reported in the New York Times and based on the testimony of Ms. Soon Ok Lee, who, as I indicated before, testified at our hearing. In June 2002, ABC Nightime broadcast a three-part documentary of the North Korean refugee in China by Ms. Kim Jung-eun whose schedule did not permit her to testify before our committee. I was told by ABC News staff that thousands of Americans have responded to the broadcast with e-mails in disbelief and in rage against the North Korean regime. I understand that the three programs drew high response from viewers. It is estimated that between 2 to 3 million people died of starvation and persecution in North Korea from 1995 through 1998 and that up to up to 300,000 North Korean refugees in China are living a precarious and dangerous life, hiding by day, begging by night, in an effort to avoid being captured and repatriated back to North Korea by Chinese and North Korean agents brazenly operating inside China Of the 300,000 refugees, only 518 refugees successfully defected to South Korea this year through June 2002, many of them by taking refuge at foreign missions in Beijing and in Shenyang, China. These actions by the Chinese are simply unacceptable, not only to basic principles and tenets of international human rights, but also by the fact that China is a signatory of the International Refugees Convention. Hundreds of South Korean, Japanese and western NGO's are working inside China to help the refugees, risking their lives and capture by the Chinese police. A German doctor who also testified before our committee worked in North Korea for a year and a half but was evicted by the North Korean regime for disclosing the tragedies of the NK people. People like him and others on the ground in China and Korea have been some of the most vocal and active in their effort to make the whole world aware of the conditions in North Korea and China. Many NGO's have taken care of refugee families full-time with their own money. I've met with many of these people, all of whom are now effectively shut down from operating in China. And what they tell me over and over is that they simply cannot not ignore what they saw. All of them said to me that they could not look away and ignore the refugees, many of whom were too scared to even beg for help. These NGO's from South Korea, Japan, the U.S., France, and Germany, first reported the tragedy of the North Koreans to the outside world. These NGOs who are in the best position to know report that food aid from South Korea, the U.S., and Japan, simply are not reaching the dying people. As I mentioned in a previous statement, I believe it is absolutely necessary to condition stringent monitoring of the delivery of food aid by NGOs in an effort to determine that they are being distributed appropriately. Much of this aid is apparently being diverted to feed the million-plus North Korean army and to reward the elites and the inner circle around Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang. For this reason, many well-respected NGOs, including Doctors Without Borders have withdrawn from North Korea. More troubling is that these NGO's have confirmed reports of more than a dozen prison camps in North Korea, where the prisoners are starved, forced to work at hard labor, and tortured to death. Aside from the troubling refugee issue, we cannot forget that North Korea is a threat to regional and global security. North Korea continues its procurement of materials and components for its ballistic missile programs from foreign sources, especially through North Korean firms based in China. In addition, North Korea has become a ``secondary supplier'' of missile technology and expertise to several countries in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. The CIA's 2001 report assesses that North Korea is capable of producing and delivering via missile warheads or other munitions a variety of chemical agents and possibly some biological. Furthermore, North Korea refuses to carry out its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT and the 1994 Agreed Framework. Initial IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, inspections and intelligence reports in the early 1990s triggered concerns regarding a clandestine nuclear weapons program. U.S. and foreign intelligence have concluded that the DPRK government of North Korea probably has sufficient plutonium for 1 to 5 nuclear weapons. Despite its obligations under the NPT and the Agreed Framework, North Korea continues to refuse inspections. So while it would be reason enough to continue our pressure on North Korea and China for the humanitarian violations alone, there are also the pressing security threats that the current North Korean government poses to U.S. interests which must be dealt with. While refugee and nuclear weapons issues will necessitate very different responses--the thing they share in common is the alarms they raise about ignoring the North Korean problem in all its complexity. While I am mindful of the diplomatic sensitivities regarding the need to reach out to the North Korean regime, there comes a time when we have to confront the truth and tell the truth. Moreover, reconciliation efforts have yet to yield any results. There was much hope after the historic meeting between President Kim Dae Jung and Jong-il in June 2000, that such a gesture would bring about some meaningful change. As the naval skirmish last month and the continuing problems with the North Korean refugees show, the North Korean issue has simply worsened. It's time for the North Korean regime to immediately allow international monitoring of food aid into the country and to work with the international NGO community to alleviate the suffering of its people. That may at least stem the tide of refugees crossing over into China and being prey to human traffickers and other difficulties faced by refugees. But more fundamentally, the North regime itself must begin to change itself and join the rest of the world in giving hope and freedom to its people. The U.S. can not afford to give into the slow-walking of reforms in North Korea. For our own security, for the stability of the region and for the sake of basic human rights--North Korea must remain a top policy focus for U.S. foreign policy. We must keep clear and constant pressure on NK and neighboring countries to bring new leadership into being. This is a daunting task, but one that we can not afford to shirk. We have significant refugee flight taking place out of North Korea. We have had hearings in the Senate Immigration Committee on this particular topic. We have a humanitarian crisis, probably the largest in the world, that is taking place. We estimate that there are between 2 to 3 million people who have died of starvation and persecution in North Korea from 1995 to 1998, in a 3-year time period--2 to 3 million people. Nobody knows for sure because outside observers are not allowed. This Nation is the most repressive, closed regime in the world today. The world community is feeding those who are left in North Korea. The United States and a number of other donating countries are feeding about half of the population in North Korea. Much of the food aid we are giving North Korea is not getting out to where it is needed. It is still held by the leadership in that country. We estimate that some 300,000 North Korean refugees are living in China today in a precarious and dangerous lifestyle. They are hiding by day and begging by night, trying to keep from being caught and sent back into North Korea, which is what China does. If they catch people from North Korea, they treat them as economic migrants and ship them back into starvation, refugee camps, persecution, and probably death. Of the 300,000 refugees in China, only 518 refugees have successfully defected, gotten out of China and into South Korea or into another third country--that is this year, through June of 2002. Many of them have done it by taking refugee status at foreign missions in Beijing and Shenyang, China. They have rushed embassies in those communities, gotten inside, asked for political asylum, it has been granted, and they passed to South Korea, generally through a third country--many times through the Philippines. I say only 518 this year. If you look at the history since the Korean conflict has ended--now 50 years ago-- there have been only several thousand who have defected from North Korea into South Korea. Generally, each year, it has been a trickle-- maybe in the teens. The North Korean regime has been able to keep people in a dogmatic system, saying this regime is the best in the world and saying they are being fed by the President and the leadership. Now that trickle is beginning to really move. They believe it may be up to a thousand; there may be a thousand or more defecting this year alone, which is a massive number considering the history. Mr. President, the issue I want to bring to light is the role of China and the importance of China in allowing these people to live. If China will allow these people to pass through, or if China will allow the U.N. Commission, or the High Commission on Refugees to establish a processing center to determine if these are people who need to be allowed to pass into third countries, thousands if not millions of people will not have to live in North Korea. If China does not, you are going to see thousands, possibly millions more, die of starvation, persecution, and other causes. China has a choice. They will choose what the status is going to be, whether these people will live or die. They need to be confronted directly and asked to let these people live, to let them pass through. Let them pass through to Mongolia, to South Korea, to other places; but don't send them back. If they don't want to have them stay in China, allow some place for them to go through, such as a refugee center. But, China, make the choice. It is your responsibility and their blood that will be on your call as to what you determine you are going to do in this particular situation. North Korea is a country that is difficult for us or anybody else in the world to influence. China is the only country in the world that has some influence on North Korea. So it is going to be their choice as to whether these people will live or die. North Korea needs to change its regime. I don't need to remind Members of the Senate of the other problems we have with North Korea. They are a supplier of weapons. North Korea has become a secondary supplier of missile technology and expertise to several countries in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa. The CIA's 2001 report assesses that North Korea is capable of producing and delivering via missile warheads, or other munitions, a variety of chemical agents and possibly some biological agents as well. Mr. President, I draw this to the attention of my colleagues because we need to allow refugees to pass and come into the United States as well. We will be bringing this issue up again in front of this body. I hope we will put pressure on China, which doesn't have a good human rights record, so that they can act to save people's lives--if they will only allow these people to pass through. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to address the body on an issue of some significant importance to the country. First, good business was done by the Senate today dealing with the accounting situation, the financial trust crisis that we have going on in our country with some of the heads of corporations. I think we have taken a positive step on dealing with that problem.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, if I could inquire, I believe in the former unanimous consent I was to be recognized after Senator Domenici. If that is not impacted by the unanimous consent request, I will have no objection.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I remove my objection.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to spend a few minutes talking about a growing fiscal and budgetary problem we have in the Senate, something I am not joyous about bringing up, but we have a problem. We are quickly sliding into it, if not falling into it, and we need to get it addressed. We need to address it before we get completely caught up in the fiscal and budgetary track. Time is growing short. This body has yet to pass a budget resolution. We have not passed a single 1 of the 13 annual appropriations bills yet. Here we are in the middle of July; no budget resolution, not 1 of the 13 annual appropriations bills. We are quietly moving into position for a fiscal train wreck. Many Members of the body expressed grave concern and doubt in 1998 when we did an omnibus appropriations bill. The course currently being charted by the Senate leadership will make that train wreck look like a fender bender. We need to first consider the budget resolution created by the Budget Act of 1974. The budget resolution, which the Senate is legally required to pass by April 15--nearly 3 months ago--established caps on total annual discretionary spending. To waive the limits requires a 60- vote point of order. Without the mechanism in place, amendments to increase spending can be passed in the appropriations bills, regardless of their impact on Social Security, by a simple majority. So we are subjecting the Social Security surplus to simple majority movement by this body. It is astounding, but despite the legal requirements for passage of the budget resolution by April 15, the leadership of the Senate has failed to even bring up the measure for consideration. And in the 27 years since the Budget Act of 1974, the Senate has had a budget. To further put our current situation in perspective, consider the fact that just a year ago this body was composed of the exact 100 people here today, and we passed a budget resolution offered by Senator Domenici with the support of 65 Members. Regardless of how the votes stack up, at the least, the Senate should pass a budget resolution so we have the fiscal caps in place that would take 60 votes--not just a majority, but 60 votes--to be able to raid the Social Security surplus. That is just prudence on our part that we ought to put the budget mechanisms in place. I think we are sliding quickly into a situation where we are going to be spending ourselves into a bigger hole and not have any of these restraints or the mechanisms in place to help hold us back. On the appropriations bills I mentioned at first, when the Senate should have passed 4 or 5 of these at least by this point in time, of the 13, we have passed none. These bills can take weeks to debate and pass. Then there are conference committees to work out the differences between the House and the Senate bills. When considering these factors, coupled with the finite time remaining on the legislative calendar, it seems evident that a super- omnibus bill, larger than the 1998 omnibus, may very well be necessary to break the inevitable logjam. Most of us in this Chamber have been privileged enough to serve during the recent period of historic, large federal surpluses. While large surpluses can be an indicator of a robust economy, they are not necessarily an indicator of good fiscal management. Large surpluses, as I think we have seen, can lead to complacency with, and in some instances even misuse of, taxpayer dollars. While we should always be dedicated to ensuring the maximum benefit of every tax dollar that comes to Washington, we are now faced with the real possibility of a $100 billion deficit in fiscal year 2002--a $100 billion deficit. Between increased funding for both the War on Terrorism and other domestic programs, our federal surpluses have vanished, and we are reentering the realm of deficit spending. We need to exercise fiscal restraint in our spending, and yet we appear to be headed for another omnibus appropriations bill at the end of this congressional session. Surely, Members on both sides of the aisle can understand that if this is the case, it means that there will be even more pork-laden measures tucked inside of these bills. Whether you are conservative or liberal, surely, it is an unacceptable strain on hard working Americans and our economy to have that type of pork barrel spending. The bottom line is that an omnibus appropriations bill prevents the proper individual consideration of spending measures, and it is bad for America. Now more than ever, we should take steps to assure taxpayers that their hard-earned tax dollars are being well spent. Two months ago, I introduced the bipartisan Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act--or CARFA Act for short. As in any bureaucracy, inefficient or low priority use of taxpayer's dollars are often serious threats to the credibility of an agency or program. We must be certain that the money we spend is not just allocated that way because we have historically spent it this way. Priorities change and our spending must change with it. The CARFA Act would create a commission that is modeled on the successful Base Realignment and Closure BRAC Commission. Whereas the BRAC Commission examined military bases and the Department of Defense, CARFA would review Federal domestic agencies, and programs within agencies using a narrow set of criteria, which should produce significant results. The three areas of review are duplicative programs, wasteful or inefficient spending, outdated, irrelevant or failed programs. If this legislation is enacted, the Commission, upon completion of its two-year review, would submit to Congress both its recommendations for the realignment and elimination of domestic agencies and programs, and proposed legislation to implement these recommendations. The Congress would then consider the Commission's proposed legislation in an expedited manner, with input from the committees under who's jurisdiction the affected agencies or programs fall. Following the committee's comment period, the proposed legislation would be brought to the floor of each Chamber for debate and a vote. Like BRAC, the Commission's proposed legislation would be voted up-or-down without amendment. The Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act is about maximizing the benefit of Federal funds. Like BRAC, which directed that all funds saved be placed back into the DOD budget, any funds saved by implementation of CARFA's recommendations would be directed to support other more efficient domestic programs and agencies. In other words, any money saved would be put right back into other, higher priority domestic programs. That would be the best way we could spend the money. The CARFA Act is about fiscal responsibility, and the Federal Government is accountable to the hard-working Americans who foot the bill. Personally, I think it would be wonderful if we were able to further increase the research budget for the National Institutes of Health, or IDEA--Individuals w/Disabilities Education Act--because funds saved through the work of the CARFA commission would be more money available there. Priority spending would be done. This Commission has the potential to help us truly root out inefficiency, in the Federal Government in such a way that we can more fully realize the benefit of all Federal funds. The CARFA Act is a good measure, and its enactment would send a positive signal to the American people that the Senate is attempting to exercise sound fiscal policy. I urge my colleagues to support it. I urge my colleagues to look at the fiscal situation we are setting up right now with the spending and the lack of a budget bill, the lack of passing any appropriations bill, the $100 billion fiscal deficit we are looking at for this fiscal year. We cannot afford this train wreck, and it is not wise at all for us to allow ourselves to slip into it. We really need to show the leadership to pass a budget resolution, to pass appropriations bills, to put caps in place, and to pass this CARFA bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise today to discuss this recent Federal court of appeals ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance and to express with my colleagues the universal outrage of the court's ruling today, and the delight with how we have joined together so quickly, and I express this on behalf of all Americans that we believe ``In God We Trust.'' We believe that this is a nation under God. We believe in what is placed on the mantel above the Senate Chamber, ``In God We Trust.'' Our very Constitution itself signs off using the word, ``Lord.'' Can we declare the Constitution unconstitutional? I guess it would be a legitimate question to ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Is the Constitution unconstitutional? Our Declaration of Independence refers to God multiple times including saying that our certain unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator. George Washington's Farewell Address, which is read in the House and Senate each year, refers to God and faith and religion. Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address uses the word ``God,'' proclaiming that this Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom. Booker T. Washington repeatedly referred to God when speaking. Even Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Sojourner Truth referred to God in their writings and speeches. Will it now be unconstitutional to teach American history to our children, to require them to read some of the words of the great men and women of our Nation because they mention God? Will those have to be stricken from all of the speeches of Lincoln and Washington and Martin Luther King? Will it have to be taken out of the Declaration of Independence? According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this could indeed be so. After all, if saying the Pledge of Allegiance violates the establishment clause of our Constitution, how can these others not do so as well? What about our money--I think we are in a real problem here--which has the motto ``In God We Trust'' on it, or the fact that every day we open Congress with a prayer, maintain full-time Chaplains on each side of the Capitol Building, and in the very Chamber in which we stand today it twice says ``God''. Do we have to get the putty out and fill them in? Consider the very founding of our Nation. At that time, the brave men and women trusted in God and believed we owed our success to him. In fact, the first act of the first Continental Congress was a public prayer. As Sam Adams noted then in support of the idea, he was no bigot and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue who at the same time was a friend of his country. And so on September 7, 1774, the first official prayer before the Continental Congress took place when an Episcopal clergyman read aloud Psalm 35 from the Book of Common Prayer--a now unconstitutional act that he performed in 1774, the first Continental Congress. In 1779, the Congress urged the Nation ``humbly to approach the throne of almighty God,'' to ask ``that he would establish the independence of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue.'' Just 2 years later, Congress passed ``The Congressional Decree of 1781'': Whereas, it hath pleased Almighty God, the father of mercies, remarkably to assist and support the United States of America in their important struggle for liberty, against the long continued efforts of a powerful nation: it is the duty of all ranks to observe and thankfully acknowledge the interpositions of his Providence in their behalf. Through the whole of the context, from its first rise to this time, the influence of Divine Providence may be clearly perceived in many signal instances, of which we mention but a few. An unconstitutional act? The founders also inscribed on the seal of our nation the Latin phrase, ``Annuit Ceoptis''--translated as ``God favors our undertakings.'' This belief infused those courageous risk-takers then when they faced an unimaginable and seemingly insurmountable undertaking--and it inspires many of us today, especially as we face an unimaginable and seemingly insurmountable undertaking in challenging terrorists around the world. Indeed, according to the 9th Circuit, it would be illegal to teach children about President Bush's address to Congress following the terrorist attacks. That's not just sad, it is an injustice to our children, our nation and our government. It cries out for logic and commonsense--but clearly this Court has neither. Although I am not surprised--it turns out that in recent years, more than 80 percent of the rulings by the 9th Circuit have been overturned. Just a few years ago the 9th managed to compile an 1-28 record at the Supreme Court--that is, the Supreme Court reviewed 29 cases from the 9th Circuit Court and reversed a stunning 28 of them. Although I must admit that I can't just criticize the 9th Circuit, as, interestingly enough, we can make an accurate and strong argument that the Establishment Clause is clearly misinterpreted by the entire legal system today. The concept of a ``wall of separation'' is actually from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 that was completely unnoticed until a mistaken transcription of the original letter was cited by the Supreme Court in 1879 in Reynolds v. United States. The focus in 1879 was not on ``separation'' but on the term ``legislative powers''--yet the transcriber had written that wrong; The original, in Jefferson's neat handwriting, said ``legitimate power.'' This metaphor again remained unused and virtually unknown until Justice Black drew it from obscurity in 1947--again using the erroneous translation. So it is clear that our nation, perhaps even from the beginning, needs commonsense, reasonable judges--judges who will defend our principles, ideals and way of life. Judges who understand the risks and sacrifices made both by those who founded our nation and fought for its principles--and by those who continue to do so today. It is why today I thank Frank Bellamy, who wrote this beautiful poem that our Pledge was based upon in 1892 when he lived in my home state of Kansas in the small town of Cherryvale. And why I thank those sincere leaders who in 1954 sought to reaffirm, as the Declaration of Independence first declared, our ``firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.'' On a side note, Madam President, we have people every day who seek to emulate the model after the United States, thankfully. It is a great country. It is a country that stood for so much freedom for people around the world, people such as Mi-Hwa Rhyu and Sol-Hee Rhyu, a mother and daughter captured by police in Asia today, North Korean refugees seeking to flee North Korea and get to someplace like the United States, to be free and be able to live in a nation that honors God. They are now being detained and probably sent back to a country that does not honor God--North Korea--that does not believe, to suffer an ill fate there. Yet people yearn to be free, to come into a place that says, ``In God we trust.'' And they are willing to risk their lives to come into a place such as this. Countries seek to emulate our great land. Why, why, why will we seek to remove the foundation of all those basic beliefs that we have? I tell our schoolchildren not only is it wrong but unconstitutional to say ``under God'' or ``in God.'' I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the soon to be laid down amendment by Senator Warner on missile defense. This is a major topic for the body to consider. It is a major topic for the country. I want to address it from a number of different perspectives but primarily from the perspective of the threat we are facing in the international community today. We are seeing now what is taking place in Iran. I wish to draw special notice to what is occurring there. We are seeing terrorism being supported greatly from that country. We are seeing them supporting terrorist threats and terrorist efforts and funding and even providing arms to terrorists in a number of countries throughout the region. They are supporting it in Lebanon. They are supporting it in central Asia. They are developing the missile capacity in Iran. Iranian missile capacity has developed substantially now. They are expanding their sphere of influence to the extent of how far the delivery of their weaponry is that they can go with the missiles they have. Iran, as the President identified, is one of the countries comprising the axis of evil. They seek to do away with the Israeli State, they seek to expand substantially their threat in the region, and they are no friend of the United States. They also have no reservation whatsoever about using the weapons of mass destruction that they have, even targeted toward the United States. Here is a country that clearly means us harm. Here is a country that is developing and expanding its missile capacity. Here is a country that has some capacity for weapons of mass destruction already and is trying to obtain nuclear capacity, nuclear weapon capacity, which some countries believe they will have in the next several years. That is Iran. We see what is taking place in North Korea. North Korea has developed and has missile capacity. They have a missile with a substantial range of influence and threat. They share those with a number of other rogue regimes around the world. North Korea has weapons of mass destruction. We don't know about their nuclear capacity and development. They are probably trying to pursue it. That is a country that also means us harm. This is a nation that is a failed state. Our estimate is that over the last 5 to 7 years at least 1 million North Koreans have died of starvation. At the same time they are developing this massive missile and weapons capacity, there are people fleeing North Korea today. In the last week, we saw that there were 27 people, I believe, from North Korea seeking refuge in the embassies in China to get out of the repressive regime in North Korea. The state has failed. Buildings are collapsing in that state. When people are caught in that building, they get crushed. North Koreans are fleeing from that failed state. They are trying to get out. This country is maintaining a missile capacity that threatens a number of U.S. allies and could potentially in the near future threaten the United States. With both of these known examples in Iran and North Korea, why on Earth would not the United States develop a missile defense system when we know these threats are there? These are state sponsors of terror. By our own account, they are one of the seven countries that are state sponsors of terror. They are doing this financially, with weaponry, and by some accounts with their own officers. They are selling these missiles around the world, as we know is the case with North Korea. Why wouldn't the United States as rapidly as possible develop our missile defense capacity when we know this is taking place? The first order for our defense is to provide for the common defense. That is the reason we created the Federal Government. When we know these things are being developed by two countries that mean to do us harm, why would we not as rapidly as possible use our efforts to develop a missile defense system? Clearly, we should be doing this. This should be of the highest order for us. If one of these could reach U.S. shores--and they may be able to do so in the near future with the development of what is taking place in these two countries, and where they are offering to sell their missile capacity-- it could cause enormous harm and death in America. They currently threaten a number of our allies. They would cause enormous death in those nations. We should be developing a missile defense system as fast as possible. Unfortunately, the Senate Defense authorization bill is hindering the effort with what is currently in the bill. That is why I am supporting Senator Warner's effort to amend this bill so we can move forward with a missile defense system on a very rapid basis. The bill which passed out of the Senate Armed Services Committee includes a $814.3 million reduction to the budget requested for ballistic missile defense. The Warner amendment would provide the authority to transfer up to $814 million within the request to be used for ballistic missile defense and DOD activities to combat terrorism, as the President determined. The administration supports this budget request and opposes the reductions put forward in the committee bill for the Missile Defense Program. This is a reasonable position for the administration to take given the needs that we have for missile defense. It is one we should support, and it is one for which we should be having a robust missile defense program moving forward. For my own State's perspective, this Warner amendment would restore $30 million to save a spot on the production lines for the second airborne laser aircraft. The acquisition of the second ABL aircraft is essential to the continuation of the program. The first aircraft, which I have seen, is a very impressive aircraft that I think is going to be used in not only missile defense but in other capacities as well. The Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the bill is not amended to include additional missile defense funding. Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that he will recommend to the President that he veto the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. That is from the Secretary of Defense--a recommendation to veto. The Missile Defense Program that was developed is a balanced effort to explore a range of technologies that will allow the United States to defend against the growing missile threat facing this country and our forces, friends, and allies. I just articulate two countries that we know of that are problematic. What if things occur in other countries? For instance, we are developing and should grow in our alliance and work with Pakistan. This is a very difficult country. What if President Musharraf is not successful and more radical elements take over in Pakistan? That is a country with both nuclear and missile capacity. This is not one of those far-flung possibilities. This is a very real possibility that could take place. We hope we are working against it. I support President Musharraf. This country is very supportive of him. He has done a lot of excellent work. Recently, he helped in reducing tensions between India and Pakistan. It is a very real possibility for which we should be preparing. If that eventuality happened, and the United States said, OK, now we need to build a missile defense system to offset what is taking place in someplace such as Pakistan, it is too late. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, the $814 million shortfall in funding would impose a number of burdensome statutory restrictions that would undermine our ability to manage the Missile Defense Program effectively. The amendment provides the President flexibility to determine which use of the funds is within the national interest. The funds could be corrected to meet any new terrorism threat that may evolve. The ballistic missile defense reductions in the bill are considerable and will impair the ability of the Department of Defense to move forward in its effort to develop and deploy effective missile defenses. The Warner amendment is consistent with the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which passed the Senate, I remind the body, by a vote of 97 to 3--virtually unanimous--that set out a goal of deploying an effective missile defense for the territory of the United States as soon as technologically possible. That was the standard we put forward. With the Warner amendment, we could meet that. Without it, we will not. We will not have the funding necessary to meet what we can do technologically. There will be restrictions of what we can do. In addition, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 set a goal of further negotiated reductions in nuclear weapons programs from Russia. The amendment provides the opportunity to make more rapid progress in developing and deploying effective missile defenses, a goal endorsed by 97 of our colleagues. The Warner amendment provides an offset based on anticipated inflation savings and will have no impact on other programs. Even though the Warner amendment would boost the bottom line of the bill, it is protected from a budget point of order because it would authorize discretionary spending--not mandatory spending. The amendment will keep the defense budget within the amount requested by DOD. We have a number of possibilities for harm that could come to the United States--possibilities of nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological weapons capability. And we have possibilities that would be enormous disasters. We know the al-Qaida network is pursuing these means of destruction on the United States. U.S. intelligence uncovered rudimentary diagrams of nuclear weapons in an al-Qaida safehouse in Kabul. This year, the CIA reported that several of the 30 foreign terrorist groups and other nonstate actors around the world ``have expressed interest'' in obtaining biological, chemical, and nuclear arms. Such weapons of mass destruction can be delivered on ballistic missiles aimed at U.S. forces and our friends. We cannot let this happen. Today, our security environment is profoundly different than it was before September 11. Perhaps I should say it is not profoundly different, but we realize how incredibly vulnerable the United States is, and we should have realized that prior to September 11. The challenges facing the United States have changed from threat of a global war with the Soviet Union to the threat posed by emerging adversaries in regions around the world, including terrorism. In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we need to look at the threat posed to us as a nation and how we should best utilize resources, which certainly includes an effective Missile Defense Program. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment soon to be laid down by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. About 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. On the pending amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Kennedy amendment to the DOD authorization bill. When I first came into the Senate, I chaired a subcommittee within the Governmental Affairs Committee that dealt with this issue. We held a number of hearings on the topic of public-private competition. I wish to talk briefly about this legislation and the background of it and why I don't think it is a good idea to move forward on it at this time. In 1998, Congress passed the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, the FAIR Act. I was a strong supporter of this legislation, and it passed the Senate unanimously in 1998. This piece of legislation was a compromise between the private sector and unions that, for the first time, codified a process to help assure proper implementation of the 47-year-old Federal policy that states: The government should not be involved in commercial activities. That was a simple Government policy for 47 years, and the FACT Act codified and fleshed out that simple statement, a statement with which everybody agreed. The goal of the FAIR Act was to eliminate the Government's direct competition with the private sector--again, unanimously passed by this body--while at the same time providing a better utilization of taxpayers' dollars. The FAIR Act created a more cost-effective and streamlined Federal Government and people agreed with that. Much of the FAIR Act was pushed forward by the Clinton administration. The Kennedy amendment applies only to the Department of Defense. It directly impacts the FAIR Act. This amendment would create a two-tier contracting system setting up different standards for DOD versus civilian agencies. That is the first problem. Next, this amendment would revise the steps that were made with enactment of the FAIR Act. That is the next problem with the amendment. This is a policy that was unanimously agreed to by this body. The Kennedy amendment, for the first time, would mandate the Federal Government compete with the private sector for work not currently being performed by Federal employees. The Kennedy amendment would increase the size and the cost of the Federal Government. The amendment would adversely impact DOD's mission, efficiencies, and effectiveness because all service contracts would be significantly delayed. If enacted, DOD would lose the flexibility it needs to purchase innovative solutions to improve our military's performance and national security. This amendment would increase the cost to the Department of Defense by over $200 million, not an insignificant sum at a time when we are looking at deficit spending and trying to figure out ways to curtail deficit spending and get back into surpluses. Furthermore, this amendment would complicate DOD's procurement process, cost the taxpayers more money, and increase dramatically the number of DOD employees. This is not necessarily the direction in which most people desire to go. The amendment would hurt small businesses by making it harder for them to compete in the business process. It goes against longstanding goals of both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Kennedy amendment ignores the progress made under the Clinton administration's policy in its reinventing Government initiative of streamlining the Government procurement process. The Kennedy amendment also is counter to the efforts by the Bush administration aimed at performance-based contracting and increasing Government efficiencies. The Bush administration opposes this amendment. Secretary Rumsfeld said: The Kennedy amendment would increase Department cost by requiring public-private competitions for new functions and for previously contracted work already subjected to market competition. It would also adversely impact mission effectiveness by delaying contract awards for needed services. The proposed amendment would increase Department costs and dull our warfighting edge. This matter is not a union versus nonunion or labor-management issue. Several groups have come out already against the Kennedy amendment, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Laborers' International Union of North America, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers. A similar amendment offered by Representatives Allen and Andrews was defeated by the House when it was considered during its version of the Defense authorization bill for 2003. As we face the challenges of homeland security and national defense, keeping our borders, economy, and society safe and free, we need to create more efficient and effective partnerships between the public and private sectors. Now is not the time to restrict the Department of Defense's competitive sourcing policies with this amendment. I think this is an ill-advised procedure for us to enter into at this time. It goes against the longstanding bipartisan effort to not have the Federal Government competing with the private sector. There is no reason for us to go into this at this time. It really will be harmful to our overall operation. For those reasons, I oppose the Kennedy amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will be brief and allow the Senator from Washington to speak. Some comments have been made. I certainly appreciate the excellent comments my colleague from Arkansas made. I think he very succinctly put forward that this is not a major problem. It could create problems in host countries. We do not need to turn our military facilities into abortion clinics and use Federal funds to pay for something a lot of taxpayers believe is deeply wrong, the killing of life. There is one argument that has been raised that I want to address directly, and that is that we are denying women their constitutional right if they can't use a military facility to have abortion on demand. Remember, currently, women are allowed to have an abortion in cases involving the life of the mother, rape, or incest. That is allowed at military facilities today. So we are strictly talking about the category of abortion on demand at military facilities. It has been raised that we are denying women a constitutional right. That is not the case. What we are talking about here is the use of taxpayer-funded military facilities. If that is denying women their constitutional right to an abortion, I would presume you would have to say we are denying that here because we do not provide abortions in federally funded facilities in the United States. We do not do that. That would be contrary to the Hyde amendment. This is not denying women a constitutional right. They can have an abortion in other places. The Senator from Arkansas was commenting about how that could occur. This is strictly about the use of Government-paid facilities which we do not allow anywhere else in the world because of the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment says you cannot use federally funded facilities, Federal dollars to pay for abortions. It is well-established U.S. law, a well-established U.S. position. We would now cut an exception to that if we allowed abortions in military facilities. The Clinton administration had done that for a period of time, but that has not been the law in this country for some period, since 1996. So we are not denying women a constitutional right. This is about the use of federally funded facilities, which we do not allow anywhere, for the conducting of an abortion. I think that is a point we should make very clear in this debate. With that, I reserve the remainder of our time.