Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded 6 minutes from the ranking member's time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will even accept 4 minutes 45 seconds at this point.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the comments made today and strongly urge my colleagues to support the effort put forth by Senator Lugar to get this assistance now to the family farmers in my State and across this country. The Senator from North Dakota just spoke about the need to get this help to the family farmers and the people who start the tractors and move the bales. That is my family. That is what they do. That is what my dad and brother do. My other brother is a veterinarian. We are intricately involved in agriculture and have been for generations. This help is needed, but I can tell you one thing as well: a rain today is much more useful than a rain in November. We need it during the growing season. We can use the money today and not in the next fiscal year. What we are really flirting with is the very real possibility that the Senate could say: OK, $5.5 billion is not sufficient. We want more. I would like to have more for my farmers, but at the end of the day, we put in a higher number than the House and we cannot get to conference in time and the President, on top of that, has said he will veto the bill if it is over $5.5 billion. At the end of the day, instead of getting $5.5 billion or $7.4 billion, we get zero out of it, and that would be very harmful to the farmers across this country--the wheat farmers and the grain crop farmers across Kansas. It would be very harmful to my family who is looking at a situation where prices have been low and production high and where we have not opened up foreign markets. I was in Wilson, KS, at the Czech festival talking with farmers there. Overall, they appreciate the freedom and flexibility in this farm program but would like us to open up some of these markets. They say we have not done that in sufficient quantity yet. They say as well they need support from the farm program and they need it now. They do not need it taking place 6 months from now. If you are looking at saying we have $5.5 billion or zero, they will say the $5.5 billion, that is what we need to do. It looks to me as if we are staring at a very dangerous gamble saying: OK, we think we can bounce this number up another nearly $2 billion, and we are looking at less than a week to do this. In that period of time, it has to clear the Senate, get to the House, and the President has to say: Yes, you are right, I have changed my mind; it is not $5.5 billion; I will jump that number up some. I do not think that is a safe gamble at all, and it is not a gamble we should make the farmers of the United States and the farmers across Kansas take when we are looking at this particular type of difficult financial situation in which the farmers find themselves. It is responsible for us to support Senator Lugar and what he is putting forward to get the $5.5 billion that has been promised. It is a responsible thing for us to do, even though we would like to put more into the farm program. This we can do; this we should do. I believe this is something we must do, and we must do it now. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lugar amendment. This is the type of assistance we can and should get out the door. Let's do this now and not gamble on something that might be higher in the future. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Rural and Urban Health Care Act of 2001. I want to thank my cosponsors Senator Graham and Senator Helms for their support and leadership on this vital issue. Nothing can traumatize a family more than a medical emergency, particularly one that may have been prevented by timely access to a needed medical professional. In Kansas, I know many communities that would be without a doctor if it was not for an immigrant physician. I know that many communities both in Kansas and around the country would benefit from a greater number of not only doctors, but nurses, nurse aides, radiologists, medical technicians, and other health-care professionals. In the area of nurses, it's become apparent that the problem has developed into one of national significance. According to the American Organization of Nurse Executives, ``A nursing shortage is emerging nationwide that is fueled by age-related career retirements, small to moderate increases in job creation, and reduced nursing school enrollments. Job replacement-related demands due to registered nurse age-related retirements are expected to increase rapidly over the next 5 to 15 years.'' According to data from the Department of Health and Numan Services, today 18.3 percent of registered nurses are under the age of 35, compared to over 40 percent in 1980. Today, only nine percent of registered nurses are under the age of 30, compared to 25 percent in 1980. Projections by economists Peter Buerhaus, Douglas Staiger, and David Auerbach show that by the year 2020, the number of registered nurses working in America will be ``20 percent below the projected need.'' I believe this legislation contains many crucial elements that would benefit many health care providers and the patients they serve. First, the legislation amends the H-1C category established in the ``Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas of 1999. The problem with that category is that it allows only a handful of health care facilities throughout the country to hire nurses on temporary visas. That makes little sense. We should open the category up to facilities in all States, rather than select a handful of hospitals that alone would be allowed to hire foreign nurses on temporary visas. In addition, the bill streamlines some of the current processes to remove redundancy and situations that impede the arrival of nurses to work and help patients in the United States. Second, the legislation retains stringent labor protections established previously for the H-1C category on wages, layoffs and strikes. Third, the bill authorizes appropriations for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with states to develop programs aimed at increasing the domestic supply of nurses in the United States. Finally, the legislation expands an already successful program by increasing from 20 to 40 waivers for foreign physicians that may be exercised by a particular State, as well allowing a carryover of any unused waivers to the next fiscal year. It also eliminates the sunset date of the program. This bill does not attempt to solve all problems related to this issue. Other, more expensive solutions, primarily very long-term, may emerge from the HELP or Finance committees. However, it is not possible in one bill to address all outstanding financial or labor issues present in today's hospitals and nursing homes. Indeed, many of these issues will have to be addressed at the State level. But simply because we cannot solve all of today's health-care problems, does not mean that we abdicate our responsibility to find practical solutions to help real people. I think this bill provides real and immediate help for problems that are only going to grew worse the longer we wait to address them. I ask that the text of the bill and a section by section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak on behalf of the nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Wade Horn. I got to know Dr. Horn while working with him on several fatherhood initiatives. He has been an outstanding leader in the fatherhood movement. And I am confident that he will serve with distinction in the position to which he has been nominated. Dr. Horn is a dedicated public servant, a distinguished child psychologist, a skilled administrator, and an excellent choice to lead the Administration for Children and Families--a key and critical position for the administration. Dr. Horn is a highly respected child psychiatrist, with a proven record of both competence and integrity. He has consistently demonstrated his deep commitment to increasing the well-being, strength, and stability of families and children in general, and at- risk children in particular. It bears mention that Dr. Horn was previously confirmed by the Senate 11 years ago for the position of commissioner of the Administration for Children, Youth and Families. As the Commissioner for the Children, Youth and Families Administration, Dr. Horn administered numerous programs serving children and families, including Head Start, foster care and adoption assistance, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, runaway and homeless youth shelters, and various anti-drug programs. Since leaving the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Horn has served as the President of the National Fatherhood Initiative-- where I really got to know him--a nonpartisan initiative which has drawn the support and involvement of several Senators from both sides of the aisle, including myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, and Senator Bayh. As the President of the Fatherhood Initiative, Dr. Horn has been at the forefront of the effort to encourages fathers to become more involved in the lives of their children and families. The Fatherhood Initiative has conducted both national forums and targeted outreach programs to at-risk families to encourage increased responsibility, affection, support, and involvement of fathers something we desperately need in their country. He has also authored regular columns dispensing advice to parents on how to raise healthier, happier, and more secure children, which have helped and encouraged literally thousands of families across the country. One of the criticisms leveled against Dr. Horn is that he has sat on the board of Marriage Savers, and has been involved in marriage promotion programs. Why this is a criticism, I am not sure. Dr. Horn would never, has never advocated that anyone stay in an abusive marriage. No one believes this, despite inferences to the contrary on the floor of this Senate. What he has done is worked with groups that work with couples who want to strengthen their marriage and their family. And I would think that working towards strengthening marriage in our country--which has, let me note, a divorce rate near 50 percent--would be regarded as a positive qualification, not grounds for criticism. We have Marriage Savers programs in Kansas. In two counties in the State of Kansas, Marriage Savers programs have helped to reduce divorce rates by over thirty percent in that area. This is a great achievement, not a questionable activity. That Dr. Horn's involvement with Marriage Savers--a group dedicated to working with individuals who have requested assistance in strengthening their marriage--would somehow be cited as a red flag in Dr. Horn's record is utterly baffling. Dr. Horn has never advocated that women stay in abusive situations. He is saying that in marriages where children are involved, it is a good thing for a married couple to try to work through their problems. With the background, temperment, and record that Dr. Horn has, it is difficult to understand why this nomination should have generated any debate at all. I don't think that anyone can credibly raise a question about Dr. Horn's qualifications for the job. I look forward to the confirmation of Dr. Horn to the position of Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, and I wish him the best in this capacity. Finally, I note that this is an extraordinarily qualified nominee to this position. He is a person who has worked in this field virtually his entire life, who has worked successfully in this field and in an area of endeavor in which we need a lot of help. Our children and families are suffering in this country. Dr. Horn has worked himself, personally and directly, to put families back together. That is something we should be applauding, not questioning or condemning. I strongly support the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to this position within the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the pending business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Illinois who I have some agreement with on the bankruptcy bill, although not on the homestead provision. I want to articulate why I have a different viewpoint. Overall, I believe the House version of this legislation, the bankruptcy legislation, is a good piece of legislation with which we can work. I have worked hard on it. We have worked hard for a number of years on getting bankruptcy reform. The last conference report on bankruptcy passed with over 70 votes, which is a substantial vote and the agreement of a number of people. One of the key provisions that was worked out on this overall bankruptcy legislation was the homestead provision. That is key to me. It is key to my State because of the nature of the homestead provision throughout bankruptcy and the bankruptcy code's history, how we have left that to the States. In previous bankruptcy bills, we have constantly left the homestead provision to the States, which is where it should be. The States should determine this. In seven States in this country, including my own of Kansas, there is a homestead provision that is in our State's constitution. The founders of my State saw as so important the protection of the homestead that they provided in the constitution of our State a protection for the homestead of 160 acres, 160 contiguous acres to be in a farm, or one acre in town of contiguous acreage in protecting that home. They said this is something that is central to us. I will talk about why that is central. It is central because farming, agriculture has been so much a part of our State's past. A number of farmers would borrow to protect, not against the homestead; they would borrow against other areas for the farm and leave the homestead out of it because if they would lose the farm, they could at least protect their home and 160 contiguous acres. I used to be a lawyer in private practice prior to getting involved in public office. As such, I would examine a number of abstracts. Abstracts are titles to the land. They are histories of the land--who used to own it, who had a mortgage against the land, who had a lien against the property. You would examine that to see if there was clear title to the land or not. You could track a piece of property and see the farm cycles in it. If the years were going well, there wouldn't be a mortgage against the property. If it was going poorly, there would be a mortgage against the property. But almost always they would leave clear and free, if they possibly could, that homestead because just as sure as you would get one bad year, you might get 2, and then you might get 3, and then you would lose the farm. The history would follow the farm cycle. Just as farm prices and farm production would go down, mortgages would mount up. And then you would have a loss of the farm. They would set aside and protect this homestead. They wouldn't put a mortgage against it, if at all possible, because our State's constitution said they could keep that homestead to start farming again. If they got on the bottom of the trough, lost the rest of the farm, lost livestock, they could still have that home and 160 acres to be able to start farming again and build back up in a cycle. We built this into our State's constitution. Seven other States did. It was an important part of maintaining that farming tradition and of keeping people on the farm. That is what it did. In the last cycle we went through, which was the early 1980s, I was still practicing law at that time. We continued to have at that time the homestead provision for family farmers, where you would leave within that a home and 160 acres. There are a number of people in Kansas who are still farming today because they didn't mortgage the homestead. They lost much of the rest of the farm in the downturn of the farm cycle, but they were able to rebuild around that home and 160 acres and start and move forward again. It was used then. It will be used again in the next farm cycle, if we don't take that right away in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001. What has taken place is that this has been a long, hard-fought battle over the past several years--the bankruptcy reform that we have put forward. We worked out a compromise in the House that protects the sanctity of those State laws on homestead provisions and allows accumulation of a certain amount of property. It doesn't allow fraud. If you are trying to move money into the homestead within 5 years of bankruptcy, that can get pulled back out in bankruptcy proceedings. It doesn't allow you to fraudulently say: I am going to cash out this asset and put that into my homestead as a way of building up equity on the homestead. That can all be set aside by the court. This was a carefully compromised package that came from the House bill. The problem is in the Senate bill where it takes away the States rights to establish a homestead. There was an exemption provision carved out for the family farm by Senator Kohl, for which I am grateful; but it wasn't within the home in town. So now you have the Federal Government, for the first time in 120 years, telling the States what is the homestead. They have not done that for 120 years. We should not do that now. This is the wrong time for us to start; it is the wrong thing for us to do to take that away. As I understand it, we are going to vote on inserting the Senate package, which takes away this homestead right from the States. That is in the Senate package on which we will soon be voting. I am opposed to doing that, and I will vote against that bill if it continues to maintain that type of homestead provision which takes away the homestead rights from the States and puts it into Federal bankruptcy law. That is against our State's constitution and against the constitution in seven other States in this country. We should not be doing that. It is a bad precedent to start. I have no doubt that if we start it in this bankruptcy reform, in the next bankruptcy reform we do we will go after the family farm homestead provision because there will be some allegation of, OK, there was somebody who shielded assets here and they were able to protect too much, going through a family farm type of setting, and then we will set it aside. There will undoubtedly be an example or two, but we find in most of the lawsuits--the vast majority--that there are not abuses taking place to the homestead provisions. It would be wrong for us to say we have a couple of examples, and because of the abuse in a couple of cases we want to take this right completely away from the States for thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people who have depended upon this for the past 120, 130 years. I think particularly if we start down this road of Federalizing the homestead provision, while we may not hit the family farmers now, we will the next time around, and that would be a wrong way for us to go. I want to make it clear on this point again that if there is fraud involved, if somebody is taking assets from another area and putting them in the homestead to hide from a creditor, that is covered by the law. You cannot do that today. You cannot do that under the provision that is in the House bill, and we should not allow people to do that. So we are not talking about fraudulent transactions. Many examples cited by my colleagues on the homestead provision actually involve fraudulent transactions. They are against the law and they should be. We should not allow people to fraudulently hide assets. But we should not, as well, take away this homestead provision from States on homes and family farms because of allegations of examples that don't even apply in the situation. This is not fraud--what I am talking about. This is about a basic home, a home on 160 acres in the country, if you are a family farmer. The Kohl amendment in the Senate version is one that I vigorously oppose because it jeopardizes the compromise that was worked out last year in the bankruptcy bill, and I believe it jeopardizes the fate of the entire bill, as well, because of what it does to the homestead provision. That is what this amendment is about. I urge my colleagues to vote against inserting the text of the Senate bill into H.R. 333 and to support, instead, the House version, which contains the compromise language with which I am comfortable, and with which I believe Senator Hutchison of Texas is comfortable as well. It maintains the homestead provision and authority in the States, with some limitation on it, which is a concession on our part. The Senate bankruptcy bill, if it is inserted in the House version with the Kohl amendment included, radically alters the homestead provision from what was crafted last year. It is in this carefully balanced legislation we have before us. If the Senate language is put in with the Kohl amendment that takes away the homestead rights from the States, I will be vigorously opposing this legislation, as will a number of other colleagues who have similar homestead problems, given the constitutions within their States. I urge my colleagues to vote against doing that. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to speak out on the Air Force's decision to substantially cut America's B-1 Bomber force. As many of my colleagues know, as part of the 2002 Defense budget amendment, the Air Force announced its intentions to remove the B-1 Bomber from the Air National Guard Wings at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, and Warner Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, and consolidate the remaining bombers at two active duty Air Force bases in Texas and South Dakota. The Air Force intends for this proposal to take effect immediately after funds become available following the passage of the 2001 supplemental appropriations bill, and desires that the entire project be completed in a year or so. The Air Force justified this announcement to Congress by stating that this cut was a good way to realize cost savings in 2002 Defense Budget. The decision to cut and realign the B-1 force has been mishandled from the start. I support and have cosponsored this amendment in an effort to urge and allow the Air Force to give due consideration to important decisions. I guess if you are not familiar with the men and women of the 184th Bomb Wing, or if you just are not a student of defense policy, you might be wondering what the big deal is. I think the best way to explain what happened with this decision is to offer an analogy. If a family decided to remodel their old house, the first thing they would do is sit down with an architect and sketch out their ideas of what they want their house to look like. The architect would then take these sketches and form a blueprint, the final plan that gives the instructions to the carpenter who would in turn remodel the house. The carpenter would never dream of deviating from this blueprint. After all, his job is to follow the architect's instructions, and respect the family's wishes. It really wouldn't matter if he thought his ideas were better than the family's. No family in their right mind would ever hire a carpenter who wanted to re-design their home according to his whims and wishes. This is exactly what happened with the announcement to pull the B-1's from the Air National Guard. The Air Force is now on the verge of reversing a longstanding policy by saying that our national defense needs would be better served if the B-1's were flown exclusively by the Active Duty forces. This decision was made in spite of the fact that the blueprint for our national defense policy, the Quadrennial Defense Review, has yet to be completed by the Secretary of Defense. It is as if the carpenter has decided to begin construction before he has been handed the plans. This questionable practice has raised other questions: One, how can the Air Force make a decision to remodel the Air Force to meet future threats if the plans for meeting those threats are still works in progress? Two, in some of his previous statements, Secretary Rumsfeld has acknowledged that future combat missions will depend on long range, precision strike bombers which are capable of reaching their targets from airbases within the United States. How can the Air Force make a decision to cut the B-1 Bomber fleet when such a decision seems to run contrary to Secretary Rumsfeld's previous statements? As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I fully agree with this assessment. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the U.S. to rely on other country's airstrips to stage our Air Force operations. We must look to platforms that enable us to conduct missions from the safety of America's shores. No other bomber in today's Air Force can match the B-1 for accomplishing these missions. The B-1 has more payload capacity than the Stealth B-2, and is much faster than either the B-2 and B-52. While I agree that stealth technology is important to our Air Force, we should be cautious about becoming overly reliant on it. If we cannot always depend on stealth for surprise and protection, we will have to return to speed and maneuverability. The B-1, is the only bomber today that meets this requirement. So if the Air Force still needs the B-1, why cut the fleet from 93 to 60? One excuse is that it will be cheaper, and that the Active Duty can accomplish this mission better than the Air National Guard. But according to figures released by the Guard Wing at Mcconnell, the Air Force is simply wrong in this estimation. Consider just a few simple facts. The average B-1 Mission Capable rate for the Air National Judd is 61.5 percent. The active component only rates 53,4 percent. The average Total Mission Capable rate for the Air National Guard is 19.9 decent, compared to the Active Duty's rate of 24.6 percent. The Kansas Air National Guard opetes one of the Air Force's two Engine Regional Repair Centers and the Georgia Unite Provides avionics systems repair for all the B-1's providing high-level expertise in reducing costs. When confronted with these figures, how can the Air Force conclude that the Active Duty can accomplish this mission in a more cost- effective manner than the Air National Guard? I am pleased that Senators Roberts and Cleland will be calling on the General Accounting Office to see if this decision would make more economic sense that keeping the Guard flying the B-1. A force structure decision should never have been made without the guidance of a new national security blueprint. Even more important, such a decision should never have been made on false economic assumptions. We cannot afford to make hasty decisions. Today, I join a bipartisan group of Senators consisting of Senators Roberts, Cleland, Miller, Craig, and Crapo in offering an amendment to the 2001 Defense Supplemental Bill that will prohibit 201 funds from being used to carry any orders to cut or transfer the B-1. In spite of the Air Forces announcement, we offer this amendment to put the Air Force on notice that hasty decisions regrading our national security are unacceptable to Congress.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I want to say that I will not be requiring a vote on this amendment. At the end of a short statement, I will ask unanimous consent that the vote be vitiated. I am doing this because a number of people who looked at this amendment have said they are very interested, intrigued, and supportive, but they are not sure about the language. I think it needs to be tightened up some and reviewed. Indeed, the chairman stated to me his desire to look at this issue in further depth later in the year. That is why I will be pulling this from a vote. We are talking about prohibiting the taking of genetic material from outside the human species and injecting it into the human species, to where it can be passed on to future generations. I point out to my colleagues that this is the modern face of eugenics, the desire to create perfect people, as if we can become a biologically perfectible artifact. This is a dangerous thing. It is an ugly thing that has reared its head in history previously, and its modern face involves taking genetic material wherever we can find it and putting it in. It should be banned. It is currently allowed. It is currently being researched in this country. It should be stopped. I look forward to working with the chairman of the HELP Committee to see if we can tighten up the language to address it in the Congress in the near term before people start actually doing this. It is completely allowed now, with no prohibitions. We limit it more in other species than we do in humans. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote on the Brownback amendment be vitiated and that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 845

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Patients' Bill of Rights. This amendment is about human germline gene modification. That is a long way of saying--and I will go into this for a period of time--stopping people from attempting to modify the human species with outside genetic material. It may seem strange. It happens in livestock, genetically modified organisms. Some people are researching and discussing doing this within the human species to create better people. I think it should be stopped, prohibited, removed. I looked for a better vehicle for this amendment, for another bill that was a closer fit. It is a medical issue on the medical front. If we get an agreement that I get a freestanding bill, I will do it that way. Having not been able to do that, we offer it as an amendment now. My amendment prohibits human germline gene modification. What is that? Technically, it is the process by which the DNA of an individual is permanently changed in such a way that it permanently affects his or her offspring. Normally this is a DNA modification in either the egg or the sperm within the human species, so when they combine, that genetic modification is carried in that person and in future organisms, in future people. So it starts at this single stage, the egg or the sperm, molded together and multiplied in future generations. This is not about genetic therapy; it is not about stem cell research; it is not about human cloning. All those are other issues for another day that do need to be considered but not here. My amendment in no way hinders genetic therapy or other medical interventions that treat patients suffering from diseases. My amendment is about eugenics. For those not familiar, that is the process or means of race improvement previously tried by many diabolical methods or schemes, generally looked at as restrictions of mating, of so-called superior people together, and now being attempted, talked about, pressed forward by adding genetic material of humans from outside the species. This is ugly stuff, and it should be stopped. It is about what we as a society are willing to allow and not to allow. The issue of germline genetic modification is about our ability to create designer babies, choose eye color, height, or IQ. I offer this amendment, well aware that many of my colleagues understandably may be unaware of these so- called advances being made in the field of biotechnology and the impact those advances will inevitably have on the human race. I come from an agricultural background. I used to be a Secretary of Agriculture in Kansas. These are things we commonly do now in plants, and we are having research done extensively in animals. People are talking about bringing some of the same technology to humans. It has to be stopped and should be stopped. Many of the advances promise great achievement for mankind and a betterment of human conditions. Some of the advancements in biotechnology do not. Human germline gene manipulation is one of those. It is one of those advances discussed mostly in theoretical terms until recently. More disturbingly, it is the realization of the age-old quest to design better people. Germline gene manipulation is the summit of the eugenics movement. One of the groups we have consulted with prior to preparing this amendment is a group chaired by Claire Nader, the sister of former Presidential candidate Ralph Nader. It is a group she has been associated with, the Council for Responsible Genetics. They are unequivocally opposed to human germline gene modification. The Council states this: We strongly oppose the use of germline gene modifications in humans. They continue: Today, public discussion in favor of influencing the genetic constitution of future generations has gained new respectability with the increased possibility for intervention. Although it is once again espoused by individuals with a variety of political perspectives, modern eugenic programs are now defended as driven by individual need, choice. But the doctrine of social advancement through biological perfectibility underlying the new eugenics is even more potent than the older version. Its supporting data seem more scientifically sophisticated and the alignment between the state, through its support of the market and the individual exercising so-called free choice, is unprecedented. The Council goes on to state further: These considerations make the social and ethical problems raised by germline gene modification very different from those raised by genetic manipulations, that target certain nonreproductive deficiencies in organs of patients, again in somatic cell gene modification. As the Council states in very clear terms: The underlying political philosophy of those who support germline gene modification has been sanitized with new terms, but is in reality the same old eugenic message with which the 20th century was deeply and direly afflicted. In numerous conversations that I have had with Dr. Francis Collins, who heads the National Human Genome Research Institute here in Washington, who has had a fantastic report that was out last year on the Human Genome Project, reported out a beautiful array of the complexity of the genetic structure in each and every one of our 10 trillion cells and if we printed out that genetic structure and had it in front of us, it would be a stack of paper 100 feet taller than the Washington monument. We have talked about the beauty of the human genome and also talked about the potential for problems in its manipulation, as that could be carried onto future humans. Madam President, human germline gene modification is not needed to save lives or alleviate suffering of existing people. Its target population is prospective people who have not been conceived. The cultural impact of treating humans as biologically perfectible artifacts would be entirely negative. People who fall short of some technically achievable ideal would be seen as damaged goods, while the standards for what is genetically desirable would be those of the society's economically and politically dominant group. We have heard these themes before. This will only increase prejudices and discrimination in a society which already has too many of these. There is no way to be accountable to those in the future generations who are going to be harmed or stigmatized by the wrongful or unsuccessful human germline gene modification of their ancestors. The negative effects of human germline modification would not be fully known for generations, if ever, meaning that countless people will have been exposed to harm, probably often fatal, as a result of only a few instances of germline manipulations. All people have the right to be conceived, gestated, and born without genetic manipulation. Human germline gene manipulation will only serve to turn human beings into commodities with traits that are bought and sold, with attributes that are determined by technicians, and parents who want to exert genetic tyranny over their offspring. This is a step too far. This is grossly unethical for it to happen. I urge the Senate to adopt my amendment to prohibit it once and for all. Again I put forward, in layman's terms, what this is about. This is about getting and adding outside genetic material into the human species, whether it be plant--tomato--or animal--chicken--from a tree somewhere that a snippet of genetic material would be added in, at the egg or the sperm level. Once added in there, when the union occurred it would be in that human and also then passed on to future generations. That is what we are talking about here. It is not about any sort of gene therapy or any of the other issues. It is not about cloning either, which is the identical replication. This is adding in the outside genetic material. I think everybody would look at this and say that is not a road we want to go down. Yet some people today are contemplating doing this. I want to add a couple of other points. The European Council on Biomedics has stated its opposition to this human germline gene modification. I think the civilized world really needs to step up right now, before people get going and moving forward, saying: We could make people taller. We could make people live longer by this modification. We found a gene line in trees that we could put in earlier, to the human species, and cause this to happen. We have a way to manipulate or change this--without knowing in any way down in future generations what this impact is. We can send a strong, clear signal at this point in time that we want nothing to do with this, that this is wrong, this is eugenics, this is the height of eugenics, and it should not take place. The Europeans are moving that way. We should as well as much of the rest of the civilized world, and say we want no part of this, and we can do that with a clear, I hope unanimous, vote of the Senate, saying this is wrong. I know people differ on some of these other biotechnology issues, such as cloning. That is left for another day. The language in this bill is clear, specific; it is easy to understand. We may have differences on some of the other issues we may get into over a period of time, but this is one, as I have searched around, where there is a broad coalition, left and right, that says yes, this one should be banned. That is why we worked closely with Ms. Nader's group, consulted with biotechnology groups, who were saying: Yes, this is not a place we should be going either. Here is a place we can stop this. This is the only vehicle I could see where there was some connection bringing this up. If we could do it on a freestanding bill at some time on the floor, I would be happy to do that, but absent that, I would like to get this considered on this bill. I yield the floor. I don't know that there is a time agreement on this amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I send an amendment to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I would like to respond on that point as well. The FDA is saying they have authority over this. One of the groups they are seeking to regulate is saying they do not have authority, and they are going to sue them to keep the FDA from regulating them. So regulations have been proposed, but it is a very open question about whether or not this applies to groups that are seeking to do this or seeking legal injunction prohibiting the FDA from regulating this. So we can put those on forward. The fact is, this has not been dealt with, and it is of utmost importance to people in this country and around the world, and it should be. This should not happen during our watch.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I would just note once more for my colleagues that the area of genetic manipulation, germline therapy, is regulated in animals and in plants but is completely unregulated--there is nothing on it--in humans. Is that a responsible way for us to go? There is nothing on it. If we want to do it right now on the human species in the United States, go ahead, fine. If you want to do that, release that into us, into the human species, fine, go ahead. If you want to do it in fish, we have a series of hoops that you have to jump through and filings that you have to make and limitations on where this can take place all up and down, everywhere. But for humans, fine. I guess if we are going to eat it, we are concerned about it. But if it is one of us, OK. I have deep respect for the Senator from Massachusetts. He is very thoughtful and one of the most productive Members of this body, probably in the history of this body. But I would really seriously ask him to look at this area. Is this something we want to do in this society? This is not only technically or theoretically feasible today; it can be done today. It has been done in the animal line for years now. This has been going on for 10 years-plus, 15 years in animals. The genetic lineup in animals versus humans is not that much different. Totally unregulated, no limitations--go ahead and do it in humans, not in cattle. I would hope we could at least get some agreement that this is going to be further considered sometime during this legislative session. If we want more limited language, I am more than happy to work with individuals in drafting more limited language. If there is concern about gene therapy on it, I am willing to draft it as tight as they want to on gene therapy. That would be just fine by me. But to let this go on now, you are inviting people to step up. If we need to work with the groups the Senator listed to draft it more tightly, I am happy to do that. This is a serious matter. We have more and more people in the streets protesting about this very thing. I think we should wake up on that particular point, if nothing else. We saw the protest that took place in Seattle. We saw what it did to the World Trade talks. That was on food. We are seeing what is taking place in the Biotechnology Expo in Southern California right now. That is on humans. This issue is not going away. It is something that we are going to have to confront. I would hope and I would think we would be far wiser to do it sooner rather than later. I am happy to work with anybody on drafting the language to see that that takes place.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I would like to correct some miscalculation with the Senator from Massachusetts. I want to read from the amendment because he represented a couple of examples that we specifically state in the bill we are not prohibiting. On page 4 of the amendment under ``construction,'' it states specifically that: Nothing in this Act is intended to limit somatic cell gene therapy, or to effect research involving human pluripotent stem cells. This somatic cell gene therapy is what you are talking about where you have already the sperm and egg, and you have a full chromosome. That is where you may want to make changes, and that is where the research is focused. Now they can deal with some of the dreaded diseases the Senator from Massachusetts says we should rightly try to deal with. I agree that we should. We specifically added that. We covered that point the Senator raised and about which he has concern because we don't want to impact that area. We talk about this on page 3. It says: The term ``human germline gene modification'' means the intentional modification of DNA in any human cell for the purpose of producing a genetic change which can be passed on to future individuals. In this amendment we are saying: Do we really want to change the human species without knowing what the impact is going to be down the road? Maybe we have a shot at changing this one, but what is it going to do to the next generation, the second one, the third one, the fourth one, and after that? I also point out to the good Senator who has worked tirelessly to get this bill through to passage--I appreciate both his work and the work of the Senator from Nevada on just continuing to press forward. They have done a very good job. But I point out to them that we have significant limitations on doing this to animals. Right now, if you wanted to take a fish and put a tomato germline in it, or something from a tomato gene--actually this is being done--this is a heavily regulated area by FDA, and the USDA, as well it should be. My goodness, do we want to get super fish out here that could swim and do things and take over a whole area of species? They are actually concerned. It may sound scientific, like this is just off the wall. But this is happening today. We have these deep concerns within our society. You do not have to listen to me. The Senator from California knows what is taking place this week in southern California. People are deeply concerned about this being done with animals and plants. All I am talking about with this amendment is to say, the careful thing for us to do right now is to prohibit it in humans. As the Senator from Massachusetts knows, in any future legislative session we can remove that prohibition. We could do that next year. But wouldn't the careful, thoughtful thing be to say right now: ``We don't want to modify the human species''? It has no regulation, no limitation, no review on it today. People are out there doing these things. Wouldn't the really thoughtful position be that we should stop this because we don't know its impact down the road--stop this now--and then, if the researchers really convince us this is the right thing to do, we can open it back up? I think we open up an incredible Pandora's box if we allow this unregulated area of human experimentation to continue at this time. And that is what is being defended here. I think this should give us some thoughtful consideration. This is limited in its drafting. We have worked with a number of groups on its drafting. It is very specific. This has to do with it being passed down to future generations. This is something that we should prohibit at this time. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, next week our nation will celebrate Independence Day. Yet, as we celebrate the land of opportunity that is America, we must keep in mind those who, even in this great nation, do not have the same opportunities as everyone else. In rural communities across the nation, an entire segment of our population does not have the opportunity to access powerful broadband communications services representing the high-speed, high-capacity on-ramps to the information super highway. Why? Because for all intents and purposes broadband does not exist in most of rural America. Broadband is increasing the speeds and capacity with which consumers and businesses alike access the Internet, and opening up a whole new world of information, e-commerce, real-time high quality telemedicine, distance learning, and entertainment. The power of broadband will level the playing field between rural and urban communities in a global economy. Today I rise to introduce the Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001 and the Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001. Two bills designed to ensure that all Americans have access to the advantages of broadband connections. I would like to thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for his cosponsorship and support. These two bills, together or individually, will ensure broadband deployment in our nation's rural areas, and will enable us to renew our long- standing commitment that rural communities have access to the same telecommunications resources as urban communities. My singular objective, in both bills, is high-speed Internet access for everybody in America by 2007. This is a bipartisan objective. The Democratic party has announced its intention to ensure universal access to broadband by the end of this decade. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their recognition of the importance of broadband and I look forward to working with them to achieve our common goal. New approaches will be needed to achieve universal broadband availability. Some of my colleagues have introduced legislation consisting of tax incentives or loan subsidies. Programs such as these can help to deliver on the commitment to make broadband universally available, but these proposals alone will not achieve that goal. Deregulation has a key role to play in this effort. Deregulation has been the driver of broadband deployment to date: cable companies, largely deregulated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, have invested almost 50 billion dollars in upgrades to their networks. These upgrades have in turn enabled them to deploy broadband, and cable companies now serve 70 percent of the broadband market. Satellite companies, also unregulated in the broadband market, are deploying one-way high-speed Internet access and are working to deploy two-way broadband services. Some companies are utilizing wireless cable licenses to deploy broadband, and they too are unregulated in the broadband market. Deregulation is a powerful motivator for the deployment of new technologies and services. Unregulated small cable companies, and all but unregulated rural and small telephone companies are taking advantage of their regulatory status to deliver broadband to rural consumers. The broadband market, distinct from the local telephone market, is new. Yet, federal and State regulators are placing local telephone competition regulations on broadband-specific facilities deployed by incumbent local exchange carriers, ILECs, the only regulated broadband service providers, as if they were part and parcel of their local telephone service. This is simply not the case. The local telephone market is not synonymous with the broadband market. The disparate regulatory treatment of phone companies deploying broadband and all other broadband service providers is serving to deny broadband to many rural communities. Broadband facilities being deployed by ILECs throughout our cities and towns require billions of dollars of capital investment in new infrastructure that must be added to the existing telephone network. The sparse populations of rural communities already diminish the return on infrastructure investment so that, when combined with local telephone market regulations, ILEC broadband deployment has not proven to be cost effective. As a result, rural telephone exchanges owned by regulated telephone companies are not being upgraded for broadband services even while unregulated companies seem to be capable of making that substantial investment. In Wellington, Kansas, a rural community with around 10,000 residents, a small unregulated cable company called Sumner Cable has deployed broadband service. Yet, Southwestern Bell, the local regulated telephone company and a Bell operating company, is not deploying broadband. Different regulatory treatments of these companies creates the incentive for one to deploy broadband, but not the other. This is being seen throughout our nation's rural communities, and is particularly disappointing. The Bell operating companies serve approximately 65 percent of rural telephone lines like those found in Wellington. Broadband is certainly being deployed at a much faster rate in urban markets than rural markets. But that does not mean all is well in our nation's cities. Today, broadband deployment in urban markets is being characterized by the market dominance of the cable TV industry, unregulated in the broadband market, which serves approximately 70 percent of all broadband subscribers. This is good for consumers. Cable companies have taken full advantage of their deregulated status, and the inherent economic incentives, to deploy new technologies and provide new services to consumers. But while the cable industry finishes rebuilding its entire infrastructure with digital technology that permits it to offer broadband, ILECs are, in many instances, not making the same investment to rebuild their infrastructure. The Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001 promotes broadband deployment in rural markets by requiring ILECs to deploy to all of their telephone exchange subscribers within 5 years. In exchange, ILEC broadband services are placed on a more level-playing field with their broadband competitors. This is achieved by deregulating only those new technologies added to the local telephone network that make broadband possible over telephone lines. By permitting ILECs to compete on a level playing field with their broadband competitors in their urban markets, we can create the proper balance between requirements and incentives. The limited deregulation in this legislation will not affect competition in the local telephone market. CLECs will still have access to the entire legacy telephone network to use as they see fit, and they will still be permitted to combine their own broadband equipment with the telephone network to compete in the broadband market. In those parts of the local telephone network where new network architecture must be deployed to make broadband possible, CLECs are free to add their own facilities to the network so they can compete for every potential broadband subscriber in a market. In Kansas, we have many farms and small rural communities. I grew up on a farm near Parker, Kansas. My hometown has 250 people. My singular goal in introducing this legislation is to facilitate rural broadband deployment. Given the importance of ensuring broadband is deployed in rural communities, I have elected to introduce two different bills on the same issue. I am willing to pursue either approach depending on which one will get us to the day of ubiquitous broadband. It seems clear that, no matter how worthy broad-based deregulation is in the broadband market, any such effort must navigate through the typical back and forth between the baby Bells, long distance companies, and now CLECs. If a more limited approach can avoid the traditional ``phone wars'' then I am happy to put forth such an alternative. The Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001 is a more geographically limited approach to spurring broadband deployment. It includes broader deregulation of ILEC broadband services, but limits that deregulation only to rural communities. By ramping up the deregulation, yet restricting the size of the market where that deregulation is applied, it is my intention to create the same balance of requirements that I previously mentioned. I realize that introducing two pieces of legislation on the same issue on the same day is a bit unorthodox. But given the clear need and importance of universal broadband, I feel it is my duty to do anything I can to move this debate forward. Providing alternatives for the consideration of my colleagues is part of this process. I urge my colleagues to give consideration to either of these bills, and I urge your cosponsorship.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, next week our nation will celebrate Independence Day. Yet, as we celebrate the land of opportunity that is America, we must keep in mind those who, even in this great nation, do not have the same opportunities as everyone else. In rural communities across the nation, an entire segment of our population does not have the opportunity to access powerful broadband communications services representing the high-speed, high-capacity on-ramps to the information super highway. Why? Because for all intents and purposes broadband does not exist in most of rural America. Broadband is increasing the speeds and capacity with which consumers and businesses alike access the Internet, and opening up a whole new world of information, e-commerce, real-time high quality telemedicine, distance learning, and entertainment. The power of broadband will level the playing field between rural and urban communities in a global economy. Today I rise to introduce the Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001 and the Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001. Two bills designed to ensure that all Americans have access to the advantages of broadband connections. I would like to thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for his cosponsorship and support. These two bills, together or individually, will ensure broadband deployment in our nation's rural areas, and will enable us to renew our long- standing commitment that rural communities have access to the same telecommunications resources as urban communities. My singular objective, in both bills, is high-speed Internet access for everybody in America by 2007. This is a bipartisan objective. The Democratic party has announced its intention to ensure universal access to broadband by the end of this decade. I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their recognition of the importance of broadband and I look forward to working with them to achieve our common goal. New approaches will be needed to achieve universal broadband availability. Some of my colleagues have introduced legislation consisting of tax incentives or loan subsidies. Programs such as these can help to deliver on the commitment to make broadband universally available, but these proposals alone will not achieve that goal. Deregulation has a key role to play in this effort. Deregulation has been the driver of broadband deployment to date: cable companies, largely deregulated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, have invested almost 50 billion dollars in upgrades to their networks. These upgrades have in turn enabled them to deploy broadband, and cable companies now serve 70 percent of the broadband market. Satellite companies, also unregulated in the broadband market, are deploying one-way high-speed Internet access and are working to deploy two-way broadband services. Some companies are utilizing wireless cable licenses to deploy broadband, and they too are unregulated in the broadband market. Deregulation is a powerful motivator for the deployment of new technologies and services. Unregulated small cable companies, and all but unregulated rural and small telephone companies are taking advantage of their regulatory status to deliver broadband to rural consumers. The broadband market, distinct from the local telephone market, is new. Yet, federal and State regulators are placing local telephone competition regulations on broadband-specific facilities deployed by incumbent local exchange carriers, ILECs, the only regulated broadband service providers, as if they were part and parcel of their local telephone service. This is simply not the case. The local telephone market is not synonymous with the broadband market. The disparate regulatory treatment of phone companies deploying broadband and all other broadband service providers is serving to deny broadband to many rural communities. Broadband facilities being deployed by ILECs throughout our cities and towns require billions of dollars of capital investment in new infrastructure that must be added to the existing telephone network. The sparse populations of rural communities already diminish the return on infrastructure investment so that, when combined with local telephone market regulations, ILEC broadband deployment has not proven to be cost effective. As a result, rural telephone exchanges owned by regulated telephone companies are not being upgraded for broadband services even while unregulated companies seem to be capable of making that substantial investment. In Wellington, Kansas, a rural community with around 10,000 residents, a small unregulated cable company called Sumner Cable has deployed broadband service. Yet, Southwestern Bell, the local regulated telephone company and a Bell operating company, is not deploying broadband. Different regulatory treatments of these companies creates the incentive for one to deploy broadband, but not the other. This is being seen throughout our nation's rural communities, and is particularly disappointing. The Bell operating companies serve approximately 65 percent of rural telephone lines like those found in Wellington. Broadband is certainly being deployed at a much faster rate in urban markets than rural markets. But that does not mean all is well in our nation's cities. Today, broadband deployment in urban markets is being characterized by the market dominance of the cable TV industry, unregulated in the broadband market, which serves approximately 70 percent of all broadband subscribers. This is good for consumers. Cable companies have taken full advantage of their deregulated status, and the inherent economic incentives, to deploy new technologies and provide new services to consumers. But while the cable industry finishes rebuilding its entire infrastructure with digital technology that permits it to offer broadband, ILECs are, in many instances, not making the same investment to rebuild their infrastructure. The Broadband Deployment and Competition Enhancement Act of 2001 promotes broadband deployment in rural markets by requiring ILECs to deploy to all of their telephone exchange subscribers within 5 years. In exchange, ILEC broadband services are placed on a more level-playing field with their broadband competitors. This is achieved by deregulating only those new technologies added to the local telephone network that make broadband possible over telephone lines. By permitting ILECs to compete on a level playing field with their broadband competitors in their urban markets, we can create the proper balance between requirements and incentives. The limited deregulation in this legislation will not affect competition in the local telephone market. CLECs will still have access to the entire legacy telephone network to use as they see fit, and they will still be permitted to combine their own broadband equipment with the telephone network to compete in the broadband market. In those parts of the local telephone network where new network architecture must be deployed to make broadband possible, CLECs are free to add their own facilities to the network so they can compete for every potential broadband subscriber in a market. In Kansas, we have many farms and small rural communities. I grew up on a farm near Parker, Kansas. My hometown has 250 people. My singular goal in introducing this legislation is to facilitate rural broadband deployment. Given the importance of ensuring broadband is deployed in rural communities, I have elected to introduce two different bills on the same issue. I am willing to pursue either approach depending on which one will get us to the day of ubiquitous broadband. It seems clear that, no matter how worthy broad-based deregulation is in the broadband market, any such effort must navigate through the typical back and forth between the baby Bells, long distance companies, and now CLECs. If a more limited approach can avoid the traditional ``phone wars'' then I am happy to put forth such an alternative. The Rural Broadband Deployment Act of 2001 is a more geographically limited approach to spurring broadband deployment. It includes broader deregulation of ILEC broadband services, but limits that deregulation only to rural communities. By ramping up the deregulation, yet restricting the size of the market where that deregulation is applied, it is my intention to create the same balance of requirements that I previously mentioned. I realize that introducing two pieces of legislation on the same issue on the same day is a bit unorthodox. But given the clear need and importance of universal broadband, I feel it is my duty to do anything I can to move this debate forward. Providing alternatives for the consideration of my colleagues is part of this process. I urge my colleagues to give consideration to either of these bills, and I urge your cosponsorship.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleagues for presenting this bill on the floor. I appreciate taking up this topic-- the key topic facing the United States, the Government, and the health care industry within this country. I strongly believe and I strongly urge that this should have gone through a committee process so we could have had amendments taking place and could have had this dealt with in depth in a committee. I think that it did not is regretable, particularly on such a large piece of legislation that affects so many people. But that wasn't the choice of the majority that is running the floor. They decided not to go through that process, and so we are here as we are today. I hope, since this bill did not go through the normal committee process, we can have an extended amendment process to improve the bill in substantial ways as we proceed through this debate and consideration of this key legislation affecting much of health care delivery in this country. Through a good, strong, open amendment process, we can, hopefully, at the end of the day, vote on this bill and have something with which we are all pleased. Having made those initial comments, I want to point out legitimate and serious concerns I have about the effects of this legislation on people throughout the country. Make no mistake about it, I shed no tears for the HMOs. My colleagues have brought to the Senate Chamber for consideration some shocking photographs and anecdotal information of treatment at its worst by the HMOs. Like everybody else who has heard these anecdotes and seen the photographs, it offends my sensibilities. We need to examine the organization of the health maintenance organizations established by the Congress over the past few decades and how they were established and why they were established. The truth of the matter is, over the past few decades Congress created and charged the health maintenance organizations with keeping down the cost of health care, and the tool with which we have entrusted them is a bureaucracy. The truth of the matter is, using a bureaucracy to control a system is inefficient, many times difficult, unwieldy, and certainly not very personal. The truth of the matter is, patients and physicians are sick and tired of dealing with this unresponsive bureaucracy and its difficult system. We need to make changes to provide personalized decisionmaking in health care. We need to change the system Congress has created. We need to make it work better. We need to do it in such a fashion that it does not drive up the cost to the point that we start increasing, again, the number of insured in America. There has pretty much been an iron rule on health care that as we drive up cost, the number of insured goes down, and that is a policy trend we do not want to cause with this bill. There are ways we can amend it to reduce that overall cost factor to limit the drop in the number of insured. We want people to get insurance. We want people to be insured. We do not want people to be uninsured in this process. We can change HMOs to make it a more personal decisionmaking process between patient and physician so that they are the ones making the choices rather than a large, unresponsive bureaucracy. As the blues song goes, ``Before you accuse me . . . take a look at yourself.'' HMOs and private sector insurance are not the only ones who rely on a heavy-handed bureaucracy in the health care field. The truth is Medicare, the health insurance we are responsible for administering, has been one of the most difficult bureaucracies in the Federal Government. If you want to talk about bureaucracy, let's talk about PPSs, DRGs, and NSFs. Let's talk about a system that tells physicians: Provide the care, and then we will tell you whether we are going to pay for it or not. HCFA is a bureaucracy that has gotten so out of control that this administration has wisely decided they cannot reform it, they have to completely remake it and rename it. This is a bureaucracy unto itself that is unresponsive. I get complaints on a regular basis. HCFA is getting right up there with the IRS on complaints, and that is a bureaucracy, which we run, which manages health care in the country, which clearly needs fixing. For the past several decades, this Nation has relied almost solely on bureaucracies of one type or another, either ones we run or others, to hold down the cost of health care. That is the heart of what we are debating today: health care costs. Many of us believe the solutions offered by some of my colleagues do not adequately address this problem. We are going to drive that cost up, and the number of insured is going to go down. That is a genuine concern of a number of people. Who feels this way? Some of my colleagues have stated that the people are saying: You have a bureaucracy that has been unresponsive. Let's make these changes and drive the cost up, not noting they are driving the number of insured down in that process. We need to avoid that result. I want to read a letter my office received, as well as a number of other offices, on June 15, regarding who feels this way about health care. This is a quote from this letter: We urge Congress to oppose this legislation-- That is, the pending bill-- and avoid the dire consequences it would have on our employer-based health care system. The letter went on to say that the Kennedy-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights-- would discourage employers from offering health care coverage and make coverage more difficult for workers to afford. Who signed that letter? It is interesting, not a single HMO appeared on that letter. The letter came to my office signed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, Printing Industries of America, Business Roundtable, and 14 other business associations representing virtually everyone in this Nation who voluntarily provides health care coverage to their employees and wants to continue to provide that health care coverage. They are saying: Do not change this in such a way that we cannot afford to make these changes and they are going to drive us out of health care; don't do that. We do not need to do that; we should not do that. We can amend this bill to make it so that does not happen. I suggest my colleagues follow the Kansas tradition and take these groups at their word. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has suggested the Kennedy-McCain-Edwards bill will increase premiums for employer- sponsored health plans by an average of 4.2 percent, with a 1.7-percent increase being passed through to workers. What about the remaining 2.3 percent? CBO says 60 percent of the increase would be offset by, among other things, ``purchasers switching to less expensive plans, cutting back on benefits, or dropping coverage.'' Is that the conclusion we want to produce from this legislation? I certainly do not think the directors and people who are putting forward this bill want that conclusion, and yet that is what CBO is citing. It is not just the CBO or national business organizations that have this grave concern. On June 6, I received a letter from Harvey Young. Harvey owns Young's Welding, a small welding shop that has been in Chanute, KS, since 1934. Harvey wrote this ``health care legislation would be a disaster for small employers in the Nation.'' In addition, while they do not know it yet, the 3,200 Kansans and nearly 340,000 Americans who could lose some health insurance as a result of this legislation are going to have a big problem with this bill. We do not need to go there if we amend this legislation to reduce those areas that will drive people from getting health insurance. I understand it is not the intent of my colleagues to increase the cost of insurance and drive employers and workers out of the health insurance marketplace. My friends are pure in their intentions to address the problems that have arisen from the bureaucratic state of our health care economy. The cases of denied coverage they bring before the Senate are disturbing to all of us. However, I hope my colleagues will concede that the concerns we raise about the manner in which this bill addresses the problem are just as genuine. Many are concerned adding new liability and legal cost to an already large cost of health care will create problems in the system. We are worried by reports that 44 insurers have pulled out of Mississippi citing large jury verdicts as the reason. Considering that the cost of health insurance has risen for 7 straight years, and considering that last year the cost of insurance was up a whopping average of 13 percent, I hope supporters of this legislation will understand my concerns. No Senator has risen in defense of bureaucratic health care either of the United States through HCFA, or health maintenance organizations. None has risen to defend the indefensible actions of some HMOs that have denied necessary coverage to a child; nor shall we, nor should anyone. Rather, we rise to express concern about a bill that could result in more harm than good in driving up the number of uninsureds in America rather than giving more coverage, and actually at the end of the day producing less. On Tuesday, addressing a rally in front of the Capitol, my colleagues expressed there was room for compromise on this issue. They expressed the hope we could send a bill to the President that the President would be able to sign. I share my colleagues' hope and dream we will be able to do that. Generally, as we saw with the historic education package we passed last week, the bulk of the work reaching compromise is done in the committee process. However, due to the circumstances the Senate now finds itself, the majority has decided that may not be possible. Such is the privilege of the majority. However, it is my hope before we move to final passage, we can work out a bill to address some of the problems our Nation's health care economy is truly facing without wrecking the Nation's health care economy in total, and without driving up the number of uninsureds. At that point, we will have a bill I can support and I believe the President can sign and, hopefully, we can be proud of in providing more health care coverage to Americans, not less. We are not there yet. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes off of the time of the Senator from New Hampshire.