Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the bankruptcy bill that is before the Senate, and in particular a provision that is in this overall compromise language that is being brought in front of the body, something I want to point out to a number of my colleagues. Overall, I believe this legislation is a good piece of legislation. We have worked hard on it. We have worked for a number of years on it. We have worked to be able to craft this bill. The conference report passed with over 70 votes, which is a substantial vote, and the agreement of a number of people. One of the pieces of the compromise was the homestead compromise and matters regarding the homestead provisions. This is when you go into bankruptcy, what amount of property that is considered your homestead can be protected in bankruptcy, if you do not have a direct loan against it or purchase money loan against your house and a contiguous acreage, or in the case of a farm home and 160 contiguous acres. This is a very important compromise in the current bill, and I seek to keep this compromise language and not for that to be changed. Kansas, along with other States, has within our State constitution the protection of homesteads. It dates back to the days when we had the Homestead Act, when you could go out West and settle, and if you farmed it for 5 years, 160 acres, you could keep it. It was yours. The way we settled much of the West was if you tame the 160 acres for 5 years, it was yours. Built within our constitution is the statement that if you don't borrow directly against this land, if you keep it clear and free of other loans and you go through bankruptcy, you can keep this. Back in a prior lifetime, I was a practicing lawyer. I examined a number of abstracts. We would go through farm cycles where prices would be good and they would go down. Then a number of people would borrow and they would lose everything they had except their homestead. They could rebuild the farm based on that. You could go through abstracts of land titles and find that here was a case where a guy borrowed this, this, and this, and he didn't borrow against the homestead. He lost everything else but not the homestead. He rebuilt from that. It almost followed the farm cycle with farm prices. So the homestead provision within the bankruptcy code in allowing States to have their homestead provision, as opposed to a federalized homestead provision, is very important to my State, to me, and to a number of States that have this type of homestead provision in their State law or, more so, in my home State constitution. This has been in Kansas's constitution--or a provision of this--dating back to 1859, and going back even to territorial days in Kansas. Many farmers have used this law during economic hardship to protect their farms, their homes. We worked hard last year and this year to get a compromise because a number of people don't like each State having its own homestead. They think there was fraud from some people who were moving to another State to take advantage of the homestead laws that might be easier in one State or another. We worked to get a compromise to work this out. I want to put this out. Other people want to speak on this, and this is a very important point to me and my State. The compromise we put into the bill, some people wanted to change this and others wanted to protect States rights. The current bill provides that within the 2 years prior to bankruptcy, no one may protect more than $100,000 worth of new equity obtained in one's homestead. You have 2 years, $100,000. This would prevent debtors from shifting assets into their homes to avoid creditors. Studies have shown that abuse of State homestead laws is very rare. Yet we are overturning over 130 years of bankruptcy law by imposing Federal standards--this would be the first time we have done Federal standards on homestead in bankruptcy law. In 130 years of bankruptcy law, this would be the first time we have done it. We should not do that, particularly based on such scant evidence. Seven States have constitutional provisions that are different from the $100,000 homestead cap that may be offered by someone on the floor, just across the board. Somebody was saying a $125,000 homestead cap. Either one would take and federalize State law, State constitutional law--constitutional law--if we go with this homestead cap that some propose, based upon anecdotal evidence of some abuse of this. If there is fraud involved in moving from one State to another one, and taking money to put it into a bigger homestead to protect it, that can be set aside now by the bankruptcy court under a fraudulent practice, and it frequently is. That is the way that is done. I urge my colleagues not to federalize this area that has been under the control of the States, that is in State constitutional law in my State and in seven other States. If this is passed, a number of us will say this is not something we can tolerate or work with at all. This is something that would cause a number of us to work against the bill. Some want to get the bill off and don't want it to pass anyway. Maybe that makes this a better provision to them, but I don't think this is one that we ought to be doing at all for the first time ever. It is one that I vigorously oppose--if an amendment is proposed to change the compromise that is in the bankruptcy bill currently on the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote against any change in this homestead provision away from what is crafted in this carefully balanced legislation we have before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this morning, Members of the U.S. Senate came together to kick off the House the Senate Built Program with Habitat for Humanity International. Today's event partnered Members of the Senate with HUD Secretary Mel Martinez, Habitat founder Millard Fuller, and a host of building partners to begin work with the Spencer and Williams families on their new homes in Capitol Heights, MD. Before the event began, Ms. Helena Spencer, mother of one of the two families who will be moving into the homes upon completion, shared with us her frustrations of living in substandard housing and her plea to God to help her find a new home for her family. Her message to us was that Habitat for Humanity was an answer to prayer. I want to share her prayer with you today, because I feel it reflects well on the work of Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Spencer prayed: Lord, my future looks so uncertain. It seems as if everything dear to me has been shaken or removed. He answered me, and said in His word, I will remove what can be shaken so that those things which ``cannot be shaken may remain'' (Hebrews 12:27). My life has to be built upon an unshakeable foundation. He says I'm removing from you all insecure foundation to force you to rest on the foundation of me alone. A spiritual house, in order to stand, must not be built on a flimsy foundation. Your false resting place is being shaken so that you will rely wholly on me. With these words, Helena Spencer spoke volumes about how great a blessing Habitat for Humanity is to so many people in need. These words inspired us this morning as we worked side by side building the houses that the Spencer and Williams families will call home. These words have motivated us to see through the House the Senate Built Project to its stated end; at least one new Habitat home built by Members of the U.S. Senate in each of our home States. I am thankful for the work of Habitat for Humanity in this country and am encouraged by the faith and hope displayed today by Ms. Helena Spencer.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 48 submitted earlier today by Senators Dayton and Wellstone.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Good. I thank my colleague from Nevada for the comments. Hopefully we can get a limited number of amendments and move this bill through. This could be a substantial piece of legislation for this body to pass.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I understand the leadership is trying to work out a finite list of amendments that could be worked on to the point that maybe we could get that group done and limit it so we could have a voting time set, and then those Members could plan what they are trying to do. I understand it is being worked on right now.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow and immediately resume the pending bankruptcy bill. Amendments and votes are expected to occur throughout the day and into the evening in an effort to make substantial progress on this vital piece of legislation. Members are encouraged to work with the bill managers if they intend to offer amendments.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 8. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume the pending bankruptcy bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a few minutes as if in morning business. It is on a broad topic. It is about this day and what this is. It seems kind of interesting when we start to celebrate things like St. Patrick's Day or Valentine's Day. What is the basis? Why do we do these things? There is always this kind of digging into it to find a very interesting story. For St. Valentine's Day, we celebrate it recognizing a priest who married people in Rome when it was forbidden. The Emperor at the time was not given enough soldiers to sign up for the military because they wanted to get married, have families, and stay home with their families. So the Emperor decreed that nobody could get married. The priest said: I don't agree with that. So he quietly and secretly married a number of people and was then later arrested, incarcerated, and beheaded for having done this nice, wonderful thing. It is a great reminder of what Valentine's Day is about when we send cards. Today we celebrate Ash Wednesday. A number of people of different faiths celebrate Ash Wednesday. What is Ash Wednesday about? It comes from a number of references in the Bible, particularly in Genesis where it says, ``Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return''. It is a recognition of the symbolism of what we physically are, and how the physical body ends up. This comes from the Web page of EWTN about Ash Wednesday: ``The liturgical use of ashes originated in the Old Testament times. Ashes symbolized mourning, mortality, and penance. In the Book of Esther, Mordecai put on sackcloth and ashes when he heard of the decree of the King to kill all of the Jewish people in the Persian Empire. (Esther 4:1). Job repented in sackcloth and ashes. (Job 42:6). Prophesying the Babylonian captivity of Jerusalem, Daniel wrote, ``I turned to the Lord God, pleading in earnest prayer, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes.'' (Daniel 9:3). Jesus made reference to ashes, ``If the miracles worked in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they would have reformed in sackcloth and ashes long ago.'' (Matthew 11:21). In the Middle Ages, the priest would bless the dying person with holy water, saying, ``Remember that thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return.'' The Church adapted the use of ashes to mark the beginning of the penitential season of Lent, when we remember our mortality and mourn for our sins. In the present liturgy for Ash Wednesday, it remembers that as well. I simply rise to remind us of what the symbolism is, if we go around the hallways and see people with ashes on their foreheads. The symbolism there is about the mortality of each of us, that from dust we came and to dust we return. And it is a symbolism and a day of reflecting on our own sins and our own needs. I think maybe that is a useful thing for us to do as a nation, to reflect on what we have done right, and what we have done wrong, and see what we can do better as we move forward. So this day of Ash Wednesday seems to be a good day for us to reflect on our own mortality, our own sinfulness, and what we can do to be better both individually and as a nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to address my colleagues for a few minutes about the budget proposal that the President will put forward tonight. I look forward to the proposal. I think it is going to have a number of priorities for the country and the direction in which the country should move. These priorities include fiscal restraint, debt reduction, and responsible tax relief. It is these three areas that I want to address briefly today. The President will put forward a budget request that certainly has plenty of spending in it--in my estimation, probably too much. It is a $1.9 trillion budget. That is a very large proposal. It includes responsible tax relief--$1.6 trillion in tax relief over a 10-year period of time. This will set the stage for an honest discussion of taxes and needed tax cuts. As colleagues know, the budget surplus projected by the Congressional Budget Office is lower than it would have been without the increases in spending by Congress over the past few years. I have a chart that points out what happens with surpluses. We should be saving the surplus and cutting taxes with it, however people say: We have all this money, let's spend it. This is what happened during the spending spree in the last 6 months of last year, which reduced the 10- year surplus by $561 billion alone. That happened during a 6-month period at the end of last year. There is an iron rule of government that if you have money lying on the table, it is going to be spent. We need to pay down the debt and cut taxes; we don't need these sizes of spending increases across the board. We need increases in some areas, and we need to cut spending in other areas. The second point is fiscal discipline, particularly in the area of corporate welfare. Now is the time, as we look at re-prioritizing-- putting more money in some areas and less in others--to address corporate welfare and zero these areas out, putting funds from these areas in such places as the President has proposed, and increasing the budget for the National Institutes of Health. The President is proposing an increase in NIH funding of $2.8 billion, or almost 14 percent. I think this is something for which we can all be proud. It is a basic research function. It helps us in discovering what we can do to live longer, healthier lives. That is very good. Let's take the increase in funding from places like corporate welfare and put it into NIH without a huge growth in the overall spending. I am particularly heartened that the President is looking at doing exactly this--cutting in some areas to produce increases in other areas. Yet, at the same time, the President is trimming the growth of Government spending down to a 4-percent growth rate. This constitutes important increases in funding for programs in Government that deserve more funding, as well as reductions in other areas of Government that need to be reevaluated. I want to point out two other things because there are a number of people saying the size of the tax cut is too big. It is $1.6 trillion over a 10-year period. To give the overall example of what is taking place, here is a pie chart of the Bush tax cut as a portion of the total revenue during this 10-year time period. Total revenue is $28.4 trillion; the Bush tax cut is $1.6 trillion. The Bush tax cut proposal is a small portion of total revenue. In a situation where we are overtaxing the public, we can afford to do this. What about the allocation of this surplus that we have? Are we using enough to pay down the debt? The answer is, yes, we are. We should pay down the debt, and we can pay down the debt. The remaining surplus is $1.1 trillion; the Bush tax proposal is $1.6 trillion. The Social Security and Medicare funds set-aside are $2.9 trillion. This is an allocation of where the overall surplus is going. Most of it is going to Social Security and Medicare. So what we need is a good, honest debate about tax cuts. A final point I want to make is about triggers on tax cuts. Some say, well, OK, we will do tax cuts, but if our receipts aren't as large as projected, if the surplus isn't as big as it is projected to be, let's cut the size of this tax cut. I don't think that is a good idea. Tax cuts need to be firmly in place for the community and the Nation to be able to react and say: I am going to have more confidence and wherewithal to spend if I know the tax cut will be here. I don't think triggers are a good idea. But if triggers get put in for a smaller tax cut--say, if our receipts are lower than we project and we put in a trigger to make the tax cut smaller--we should say if the surplus is bigger than projected, let's have a trigger for a bigger tax cut. If we are going to produce a trigger for a smaller one, let's look at a trigger for a bigger tax cut if receipts are larger than currently being projected in the budget. This is an exciting time for us in the country as we look at the prospects of the new President putting forward his budget allocations. There is going to be a lot to talk about, in a positive sense, on fiscal restraint, debt reduction, and tax relief--important topics for this body and for the American public. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to address an urgent issue in the rural parts of my State regarding a problem we are having with the digital divide being created. What is taking place is that in urban and suburban areas, they are getting access to high-speed Internet access so people can get on and get large quantities of data about which they can communicate back and forth rapidly. That is occurring and it is a good thing. In the rural areas of my State and in many places across the country, they are not getting access to high-speed Internet. They have the old type of carrier that can get Internet access. They have Internet access, but they cannot get the high speed. Less than 19 percent of rural areas across the country have that high-speed Internet access compared to over 80 percent of the suburban areas across the country. I will shortly be submitting a bill to try to address this inequity that is taking place and to keep this digital divide from further exacerbating the economies in suburban areas versus rural areas. The bill I put forward last year was the Regulatory Relief Act. It provides regulatory relief for those companies operating in rural areas to go ahead and deploy high-speed Internet access, and then not have to sell this new equipment at a reduced market price. It provides a regulatory relief to them to be able to do so. I have worked on this issue for some period of time. We have worked on it in the Commerce Committee. There have been hearings held in the Commerce Committee on this. In the past, typically in the United States, when one of these sorts of situations starts to develop where rural areas get hindered because of their population being spread over wide areas versus urban areas, the Congress has frequently stepped in, the U.S. Government has frequently stepped in. Rural electrification and rural telephony come to mind, where you wouldn't have gotten distribution in the rural areas because it was just so far between people and the private companies could not make money. In this situation, we are not going to have to put resources forward but, rather, we have to put regulatory relief forward for the investment that will take place. I have contacted a number of private sector groups that are looking at this and saying they will invest if we will provide them some regulatory relief. We will get that number up from 19 percent to a much higher number. Last year, in the bill we put forward, and what we will put forward this year as well, is a requirement that, to get the regulatory relief, there has to be an increased deployment into the rural areas. That will be part of this as well. It is a common theme in Washington today that broadband Internet access is revolutionizing the ways in which ever greater numbers of Americans are using the Internet. No longer a domain of simple data, graphics, and pictures, broadband access and its faster transmission speeds are transforming the Internet from a 56 bit-limited medium into a multi-megabyte medium, the practical outcome of which are functions such as video on demand, invaluable real-time telemedicine, improved distance learning, and powerful new tools for consumers and businesses alike on the e-commerce frontier. Yet, as we revel in this technological marvel, we continue to find ourselves faced with the reality that there has been and continues to be a growing digital divide in our Nation--a separation of our urban and rural communities into broadband haves and have nots respectively. While it may have become fashionable for us to recognize the threat of this disparity it has not been so fashionable to actually do something about it. So, as we introduce legislative proposals, hold hearings, and generally acknowledge the difficulty in advancing any particular plan to help rural America, the digital divide continues to grow. Last year the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in conjunction with the Rural Utilities Service concluded that broadband deployment in rural areas was indeed lacking. NTIA and RUS found that cable TV companies and local telephone companies were focusing on deploying cable modems and DSL in markets with the highest population densities in order to maximize revenues. It is no wonder then that the Federal Communications Commission's most recent report on the status of broadband deployment found that a mere 19 percent of our most remote communities had at least one subscriber to high-speed Internet access. During the 106th Congress I introduced legislation, the Broadband Regulatory Relief Act of 2000, to serve as a vehicle for overcoming this divide. My legislative efforts last Congress reflected the real and pressing need for action to insure that all Americans have access to broadband. My legislation's answer to this problem was to create an incentive for local telephone companies--already providing telephone service in our rural and remote communities--to deploy these advanced services. By providing these companies with regulatory relief we can counter the high cost of deploying broadband facilities in rural areas where populations are more dispersed than in densely populated areas. Currently, the cable TV and competitive local telephone industries find their advanced services unencumbered by regulation. But because they have coalesced around our more densely populated regions, their marketplace freedom has not translated into rural broadband access. Yet, some members of the competitive community continue to argue that competition alone will ultimately drive broadband deployment into rural areas. As the FCC's deployment statistics bare out, this is not occurring. We can ill afford to hurry up and wait for the day when these companies see fit to include rural America in business plans currently dominated by a focus on urban businesses. The economics of broadband deployment in rural areas simply do not facilitate the type of competition we are currently witnessing in urban and densely populated suburban areas. Meanwhile, contrasted with cable TV and CLECs, we continue to regulate broadband services offered by incumbent telephone companies as if they are part and parcel of their traditional telephone businesses. This simply is not the case. Broadband facilities being deployed throughout our cities and towns require billions of dollars of new capital investment in new infrastructure. Under the current regulatory regime, the sparse populations of rural communities diminish the return on broadband investment to such an extent that incumbent phone companies are not deploying them in those areas. By removing these incumbent regulations on what is new infrastructure in a nascent market, we will be providing local phone companies with the incentive to deploy broadband in exchange for the opportunity to pursue new revenue streams. Let me be clear that my legislation in no way seeks to upset competition developing in our urban markets. The Broadband Regulatory Relief Act would have removed voice regulations from the advanced service offerings by incumbent local telephone companies, while preserving those same competitive measures for their traditional telephone services. The bill simply recognizes that broadband, as opposed to traditional voice service, is a new service in which no one competitor should be given a government-mandated advantage. Incumbent telephone companies started from the same zero broadband-subscribership levels as the cable TV and CLEC industry, and each of them should go forward in broadband deployment on a level playing field. These are the principles embodied in the legislation I introduced last year, and will be embodied in legislation I intend to introduce shortly. I remain convinced that, before seeking out alternative solutions, we must look to deregulation as the best, most expedient means of insuring rural America is not left behind. The power of industry to innovate and deploy products and services to the public once government is removed from the marketplace is awesome, as proven by the impressive growth of the wireless industry, the Internet and e- commerce--both representing industries largely spared from Government interference. Some have suggested alternatives such as tax incentives or fixed wireless solutions to achieve rural broadband deployment. While we can and should seek out alternative means of deploying these services throughout the Nation, we cannot afford to delay in enabling currently available solutions from working now. We can always seek out new alternatives and when confronted with marketplace developments that threaten the interests of consumers, we can certainly enact measures to protect them. But the challenge facing us most immediately in this matter is to be unafraid to rely on our industries, responsible for the long period of economic growth we have enjoyed, to do what they do best: innovate, and offer new products and services to the public. I recognize that others have differing views and there exists a range of opinions on how best to promote broadband deployment in rural areas. While I may disagree with some of the views and proposals existing in the marketplace of ideas on this matter, I remain keenly interested in working with those who advocate them in the further interests of rural America. I am heartened by the knowledge that whatever our philosophical or policy-based disagreements, we all share the common goal of extending this vitally important technology to rural America. I look forward to working with all interested parties to seek a solution on how best to deliver these important services to rural and remote communities, and I am confident we can work together to achieve our common goal. The kind Senator from West Virginia has been willing to allow me to come here, even though he has patiently waited on the floor to make his statement. I appreciate his generosity in allowing me to do so. I appreciate his kindness and generosity and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Kevin Krukfy, be allowed the privilege of the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will read portions of the article because it is so instructive about what Valentine's Day is about. In the 3rd century, the Roman Empire was ruled by Claudius Gothicus. He was nicknamed ``Claudius the Cruel''-- That is a pretty auspicious name for an emperor-- because of his harsh leadership and tendency for getting into wars. In fact, he was in so many wars he was having a difficult time recruiting soldiers. Claudius believed that recruitment for the Army was down because Roman men did not want to leave their loves or their families behind. . . . So what do you do if you are emperor and cannot get people to sign up? He banned the institution of marriage and said there was not going to be marriage allowed anymore. Thousands of couples saw their hopes for matrimony dashed by the single act of a tyrant. But a simple Christian priest named Valentine came forward and stood up for love. He began to secretly marry soldiers before they went off to war, despite the emperor's orders. In 269 AD, Emperor Claudius found out about the secret ceremonies. He had Valentine thrown into prison and ordered him put to death. He gave his life so couples could be bonded together in holy matrimony. They may have killed the man, but not his spirit. Even centuries after his death, the story of Valentine's self-sacrificing commitment to love was legendary in Rome. Eventually, he was granted sainthood and the Catholic church decided to create a feast in his honor. They picked February 14 because of the ancient belief that birds (particularly lovebirds and doves) began to mate on that very day. I think it is interesting to look back into the history of why it is we celebrate certain days and when we celebrate them. There is usually a beautiful story, this tapestry of something of beauty in our heritage that I always think of in redigging that well and seeing what is there.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes on a bill that I am going to be putting forward shortly and then tie it in to this day. It is Valentine's Day. I hope everybody has called their special person. I hope they have called their mother. I hope they have called the people to whom they think they ought to reach out. If they have not done so, there is still time. There is special delivery of flowers, candy, and others things that can be done. They can still capture the day and the moment for the people to whom they should be reaching out. I want to talk about a national day of reconciliation. This is an effort by both Houses to identify what needs to be done to reconcile the Nation and past and present problems. We are at the beginning of a new administration and at the beginning of a new millennium. This would be a good time to do this. It is a simple proposition, a basic proposition of what we need to do to identify--something we should have done--and correct past wrongs. I am hoping we can identify and move that forward without difficulty and controversy. It will be a very healthy exercise. It is also healthy to recognize the basis of some of these days we celebrate. That is why I put forward this notion of reconciliation on Valentine's Day. It is a lot more than just hearts, cards, and candy. I commend to the Senate an article written by Mark Merrill in the Washington Times today. He is president of Family First, an independent, nonprofit research group that strengthens families. He supports the story of Valentine, the true Valentine. I understand there are three St. Valentines. All three were martyred. All three were tremendously dedicated to other individuals and to helping them. The one he identifies is the first Valentine. It is quite a story. I ask unanimous consent to print this article in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on July 27, 1920, in a speech before the Republican national convention in Chicago accepting his party's nomination for Vice President, Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge exclaimed, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten.'' With these striking words, Coolidge chastened the convention delegates to never take lightly the sacrifice of American soldiers, who during World War I, left freedom's shores to defend democracy abroad. Back then, Coolidge recognized that a great country must honor its guardians, lest it be forgotten. This week, President George W. Bush has come forward under the same banner as Coolidge did in 1920, to declare that America must not forget its defenders. In a speech before the brave men and women of the United States Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart Georgia, President Bush proposed $5.7 billion in new spending for the soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Armed Forces. Specifically, the President has proposed dedicating $400 million for across-the-board pay raises, $1 billion for re-enlistment bonuses, $3.9 billion for improving military health benefits, and $400 million to improve military housing. I applaud the President on this brave and honorable proposal. I find it appalling that before the President announced this proposal many were criticizing his decision to temporarily freeze program spending at last year's appropriated levels. When the President ordered the Secretary of Defense to conduct a thorough review of Pentagon weapons programs before proceeding with any requests for supplemental funds, he was attacked in the press for breaking his campaign promise to ``bolster our national defense.'' I find such assertions to be not only mean-spirited, but also misguided. Make no mistake, newer and better weapons systems are crucial toward maintaining our national defense. We live in a world where we face real and present hostilities. Rogue nations are becoming increasingly capable of striking America's shores, and I look forward to the debate we will have in the Senate this year about building ballistic missile defense systems, and other ``next generation'' weapons to counter these terrors. However, I fully realize that without qualified men and women trained in the use and support of these systems, we are merely left with empty threats to counter these real hostilities. Human beings are the driving force behind our national security. Tanks, ships, and fighter jets do not win wars. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen do. Arlington does not honor the memory of our greatest weapons. Those hallowed grounds are sacred to the memory of the men and women who have laid down their lives using and supporting those weapons. Concern for the individuals who proudly serve our Nation as soldiers should always be our first priority when we debate our national defense policies. By proceeding first to the need of the soldiers ahead of the need for new weapons, President Bush has demonstrated he has his priorities straight and I pledge my support for his proposal in the U.S. Senate. The bond between a soldier and his nation must be reciprocal. The United States must rely on soldiers to defend against her enemies, and, for over 225 years, these soldiers have never failed. However, we do not always recognize the fact that the favor often goes unreturned. Far too often throughout our history the United States has relied on the defense of the soldier, while failing, in turn, to defend the soldier against their own enemies. The enemies of our soldiers are low pay, substandard housing, and second class health benefits. No one would deny that all of our citizens are in perpetual need of a good wage, a good home, and good health care, and yet, we often act as if our soldiers are in need of less. Addressing the New York State Legislature in 1775, General George Washington reminded the legislators, ``When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.'' Our citizens, on becoming soldiers, have not left want and need behind. It is our duty to afford them with means to not only survive, but to also thrive. We can afford no less. Freedom is never free. Mr. President, again, I commend President Bush for coming forward and declaring the need to support the defenders of the Nation. Again, this week, President George Bush came forward under the same banner as Calvin Coolidge did in 1920, to declare that America must not forget its defenders. In a speech given to the Army's 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, GA, President Bush proposed $5.7 billion in new spending for the soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the armed services. Specifically, the President has proposed dedicating $400 million for across-the-board pay raises, $1 billion for reenlistment bonuses, and other benefits to the men and women in uniform. I end my comments by saying that this is long overdue. We have several military installations in Kansas. We, unfortunately, have people in our armed forces who are not well paid and not paid near enough for the job they are doing. It is past time for us to step forward and pay our men and women in uniform sufficiently for the work they do. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.