Floor Statements

Mr. President, earlier today, my State of Oklahoma, as well as the Nation, lost a true friend of education.

Ed Hennessee, a longtime resident of Lawton, OK died doing what he loved best--advocating for children attending federally connected school districts.

Ed served the Lawton Public Schools in a variety of capacities for many years retiring as assistant superintendent for business in 1995.

While in that capacity he fought for a program that I have come to champion--Impact Aid.

The program's origin was rooted in Oklahoma in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when Oscar Rose, superintendent of the Mid-Del Schools and others convinced Congress that the Federal Government had a responsibility and an obligation to provide assistance to school districts serving children whose parents were employed by the Federal Government or the military. Ed Hennessee continued that legacy right up to the time of his death this morning.

During his long education career, Ed received many honors, including being named the State of Oklahoma Teacher of the Year.

However, he was most proud of the fact that he was helping children.

He truly understood that education is about giving children an opportunity to be successful. One of his most frequent statements was ``Teach a child to love to learn, then you will be successful teaching them any school subject.'' Ed was a success because he loved learning.

He also loved helping others have the opportunity to learn, and, thankfully, he taught many the importance of using their gifts and talents to help our children. Although he retired from the Lawton Public Schools in the mid-1990s, he continued serving federally connected schools. As executive director of the National Council of Impacted Schools, he continued to work for both Oklahoma federally connected schools, along with other schools throughout the nation.

He visited my office at least twice a year to talk about ways to improve the program. He was an expert on the intricacies of the often complex and confusing details of Impact Aid and freely offered that expertise. When my staff or I needed information about how schools in Oklahoma and around the country would be affected by the level of funding appropriated for Impact Aid, Ed knew the answers. He was an innovator for Impact Aid.

For example, S. 777 was a bill I developed from one of his ideas. Ed was in Washington this weekend to advocate for the Impact Aid program when he became ill. He was doing what he had been doing for more than a quarter of a century--- asking Congress to fulfill its obligation to school districts all across this country that are impacted by a federal presence.

Prior to Ed's retirement, he served on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools and served as its President from 1991 to 1993. He never stopped putting the needs of federally connected students at the top of his priority list. His presence will indeed be missed--not only by those who knew him well, such as his dear wife Edna who was always by his side--but also by those who enjoy the fruits of his labor.

Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce the Commodity Assessment Protection and Reform Act.

This legislation fixes a potential problem for our wheat producers in the State of Oklahoma as well as other wheat producing states.

As Government encourages agricultural producers to become more responsible for their own marketing and research programs, it is vital that we give producers the ability to do just that.

To enhance marketing and research of agricultural commodities, farm programs for many years have authorized the use of marketing loans for some commodities. Producers receive cash loans using the commodity as collateral. Marketing loans allow the producer to market crops while also providing cash to pay outstanding bills.

These marketing and research programs provide many benefits: increasing commodity category sales; creating a viable, thriving marketplace for individual businesses; providing greater opportunity for brands and businesses to compete for their share of the category; protecting small producers from being severely disadvantaged against large competitors that could undermine industry growth; building a more favorable economic environment--better prices for producers, more revenue growth for processors; reducing dependence on taxpayer dollars for support payments and government administration in times of economic hardship; providing an open, free flow of consumer information to help consumers make informed choices about purchasing these commodities; and providing ongoing investments in research to ensure product quality, safety and nutrition expectations.

For wheat, this program is administered by the individual State wheat commissions and is not a national program. In Oklahoma, wheat producers have the option to opt out of the program if they choose.

Wheat producers in Oklahoma, and in many other States, have supported this system for collecting assessments on the commodities they produce. For wheat placed under loan with the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC, the CCC has collected these grower-funded assessments. Again, these assessments are used to fund research and marketing programs.

The loan placement is considered to occur at the first point of sale. The CCC has supported State commissions in the collection of grower- funded assessments for many years. These State assessments have been collected under a cooperative agreement defined in a Memoranda of Understanding between individual State commodity commissions and the

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

Mr. President, it is not very often that things come up that require an immediate fix, but I think one has.

First, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized to speak as in morning business.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the recent CBS incident involving the record of President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard sheds light on the need for a Federal statute generally criminalizing the forgery of Federal Government documents. I believe that when it comes to crimes involving the fabrication of Federal documents or writings, the Federal Government has an obligation to step in and show the offenders there are serious consequences.

Many experts initially doubted the authenticity of the memos in question, which negatively and falsely characterized President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard. We now believe these memos were created on a modern word processing computer rather than the 1970-era typewriter, as alleged in the original CBS story.

LTC Jerry Killian was George Bush's commanding officer during his service in Vietnam. Unfortunately, Lieutenant Colonel Killian died in 1984 and therefore he could not defend his records that he so accurately discussed at that time about the quality of service of our President.

I would say this, though: That Colonel Killian's secretary Marion Knox typed all of his correspondence between the years 1956 and 1979. Referring to the memos in question, she said, ``I know I didn't type 'em'.''

She was very clear. She didn't qualify it. She said, ``I know I didn't type 'em'.''

It is clear that the documents CBS shared with American voters were more than suspect. After the fact--since CBS cannot verify its reporting--I am pleased to see that CBS has belatedly retracted its story.

We also now know that the Kerry campaign was aware CBS was planning to air the story 4 or 5 days before it was aired, while the White House did not know about the airing of this story until the eve of the story breaking. That shows an obvious bias. I don't think anyone can deny it.

President Bush stands by his honorable service in the Air National Guard. He should not have to worry about the threat of nefarious and petty efforts to defame his character.

I appreciated Dan Rather's words: ``I want to say personally and directly I am sorry,'' but saying I am sorry just doesn't cut it.

Under much pressure, CBS has appointed an independent panel to investigate its reporting of the President's service in the Texas Air National Guard. I understand this panel is to be headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburg and former Associated Press chief executive and former Pennsylvania Governor Lou Boccardi.

I agree with many of my colleagues from the House of Representatives who were dismayed that CBS, a network that should be responsible for reporting objective news, involved itself in a campaign that misled the public and slandered the President. Therefore, I am proposing legislation to criminalize this type of action in general. Most people believe there is already a statute on the books that would have this criminalized.

After learning of the CBS scandal, I was curious about the penalty. I figured there had to be one for the forgery of Federal documents. In seeking the answer to this question, I called the Department of Justice. Their congressional relations office promptly responded: ``It depends.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that communication be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, the Justice Department stated that similar cases were often charged under the general sections of the fraud and false statements chapter of the United States Criminal Code. Those sections have proven quite useful to the prosecutors at the Department of Justice.

I learned of a loophole in the existing law regarding forgery and false statements. I learned there are no general sections of the United States Criminal Code for forgery in counterfeiting as there are in the other cases. Officials from the Department of Justice noted the absence of a general stand-alone statute that criminalizes the actions of those who would forge documents of the Federal Government, regardless of the end they seek to achieve or what these documents are. Currently, the prosecution of such actions depends completely on the context and how forged documents were the means to an end.

Chapter 25 of title 18 of the United States Code addresses various offenses in counterfeiting and forgery. The current 45 sections of the counterfeiting and forgery chapter essentially fall into four broad categories.

This is very important, because if forgery takes place and they do not fall into one of these four categories, then there is no penalty involved: No. 1, financial obligations. Obviously, this is not such a case; No. 2, military and naval discharge certificates; No. 3, transportation matters and motor vehicle documents; and No. 4, the seals of agencies, including courts, departments, and other agencies.

What we are saying is, if it doesn't fall into forgery, it doesn't fall into one of these four categories; there is no general statute that would offer a penalty.

The legislative history of the 45 sections of the counterfeiting and forgery chapter indicate that the sections were enacted piecemeal without a unifying, overarching section. If forgery takes place but does not fall into one of these sections, there is no penalty.

Chapter 47 of title 18 of the United States Code regarding the fraud and false statements chapter also contains disparate sections enacted piecemeal.

In contrast, however, the fraud and false statements chapter does have an overarching section, section 1001, that unifies its disparate, piecemeal parts as contrasted to the forgery statute.

In light of the recent situation involving President Bush's record, these broad, disparate sections need to include, in general, the fabrication of Federal writings or memos.

In speaking with officials from the Department of Justice, I have also become aware of concerns over whether the existing statute regarding fraud, 18 USCS 1001, can be used in this CBS incident. Chapter 47 on fraud and false statements specifically condemns false statements but only those with the intent to defraud the Federal Government. Again, this is talking about fraud and false statements, not the forgery statute.

There are questions as to whether the ``intent to defraud the United States or any agency thereof'' is applicable or whether it could successfully be argued that instead it was the voters of the United States who were initially defrauded, distinguishing in certain fashion the ``United States'' from voters or the like.

These concerns validate the need to criminalize the specific act of forging Federal documents. Technically, in the CBS incident, it could be argued that the forged Federal document did not monetarily or otherwise tangibly take away from the Federal Government. I would argue that it did harm the Federal Government by infringing on the Federal Government's copyright on its work. It certainly did affect millions of Americans by giving them a false and misleading impression about a Presidential candidate. But it needs to be clarified.

As placed under chapter 25 of title 18, my bill would criminalize general forgery of Federal Government documents, including those that characterize or purport to characterize official Federal activity, service, contract, obligation, duty, or property.

If someone attempts to forge in the name of an official of the Federal Government a document or memo that addresses an official Government duty or act, that person should be held accountable. There needs to be a Federal law prohibiting such forgery generally so prosecution of the same does not fall through the cracks.

Currently, there is no catchall section to address all forged Federal writings, such as a vote from one official to another about a Federal service.

I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and I honor those who serve in the National Guard. Not only has the CBS incident resulted in slander to the honorable National Guard service of President Bush, it also highlights the risk of the records of other military service members and, moreover, all Federal servants governmentwide alike.

A civil servant at the General Services Administration, which the Environment and Public Works Committee which I chair has to oversee, is equally deserving of being protected from a forgery of his or her work records. Right now there is no section in the forgery chapter of the United States Code that specifically addresses protection for General Services Administration personnel. This omission is a problem we must correct.

My legislation also includes language to condemn those who, knowingly or negligently failing to know, transmit or present any such forged Federal writing or record which characterizes official Federal activities or service. This general criminalization of publishing forged documents follows existing provisions of the forgery code. If a major news network broadcasts a story based on alleged Federal documents, they must take the responsibility to verify those records.

While CBS may not have taken part in the creation of the memo in question, and indeed I think I join all of us Americans in yearning to know who did forge these memos, the network still touted them as verified and broadcast the forged memos as truthful to millions of American voters. I look forward to a full criminal investigation of who did forge the documents.

I draw an analogy in distinguishing between murder and negligent homicide. Those are crimes. Murder is intentional and negligent homicide is

not, but in both crimes someone has been killed. While CBS may not have had the intention to deceive its audience, the false information was communicated when it was negligently not verified and the damage was done nevertheless.

If it were not for the work of many astute people working through the Internet and otherwise, this travesty would not have been on its way to being exposed and fully prosecuted criminally. CBS and its surrogates pointedly disparaged the people who told the truth as mere second-class journalists of the Internet and table television and talk radio persuasions. Rather, it is CBS which has proven itself to be even less than second-class journalism.

I note that numerous pundits have been discussing recently the very vitality of the networks is faltering with the explosion of other media. Pundits have cited CBS's additional poor judgment in failing to cover the political conventions as well as other media outlets did. CBS owes a separate apology to those truth tellers whom it slandered and who have shown better judgment than CBS.

It can be difficult to communicate information without also conveying one's personal conviction on a matter. However, in a free society such as ours, the news media has a responsibility to work to be fair and balanced and to tell both sides of the story without letting a journalistic spin cloud their judgment.

Television, print, and the Internet are a powerful media. They shape our lives. They provide some part of the education of our children, whether we like it or not. The time has come for the media to take responsibility for its actions rather than manipulate public opinion to lobby the causes and politicians the media support. Facts, not conclusions or erroneous records, should be reported. Elections are a powerful example of why journalists must hold themselves to the highest of standards. People can then synthesize information for themselves.

In conclusion, I argue that the media has a grave responsibility to ensure that what it reports is a true and accurate representation of the facts. It could be argued that if CBS either forged the documents or knowingly represented forged documents as being true, there is no penalty under the law. We need to criminalize and establish the consequences for forging Federal documents. I urge my colleagues to stand with me. I cannot imagine anyone not supporting such a piece of legislation.

Exhibit I

There's no stand-alone federal offense for forging

government documents.

The criminal penalties for the forgery would depend upon

the circumstances, the context, basically the underlying

facts of the matter--what type of document, for what purpose,

what was done with it, what was intended--a lot of various

factors that would influence the decision about how it would

be charged and hence what the penalties would be.

There is no stand-alone forgery of government documents

offense. It depends on the context of the matter.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the recent CBS incident involving the record of President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard sheds light on the need for a Federal statute generally criminalizing the forgery of Federal Government documents. I believe that when it comes to crimes involving the fabrication of Federal documents or writings, the Federal Government has an obligation to step in and show the offenders there are serious consequences.

Many experts initially doubted the authenticity of the memos in question, which negatively and falsely characterized President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard. We now believe these memos were created on a modern word processing computer rather than the 1970-era typewriter, as alleged in the original CBS story.

LTC Jerry Killian was George Bush's commanding officer during his service in Vietnam. Unfortunately, Lieutenant Colonel Killian died in 1984 and therefore he could not defend his records that he so accurately discussed at that time about the quality of service of our President.

I would say this, though: That Colonel Killian's secretary Marion Knox typed all of his correspondence between the years 1956 and 1979. Referring to the memos in question, she said, ``I know I didn't type 'em'.''

She was very clear. She didn't qualify it. She said, ``I know I didn't type 'em'.''

It is clear that the documents CBS shared with American voters were more than suspect. After the fact--since CBS cannot verify its reporting--I am pleased to see that CBS has belatedly retracted its story.

We also now know that the Kerry campaign was aware CBS was planning to air the story 4 or 5 days before it was aired, while the White House did not know about the airing of this story until the eve of the story breaking. That shows an obvious bias. I don't think anyone can deny it.

President Bush stands by his honorable service in the Air National Guard. He should not have to worry about the threat of nefarious and petty efforts to defame his character.

I appreciated Dan Rather's words: ``I want to say personally and directly I am sorry,'' but saying I am sorry just doesn't cut it.

Under much pressure, CBS has appointed an independent panel to investigate its reporting of the President's service in the Texas Air National Guard. I understand this panel is to be headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburg and former Associated Press chief executive and former Pennsylvania Governor Lou Boccardi.

I agree with many of my colleagues from the House of Representatives who were dismayed that CBS, a network that should be responsible for reporting objective news, involved itself in a campaign that misled the public and slandered the President. Therefore, I am proposing legislation to criminalize this type of action in general. Most people believe there is already a statute on the books that would have this criminalized.

After learning of the CBS scandal, I was curious about the penalty. I figured there had to be one for the forgery of Federal documents. In seeking the answer to this question, I called the Department of Justice. Their congressional relations office promptly responded: ``It depends.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that communication be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, the Justice Department stated that similar cases were often charged under the general sections of the fraud and false statements chapter of the United States Criminal Code. Those sections have proven quite useful to the prosecutors at the Department of Justice.

I learned of a loophole in the existing law regarding forgery and false statements. I learned there are no general sections of the United States Criminal Code for forgery in counterfeiting as there are in the other cases. Officials from the Department of Justice noted the absence of a general stand-alone statute that criminalizes the actions of those who would forge documents of the Federal Government, regardless of the end they seek to achieve or what these documents are. Currently, the prosecution of such actions depends completely on the context and how forged documents were the means to an end.

Chapter 25 of title 18 of the United States Code addresses various offenses in counterfeiting and forgery. The current 45 sections of the counterfeiting and forgery chapter essentially fall into four broad categories.

This is very important, because if forgery takes place and they do not fall into one of these four categories, then there is no penalty involved: No. 1, financial obligations. Obviously, this is not such a case; No. 2, military and naval discharge certificates; No. 3, transportation matters and motor vehicle documents; and No. 4, the seals of agencies, including courts, departments, and other agencies.

What we are saying is, if it doesn't fall into forgery, it doesn't fall into one of these four categories; there is no general statute that would offer a penalty.

The legislative history of the 45 sections of the counterfeiting and forgery chapter indicate that the sections were enacted piecemeal without a unifying, overarching section. If forgery takes place but does not fall into one of these sections, there is no penalty.

Chapter 47 of title 18 of the United States Code regarding the fraud and false statements chapter also contains disparate sections enacted piecemeal.

In contrast, however, the fraud and false statements chapter does have an overarching section, section 1001, that unifies its disparate, piecemeal parts as contrasted to the forgery statute.

In light of the recent situation involving President Bush's record, these broad, disparate sections need to include, in general, the fabrication of Federal writings or memos.

In speaking with officials from the Department of Justice, I have also become aware of concerns over whether the existing statute regarding fraud, 18 USCS 1001, can be used in this CBS incident. Chapter 47 on fraud and false statements specifically condemns false statements but only those with the intent to defraud the Federal Government. Again, this is talking about fraud and false statements, not the forgery statute.

There are questions as to whether the ``intent to defraud the United States or any agency thereof'' is applicable or whether it could successfully be argued that instead it was the voters of the United States who were initially defrauded, distinguishing in certain fashion the ``United States'' from voters or the like.

These concerns validate the need to criminalize the specific act of forging Federal documents. Technically, in the CBS incident, it could be argued that the forged Federal document did not monetarily or otherwise tangibly take away from the Federal Government. I would argue that it did harm the Federal Government by infringing on the Federal Government's copyright on its work. It certainly did affect millions of Americans by giving them a false and misleading impression about a Presidential candidate. But it needs to be clarified.

As placed under chapter 25 of title 18, my bill would criminalize general forgery of Federal Government documents, including those that characterize or purport to characterize official Federal activity, service, contract, obligation, duty, or property.

If someone attempts to forge in the name of an official of the Federal Government a document or memo that addresses an official Government duty or act, that person should be held accountable. There needs to be a Federal law prohibiting such forgery generally so prosecution of the same does not fall through the cracks.

Currently, there is no catchall section to address all forged Federal writings, such as a vote from one official to another about a Federal service.

I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and I honor those who serve in the National Guard. Not only has the CBS incident resulted in slander to the honorable National Guard service of President Bush, it also highlights the risk of the records of other military service members and, moreover, all Federal servants governmentwide alike.

A civil servant at the General Services Administration, which the Environment and Public Works Committee which I chair has to oversee, is equally deserving of being protected from a forgery of his or her work records. Right now there is no section in the forgery chapter of the United States Code that specifically addresses protection for General Services Administration personnel. This omission is a problem we must correct.

My legislation also includes language to condemn those who, knowingly or negligently failing to know, transmit or present any such forged Federal writing or record which characterizes official Federal activities or service. This general criminalization of publishing forged documents follows existing provisions of the forgery code. If a major news network broadcasts a story based on alleged Federal documents, they must take the responsibility to verify those records.

While CBS may not have taken part in the creation of the memo in question, and indeed I think I join all of us Americans in yearning to know who did forge these memos, the network still touted them as verified and broadcast the forged memos as truthful to millions of American voters. I look forward to a full criminal investigation of who did forge the documents.

I draw an analogy in distinguishing between murder and negligent homicide. Those are crimes. Murder is intentional and negligent homicide is

not, but in both crimes someone has been killed. While CBS may not have had the intention to deceive its audience, the false information was communicated when it was negligently not verified and the damage was done nevertheless.

If it were not for the work of many astute people working through the Internet and otherwise, this travesty would not have been on its way to being exposed and fully prosecuted criminally. CBS and its surrogates pointedly disparaged the people who told the truth as mere second-class journalists of the Internet and table television and talk radio persuasions. Rather, it is CBS which has proven itself to be even less than second-class journalism.

I note that numerous pundits have been discussing recently the very vitality of the networks is faltering with the explosion of other media. Pundits have cited CBS's additional poor judgment in failing to cover the political conventions as well as other media outlets did. CBS owes a separate apology to those truth tellers whom it slandered and who have shown better judgment than CBS.

It can be difficult to communicate information without also conveying one's personal conviction on a matter. However, in a free society such as ours, the news media has a responsibility to work to be fair and balanced and to tell both sides of the story without letting a journalistic spin cloud their judgment.

Television, print, and the Internet are a powerful media. They shape our lives. They provide some part of the education of our children, whether we like it or not. The time has come for the media to take responsibility for its actions rather than manipulate public opinion to lobby the causes and politicians the media support. Facts, not conclusions or erroneous records, should be reported. Elections are a powerful example of why journalists must hold themselves to the highest of standards. People can then synthesize information for themselves.

In conclusion, I argue that the media has a grave responsibility to ensure that what it reports is a true and accurate representation of the facts. It could be argued that if CBS either forged the documents or knowingly represented forged documents as being true, there is no penalty under the law. We need to criminalize and establish the consequences for forging Federal documents. I urge my colleagues to stand with me. I cannot imagine anyone not supporting such a piece of legislation.

Exhibit I

There's no stand-alone federal offense for forging

government documents.

The criminal penalties for the forgery would depend upon

the circumstances, the context, basically the underlying

facts of the matter--what type of document, for what purpose,

what was done with it, what was intended--a lot of various

factors that would influence the decision about how it would

be charged and hence what the penalties would be.

There is no stand-alone forgery of government documents

offense. It depends on the context of the matter.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I had the opportunity to watch Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, address the U.N. delegates. I wish he had seen what we all witnessed a few minutes ago when the great Prime Minister Allawi from Iraq gave one of the best messages I have ever heard to a joint meeting.

Much has been made about the Secretary General's remarks in an interview last week in which he called the war in Iraq ``illegal.'' Several of my colleagues, including Senator Coleman, have addressed this issue on the Senate floor, so I will not belabor the point. It is not an illegal war.

I would like to reemphasize that the liberation of Iraq was carried out to enforce Security Council resolutions. These were the serious consequences with which Saddam was threatened if he continued his illegal acts--his illegal acts.

Secretary General Annan's remarks seem to be based on the idea that without explicit Security Council permission, any military action is illegal under international law.

I remind my colleagues that in 1999, NATO forces had been conducting air operations in Kosovo for 72 days before the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution granting its blessings. I have not heard any condemnation of the NATO's action as being illegal.

Secretary General Annan's address centered on the rule of law. I want to read a brief excerpt of what he said. He said:

Yet today the rule of law is at risk around the world.

Again and again, we see fundamental laws shamelessly

disregarded--those that ordain respect for innocent life, for

civilians, for the vulnerable--especially children.

To mention only a few flagrant and topical examples: In

Iraq, we see civilians massacred in cold blood, while relief

workers, journalists and other noncombatants are taken

hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion. At

the same time, we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully

abused.

That is what the Secretary General said.

I am not going to suggest that the abuses of Abu Ghraib prison were not wrong. They were wrong. I will say more about that in a minute.

My point is the Secretary General, by lumping these two things together, has put terrorists and insurgents on the same level as America. This is a fundamental difference between a nation that recognizes the rule of law and punishes its own citizens if they violate it, and groups of outlaws whose charter is written in blood and whose tactics solely rely on violations of the rule of law. The people of the United States should know this, and so should the Secretary General.

The instances of prisoner abuse that have received so much media attention during the past few months were violations of these standards. A handful of the violators were already being punished. It was already taking place long before the media frenzy took place.

America had to deal with Americans violating the rule of law, and it has done so head on. But I suggest the United Nations itself is not above the rule of law. We are just now beginning to learn how the United Nations allowed the U.N. Oil for Food Program to degenerate into little more than another source of income for Saddam Hussein's bloody regime.

The U.N. response to allegations of wrongdoing has been half-hearted at best. Is this the rule of law trumpeted by the Secretary General? Let's be clear. A country's adhering to the rule of law does not mean that its citizens will not do bad things. We must do everything we can to prevent such occurrences, but despite our best efforts or the best efforts in any country, it is not going to be totally successful.

People are, well, only human. We know that. The rule of law is borne out in identifying, condemning, and punishing those who violate the standards on which we all agree. This is exactly what we do in America.

The U.N. states a commitment to the rule of law. We will continue to work with other nations in this international forum to effect change for the better. But I and many of my colleagues share skepticism as to whether the U.N. can effectively realize its noble goals. If the past is any indication, we can expect a lot of talk and very little action.

In Iraq, we are fulfilling, to quote the Secretary General, ``our responsibility to protect innocent civilians from genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.'' If this is not the rule of law, I would like to know what it is.

All the criticisms the Secretary General was aiming at the United States were refuted directly or indirectly by Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi when he spoke to our joint meeting. I am overwhelmed by it, and certainly hope the Secretary General also heard his greatly, profound remarks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine.

Let me make a couple comments about this man.

First of all, before he leaves the Chamber, I want to thank the Senator from Florida for his comments and for his efforts in this nomination. I also thank the chairman of our select committee in the Senate, the Senator from Kansas.

Two years after I was elected to the House--I believe it was 2 years afterward--Porter Goss was elected to the House from Florida. It took us no time at all to figure out this guy was one of the foremost authorities on the intelligence community. He had experience with the CIA, with Army Intelligence. We relied on him. I am talking about way back 16 years ago.

When I went from the House to the Senate in 1994, I took the place of Senator David Boren, who is now the president of Oklahoma University. He is a very close friend of mine. He was my predecessor in this Senate seat. He was also chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The thing he warned me of when I first came in was: You are going to have to do something about this mess we have in intelligence. He said: You have the DIA and the CIA and the FBI and the NSA, and nobody is talking to each other.

I found out before too long that was the case. He said he had been working on this for about 6 or 7 years and had not been able to achieve it. It became a turf battle. On one occasion I found there was a listening device the NSA had that they would not even share with the FBI for some of their investigations. This was wrong.

We have come a long way since that time. It has been my experience in both Kosovo and Bosnia that you have a lot of these agencies around the table sharing information and working together that did not do so before. So I believe we have come a long way.

One of the reasons I have been resisting a lot of changes within our intelligence system is I wanted to wait until Porter Goss came on board. I believe Porter Goss has more knowledge on intelligence than anybody else who could have been nominated.

I think the President made an excellent nomination. I think we see by this bipartisan support that we are going to be able to overcome the obstacles and move ahead aggressively in achieving quality intelligence to protect the American people.

I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding to me.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session to consider S. 1039, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2003, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the Senate return to executive session.

Of course.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session to consider S. 1039, the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2003, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the Senate return to executive session.

Mr. President, I would like to at least mention this is a bill that is in the committee I chair. It is one that has been requested by virtually every community we have in Oklahoma. In fact, the Senator who is presiding right now was a cosponsor of this bill. It passed the committee by a vote of 12 to 6. It passed the House of Representatives, once on a voice vote and the second time by a vote of 413 to 2--413 to 2. Virtually every Republican and Democrat voted for it. In fact, every Democrat voted for it. Only two Republicans did not vote for it. The House cosponsors include Congressman Jim Oberstar.

Wastewater treatment works are responsible for treating municipal and industrial waste to a level clean enough to be released into the Nation's waterways. I have to say, I cannot think of any one bill that means more to local communities. Having been a mayor of a major community at one time, this is a very critical bill. It is one I am hoping there will be no objection to when we come back from this recess in September.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I stand here today in memory of a courageous young American who gave his life for freedom. He gave his life for the people of Iraq, he gave it for his fellow Americans, and he gave it especially for those he loved. SGT Kyle Brinlee at the age of 21 gave up his life for the sake of others, and for his service and his sacrifice, I am proud to honor him on the Senate floor today.

SGT Kyle A. Brinlee of Pryor, OK, was deployed from Fort Sill and served as a masonry and carpentry specialist with the 120th Combat Engineering Battalion in Iraq. When he went to Iraq in February, he left the familiar comfort of Pryor, OK, for the unknown hostility of the Middle East. He left his family, friends, and neighbors, expecting to be home within 6 months or a year at the most. Only 3 months passed before these same people lined the streets of Pryor as his funeral procession passed.

On May 11, near Alasad, Iraq, an explosive device destroyed the vehicle in which Kyle Brinlee was riding. He died while securing the freedom of millions of Americans, while trying to secure a chance of that freedom for the Iraqi people.

Sergeant Brinlee, the first Oklahoma guardsman to give his life in Iraq, was eulogized in May in front of a crowd of 1,300 people at the Pryor High School auditorium. Kyle was remembered as an outstanding soldier, a morale builder who was always willing to be the first to volunteer, and as someone who all will miss. After his death, the National Guard awarded Kyle the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. He has also earned my admiration and prayers and those of many other Americans. His choice was that of a true hero: He endangered his own life for the sake of something greater, and that courage to act for the good of all will mark his legacy forever.

Sergeant Brinlee stands as a true example of bravery. He knew of the dangers that awaited him. He knew he might never have another opportunity to see his family, but he also knew his mission. He knew that American freedom does not come from the complaints of the many but from the sacrifices of the few. SGT Kyle Brinlee was man enough to be counted amongst those noble few. Kyle Brinlee was a true American hero.

Mr. President, on each trip I take overseas as one of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the message I get back from the troops in the field is always the same: Why is it that people in America do not understand what we are doing? I think the media has done a lousy job, distorting the true reality of the freedoms that are taking place in Iraq, of all the good things that are happening over there.

I hear from these brave young troops. They know what their mission is. They know America is in its most threatened position today. They know they are risking their lives, yet they are willing to do it. Certainly SGT Kyle Brinlee is one of those, a very good, heroic example.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce the Space Commercial Human Ascent Serving Expeditions Act also known as the Space CHASE Act.

Because Oklahoma has significant history in aviation, I believe it is well positioned to be a leading State in the up-and-coming commercial space industry.

Since 1910, beginning with Charles F. Willard who only flew a few hundred yards in a south Oklahoma City field, Oklahomans have been flying.

The following year, Clyde Cessna, an automobile dealer from Enid who later formed the Cessna Aircraft Company, flew his mono-wing airplane near Jet, OK.

Such early flights in Oklahoma continued and in 1929 perhaps one of the most notable aviation events occurred in Waynoka, OK, where Charles Lindbergh stopped on the first transcontinental passenger air and rail service.

By 1931, Wiley Post, from Maysville, OK, gained international recognition when he flew around the world in a little over 8 days. In July 1991, I had the honor of recreating Post's trip on its 60th anniversary.

Oklahoma's aviation history does not stop there. On November 2, 1929, 26 licensed women pilots founded what was known as the 99 Club, or the Ninety-Nines. It was called so at the suggestion of its first president, Amelia Earheart, because of the 117 licensed women pilots in America who were contacted about joining the club, only 99 actually joined. The South Central Section of the 99 Club comprising several States including Oklahoma, has through the years, issued several publications and in 1962, Mary Lester of the Oklahoma Chapter created a new version of the Club's publication, the Ninety-Nine News. Today, the 99 club is an international organization of licensed women pilots from 35 countries, with its international headquarters at Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City.

In 1999, the Oklahoma State Legislature established the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority OSIDA to create a commercial spaceport that will ``expand and economically develop the space frontier with advanced spacecraft operating facilities.'' Furthermore, OSIDA's mission is to carry out this vision with ``. . . deliberate and forceful . . . planning and development of spaceport facilities, launch systems and projects, and to successfully promote and stimulate the creation of space commerce, education and space related industries in Oklahoma.''

In March of 2001, I appealed to NASA, on behalf of the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority, to receive nearly a quarter of a million dollars in grant money. Part of this grant is paid for the opening of the Oklahoma Spaceport. My efforts to build a space industry in Oklahoma are coming to fruition with that March 2002 launch of ``Dark Sky Station,'' from the Spaceport in Burns Flat. The rest of the money from the NASA grant went to nine other organizations around the State, dedicated to providing space-related education.

I applaud OSIDA for this aggressive economic plan and, as a result, know of 15 companies that have entered into Memoranda of Understanding with OSIDA: Armadillo Aerospace; Space Development; XCOR Aerospace; Zero Gravity; Pioneer Rocketplane; Vela Technology; Rocketplane, Ltd.; JP Aerospace; TGV Rockets; JP Skylaunch; Space Adventures; Jim Schouten Enterprises; Universal Spaceliners; Takeoff Technologies; and Space Assets.

Oklahoma is also home to business done by other such companies and entities as: Beyond-Earth Enterprises, which is helping to revitalize the passion of space travel by providing payload launch capabilities at affordable rates; the Global Space League, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit institution which takes science experiments from students, kindergarten through university level, to remote places normally accessible only to professional scientists; and HighShips, which is in the business of developing innovative lighter-than-air flying vehicles.

Several communities in southwestern Oklahoma stand to either benefit from, take part in, or have synergies with commercial space development including: Burns Flat which boasts the third longest runway in North America, Sayre, Frederick, Elk City, Hobart and Altus Air Force Base. I look forward to working with these communities in the future, such as with Oklahoma House District 63 Representative Don Armes.

I encourage any and all companies and individuals who would like to become involved in the commercial space industry to come to southwestern Oklahoma. Oklahoma welcomes space industries with these features; Tax and Financial Incentives, Oklahoma Quality Job Program: Quarterly cash payments of 5% of new payroll for 10 years; Investment Tax Credit: Credit equal 1% of the investment in depreciable property for 5 years-doubles in this Enterprise zone; Sales/Use Tax Refund: Refunds tax paid on construction materials in new manufacturing facility; Property Tax Exemptions: 5-year abatement on 100 percent of property tax on new investment in manufacturing space; Sales/Use Tax Exemption: Available for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, including property consumed; Accelerated Federal Property Depreciations: Provides approximately 40 percent shorter recovery period for depreciable property on Indian land.

Training Incentives: Vocational Technology School free to employees; customized assistance in employee screening; job training partnership program.

Financing: Oklahoma Finance Authority low cost loans; venture capital program facilitated by the agency; bonding by the agency; business financial assistance.

Site Specifics: existing available buildings: Hangars, office space, maintenance, warehouses; over 13,500 feet runway, ramp space; 3,000 acres of open space; utilities, infrastructure in place; rail spur, major Interstate Highway access; more than 340 days of clear skies; polar and ISS orbit launch windows available; no environmental issues; site geology supports any type of construction.

Please come to Oklahoma to advance commercial space exploration and avail yourself of Oklahoma's benefits.

Coming from Oklahoma's distinguished aviation heritage and innovative activity in the aerospace sector, as well as my experience as a commercially licensed pilot instructor, I rise today to introduce what I believe is a bill to benefit current and future aerospace companies in Oklahoma and throughout our entire Nation.

This legislation came to fruition after I facilitated many negotiations between the Federal Aviation Authority, the House Science Subcommittee

on Space and Aeronautics, the Senate Commerce Committee, aerospace companies and the Oklahoma Space Industrial Development Authority.

My language adds to H.R. 3752, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which updates the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, by accounting for a new class of sub-orbital launch vehicles that use hybrid technology--a combination of rocket and jet engines--to create a fair approach to future civilian suborbital flights.

In this legislation to advance the commercial space community, I have successfully covered hybrid aerospace vehicles.

By defining a sub-orbital vehicle as a rocket-propelled vehicle, ``in whole or in part, intended for flight on a sub-orbital trajectory, and whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket- powered portion of its ascent,'' aerospace companies will now face less regulation than with previous definitions for this type of vehicle.

Under my language, the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation will now have sole regulation authority for sub-orbital hybrid vehicles, and will now be appropriately considered and licensed as launch vehicles. By this classification, aerospace companies such as Rocketplane, which utilizes hybrid technology, will now avoid being forced to go through a lengthy two-step licensing process formerly required for both launch vehicles and commercial aircraft and will have the opportunity to be licensed to carry civilian passengers much more quickly.

In addition to the definition of sub-orbital flight, I am also proud of the indemnification and insurance provisions of this legislation which make it possible for small companies to enter into this business field, and am happy to create the new ``experimental permit'' framework.

I know that my colleagues, House Science Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher and Committee Chairman Boehlert, and their aide, Timothy Hughes, have worked diligently to update the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 by introducing and passing H.R. 3752.

I particularly want to thank my fellow Oklahoman and House Science Committee member Frank Lucas for requesting my involvement in this legislation, along with requests from Oklahoma State Senator Gilmer Capps, Oklahoma State Representative Jack Bonny, Oklahoma Lieutenant Governor Mary Fallon, and the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority, Congressman Lucas' colloquy with Chairman Boehlert on the floor the House of Representatives on March 4, 2004, speaks of his interest in ensuring that this very commercial space legislation include hybrid vehicles that fly a bit like rockets and a bit like airplanes:

Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may

consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for the

purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the

gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from

Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) bringing this important bill to the

floor, because the emerging commercial human space flight

industry presents tremendous opportunities for my State of

Oklahoma and our Nation as a whole. I am particularly

appreciative of this bill's intent to ease the regulatory

burdens for entrepreneurs who are developing new suborbital

reusable launch vehicles.

Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from New

York.

Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his

kind words. He is correct in stating that this legislation

seeks to put in place sufficient Federal regulation to

protect the general public while also promoting this

important new industry.

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. As you know, Mr. Chairman, some

suborbital reusable launch vehicles that will be used in

commercial human space flight activities may have some

attributes normally associated with airplanes as well as many

attributes of rockets. My hope is that such hybrid vehicles

would not have to be regulated under two separate regimes.

What are the chairman's views on this matter?

Mr. Boehlert. I thank the gentleman for that question.

This is a very important issue on which we have worked

extensively with industry and the executive branch in

developing this bill. As currently drafted, H.R. 3752

incorporates definitions promulgated by the Federal Aviation

Administration to distinguish between suborbital rockets,

which are under the jurisdiction of FAA's Associate

Administrator for Commercial Space Transport, and other

aerospace vehicles which are regulated by another part of the

FAA. That said, I would be happy to keep working with the

gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and other interested

parties as the bill moves forward to revisit the important

issue of how best to regulate hybrid vehicles that are

engaged in commercial human space flight.

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. I thank the chairman and I look

forward to continuing to work with him and our colleagues in

the other body to see if we can create a single regime for

hybrid commercial space flight vehicles.

While I realize H.R. 3752 creates fairness in regulation for the newly emerging civilian space flight industry, I believe my language takes it a step further by ensuring all companies entering this field have a level licensing playing field including those using hybrid technologies.

These are exciting times for this field of human endeavor. We are currently in the middle of a competition for the ANSARI X PRIZE. This competition is a courageous effort to refocus society's attention on the last frontier--space. To win the $10 million ANSARI X PRIZE, the successful team will launch a craft carrying at least three people to an altitude of at least 100 km, 62.5 miles, return safely to Earth, then repeat it with the same craft within 2 weeks.

With pilot Mike Melvill, the Burt Rutan team made a flight on June 21, 2004, but control problems prevented the repeat flight within the 2 weeks.

This brilliant concept of the Ansari X Prize exemplifies the excellence that can be achieved through an incentivized approach rather than a governmental mandate or punitive approach. Incentivize and safely get government out of the way is the philosophy of my bill. Tempt not only the pocketbook but the vision of anyone who has the creativity and imagination to pursue it.

Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce the Space Commercial Human Ascent Serving Expeditions Act also known as the Space CHASE Act.

Because Oklahoma has significant history in aviation, I believe it is well positioned to be a leading State in the up-and-coming commercial space industry.

Since 1910, beginning with Charles F. Willard who only flew a few hundred yards in a south Oklahoma City field, Oklahomans have been flying.

The following year, Clyde Cessna, an automobile dealer from Enid who later formed the Cessna Aircraft Company, flew his mono-wing airplane near Jet, OK.

Such early flights in Oklahoma continued and in 1929 perhaps one of the most notable aviation events occurred in Waynoka, OK, where Charles Lindbergh stopped on the first transcontinental passenger air and rail service.

By 1931, Wiley Post, from Maysville, OK, gained international recognition when he flew around the world in a little over 8 days. In July 1991, I had the honor of recreating Post's trip on its 60th anniversary.

Oklahoma's aviation history does not stop there. On November 2, 1929, 26 licensed women pilots founded what was known as the 99 Club, or the Ninety-Nines. It was called so at the suggestion of its first president, Amelia Earheart, because of the 117 licensed women pilots in America who were contacted about joining the club, only 99 actually joined. The South Central Section of the 99 Club comprising several States including Oklahoma, has through the years, issued several publications and in 1962, Mary Lester of the Oklahoma Chapter created a new version of the Club's publication, the Ninety-Nine News. Today, the 99 club is an international organization of licensed women pilots from 35 countries, with its international headquarters at Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City.

In 1999, the Oklahoma State Legislature established the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority OSIDA to create a commercial spaceport that will ``expand and economically develop the space frontier with advanced spacecraft operating facilities.'' Furthermore, OSIDA's mission is to carry out this vision with ``. . . deliberate and forceful . . . planning and development of spaceport facilities, launch systems and projects, and to successfully promote and stimulate the creation of space commerce, education and space related industries in Oklahoma.''

In March of 2001, I appealed to NASA, on behalf of the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority, to receive nearly a quarter of a million dollars in grant money. Part of this grant is paid for the opening of the Oklahoma Spaceport. My efforts to build a space industry in Oklahoma are coming to fruition with that March 2002 launch of ``Dark Sky Station,'' from the Spaceport in Burns Flat. The rest of the money from the NASA grant went to nine other organizations around the State, dedicated to providing space-related education.

I applaud OSIDA for this aggressive economic plan and, as a result, know of 15 companies that have entered into Memoranda of Understanding with OSIDA: Armadillo Aerospace; Space Development; XCOR Aerospace; Zero Gravity; Pioneer Rocketplane; Vela Technology; Rocketplane, Ltd.; JP Aerospace; TGV Rockets; JP Skylaunch; Space Adventures; Jim Schouten Enterprises; Universal Spaceliners; Takeoff Technologies; and Space Assets.

Oklahoma is also home to business done by other such companies and entities as: Beyond-Earth Enterprises, which is helping to revitalize the passion of space travel by providing payload launch capabilities at affordable rates; the Global Space League, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit institution which takes science experiments from students, kindergarten through university level, to remote places normally accessible only to professional scientists; and HighShips, which is in the business of developing innovative lighter-than-air flying vehicles.

Several communities in southwestern Oklahoma stand to either benefit from, take part in, or have synergies with commercial space development including: Burns Flat which boasts the third longest runway in North America, Sayre, Frederick, Elk City, Hobart and Altus Air Force Base. I look forward to working with these communities in the future, such as with Oklahoma House District 63 Representative Don Armes.

I encourage any and all companies and individuals who would like to become involved in the commercial space industry to come to southwestern Oklahoma. Oklahoma welcomes space industries with these features; Tax and Financial Incentives, Oklahoma Quality Job Program: Quarterly cash payments of 5% of new payroll for 10 years; Investment Tax Credit: Credit equal 1% of the investment in depreciable property for 5 years-doubles in this Enterprise zone; Sales/Use Tax Refund: Refunds tax paid on construction materials in new manufacturing facility; Property Tax Exemptions: 5-year abatement on 100 percent of property tax on new investment in manufacturing space; Sales/Use Tax Exemption: Available for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, including property consumed; Accelerated Federal Property Depreciations: Provides approximately 40 percent shorter recovery period for depreciable property on Indian land.

Training Incentives: Vocational Technology School free to employees; customized assistance in employee screening; job training partnership program.

Financing: Oklahoma Finance Authority low cost loans; venture capital program facilitated by the agency; bonding by the agency; business financial assistance.

Site Specifics: existing available buildings: Hangars, office space, maintenance, warehouses; over 13,500 feet runway, ramp space; 3,000 acres of open space; utilities, infrastructure in place; rail spur, major Interstate Highway access; more than 340 days of clear skies; polar and ISS orbit launch windows available; no environmental issues; site geology supports any type of construction.

Please come to Oklahoma to advance commercial space exploration and avail yourself of Oklahoma's benefits.

Coming from Oklahoma's distinguished aviation heritage and innovative activity in the aerospace sector, as well as my experience as a commercially licensed pilot instructor, I rise today to introduce what I believe is a bill to benefit current and future aerospace companies in Oklahoma and throughout our entire Nation.

This legislation came to fruition after I facilitated many negotiations between the Federal Aviation Authority, the House Science Subcommittee

on Space and Aeronautics, the Senate Commerce Committee, aerospace companies and the Oklahoma Space Industrial Development Authority.

My language adds to H.R. 3752, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which updates the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, by accounting for a new class of sub-orbital launch vehicles that use hybrid technology--a combination of rocket and jet engines--to create a fair approach to future civilian suborbital flights.

In this legislation to advance the commercial space community, I have successfully covered hybrid aerospace vehicles.

By defining a sub-orbital vehicle as a rocket-propelled vehicle, ``in whole or in part, intended for flight on a sub-orbital trajectory, and whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket- powered portion of its ascent,'' aerospace companies will now face less regulation than with previous definitions for this type of vehicle.

Under my language, the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation will now have sole regulation authority for sub-orbital hybrid vehicles, and will now be appropriately considered and licensed as launch vehicles. By this classification, aerospace companies such as Rocketplane, which utilizes hybrid technology, will now avoid being forced to go through a lengthy two-step licensing process formerly required for both launch vehicles and commercial aircraft and will have the opportunity to be licensed to carry civilian passengers much more quickly.

In addition to the definition of sub-orbital flight, I am also proud of the indemnification and insurance provisions of this legislation which make it possible for small companies to enter into this business field, and am happy to create the new ``experimental permit'' framework.

I know that my colleagues, House Science Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher and Committee Chairman Boehlert, and their aide, Timothy Hughes, have worked diligently to update the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 by introducing and passing H.R. 3752.

I particularly want to thank my fellow Oklahoman and House Science Committee member Frank Lucas for requesting my involvement in this legislation, along with requests from Oklahoma State Senator Gilmer Capps, Oklahoma State Representative Jack Bonny, Oklahoma Lieutenant Governor Mary Fallon, and the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority, Congressman Lucas' colloquy with Chairman Boehlert on the floor the House of Representatives on March 4, 2004, speaks of his interest in ensuring that this very commercial space legislation include hybrid vehicles that fly a bit like rockets and a bit like airplanes:

Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may

consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for the

purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the

gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from

Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) bringing this important bill to the

floor, because the emerging commercial human space flight

industry presents tremendous opportunities for my State of

Oklahoma and our Nation as a whole. I am particularly

appreciative of this bill's intent to ease the regulatory

burdens for entrepreneurs who are developing new suborbital

reusable launch vehicles.

Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from New

York.

Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his

kind words. He is correct in stating that this legislation

seeks to put in place sufficient Federal regulation to

protect the general public while also promoting this

important new industry.

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. As you know, Mr. Chairman, some

suborbital reusable launch vehicles that will be used in

commercial human space flight activities may have some

attributes normally associated with airplanes as well as many

attributes of rockets. My hope is that such hybrid vehicles

would not have to be regulated under two separate regimes.

What are the chairman's views on this matter?

Mr. Boehlert. I thank the gentleman for that question.

This is a very important issue on which we have worked

extensively with industry and the executive branch in

developing this bill. As currently drafted, H.R. 3752

incorporates definitions promulgated by the Federal Aviation

Administration to distinguish between suborbital rockets,

which are under the jurisdiction of FAA's Associate

Administrator for Commercial Space Transport, and other

aerospace vehicles which are regulated by another part of the

FAA. That said, I would be happy to keep working with the

gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and other interested

parties as the bill moves forward to revisit the important

issue of how best to regulate hybrid vehicles that are

engaged in commercial human space flight.

Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma. I thank the chairman and I look

forward to continuing to work with him and our colleagues in

the other body to see if we can create a single regime for

hybrid commercial space flight vehicles.

While I realize H.R. 3752 creates fairness in regulation for the newly emerging civilian space flight industry, I believe my language takes it a step further by ensuring all companies entering this field have a level licensing playing field including those using hybrid technologies.

These are exciting times for this field of human endeavor. We are currently in the middle of a competition for the ANSARI X PRIZE. This competition is a courageous effort to refocus society's attention on the last frontier--space. To win the $10 million ANSARI X PRIZE, the successful team will launch a craft carrying at least three people to an altitude of at least 100 km, 62.5 miles, return safely to Earth, then repeat it with the same craft within 2 weeks.

With pilot Mike Melvill, the Burt Rutan team made a flight on June 21, 2004, but control problems prevented the repeat flight within the 2 weeks.

This brilliant concept of the Ansari X Prize exemplifies the excellence that can be achieved through an incentivized approach rather than a governmental mandate or punitive approach. Incentivize and safely get government out of the way is the philosophy of my bill. Tempt not only the pocketbook but the vision of anyone who has the creativity and imagination to pursue it.

The Senator from Virginia is correct that the several transportation extension bills enacted this year require that the next legislation we enact must address the ``donor'' State issue for fiscal year 2004. I remain committed to guaranteeing that all States receive a minimum of 90.5 percent rate of return for their trust fund contributions in fiscal year 2004. As some funding remains in the fiscal year, I am committed to maintaining the Minimum Guarantee program for this year so that no State receives less than a 90.5 percent return on their trust fund contributions.

Mr. President, we have repeatedly regulated tobacco consumption because it is a real public health hazard and we need to make certain that people are aware of the risks they take in using it. Of course, that does not mean that any law that regulates tobacco is a good one. The amendment we are discussing would indeed not make good law. I would like to call your attention to troubling aspects of this current amendment that authorizes Food and Drug Administration, FDA, regulation of tobacco.

This amendment would create more bureaucracy and increase the size of government by giving the FDA more control over the tobacco industry. This increased bureaucracy will lead to the need for more funding and personnel to enact the new regulations. This amendment would give the Secretary the power to impose ``restrictions on the sale and distribution of a tobacco product, including restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, the tobacco product, if the Secretary determines that such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.'' Here are some further examples of the increased FDA authority: It would allow the Secretary to require warning labels to cover half a pack of cigarettes, even requiring colors, graphics, and formats.

It would give the Secretary authority to require disclosure of any cigarette or other tobacco product constituent including any smoke constituent that he deems to benefit public health. This could very easily be an impossible burden levied at the Secretary's whim.

When it comes to record keeping, this bill simply says that the Secretary of the FDA will take into account the size of businesses when putting the regulations into place. This new authority is too vague, and it could be interpreted as giving the FDA the ability to discriminate based on arbitrary ideas of what size a business should be. This amendment would give the FDA wholesale authority to regulate every aspect of construction, ingredients, components or properties, including the sale, distribution, access, marketing and labeling, through the application of ``product standards.''

I am also troubled by the fact that we do not have the option to make amendments to such an expansive bill since it is being rushed through the Senate attached to the FSC/ETI bill instead of following traditional committee procedures such as hearings and markup and floor amendment.

This amendment cites underage tobacco use as a reason for increased regulation. Underage use is troubling, but the fact is that there are already decisive laws in place to prevent minors from purchasing tobacco. There is a need for better enforcement, not more FDA regulation. The authority given to the FDA in this amendment no longer focuses on reducing youth usage, but rather, on adult consumption by stating that the new restrictions focus on protecting the public health.

Another problem is that this amendment holds retailers accountable for labeling when it is the manufacturer's responsibility. ``This paragraph shall not relieve a retailer of liability if the retailer sells or distributes tobacco products that are not labeled in accordance with this subsection.''

These FDA regulations would reduce competition by increasing regulatory costs and restricting the ability to communicate with adult smokers.

These proposals place so many barriers to the introduction of new conventional products, those making no health claims and potentially reduced risk, that it discourages their development.

It increases black market attractiveness. The numerous restrictions and regulations provide ample incentives to illegal operators.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of several statements made by the National Association of Convenience Stores, the American Conservative Union, the Association of National Advertisers, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Advertising Federation, the American Wholesale Marketers Association, and many on the HELP Committee, be printed in the Record.

These groups are all concerned about the bill. I echo their concern. This proposal will greatly increase Federal mandates and regulations on tobacco that lead to more Government control. I find it troubling that Congress is willing to grant so much authority to an executive agency while not allowing us adequate time to evaluate and possibly amend this legislation.

Reserving the right to object, when would this time begin?

I thank the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I have been watching, with a great deal of interest, the debate that has been taking place. I took some time last night to get what I believe to be very salient quotes. One is by an Irish poet, William Yeats:

I think a man and a woman should choose each other for

life, for the simple reason that a long life with all its

accidents is barely enough time for a man and a woman to

understand each other and . . . to understand is to love.

I think there are several of us in this room, including the Presiding Officer, who understand very well what Dr. Yeats is talking about.

The next one comes out of the Talmud, the Jewish oral interpretation of the Torah:

A wife is the joy of a man's heart.

Mark Twain said:

After all these years, I see that I was mistaken about Eve

in the beginning; it is better to live outside the Garden

with her than inside it without her.

Homer, the Greek philosopher, said:

There is nothing nobler or more admirable than when two

people who see eye-to-eye keep house as man and wife,

confounding their enemies and delighting their friends.

William Penn said:

Between a man and his wife nothing ought to rule but love.

Andrew Jackson said:

Heaven will be no heaven to me if I do not meet my wife

there.

Those things sound good and poetic. I happen to have been married for 45 years. My wife and I have 20 kids and grandkids and it started just with us. We think about the tradition in this country and how it has been this way as long as we can remember.

I have heard people say on this floor, when talking about this issue, that this perhaps should be a State issue. As a general rule, you will not find anybody who is a stronger supporter of State rights than I am. But this is a national issue. The definition of marriage is and has been a national issue.

In the late 19th century, Congress would not admit Utah into the Union unless it abolished polygamy and committed to the common national definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

In 1996, Congress passed a Defense of Marriage Act into law, which defines marriage as one man and one woman for the purposes of all Federal law.

Another, and perhaps more compelling, argument that this should be handled on a Federal level is that people constantly travel and relocate across State lines throughout the Nation. Same-sex couples are already traveling across country to get married. As a result of this mobility, same-sex couples with marriage certificates will become entangled in the legal systems of other States in which they live. They will do business, buy and sell property, write wills, commit and suffer torts, go to the hospital, get divorced, and have custody battles over their children.

A State-by-State approach to gay marriage will be a logistical and legal mess that will force the courts to intervene and require all States to recognize same-sex marriages. This is the only possible outcome.

This issue needs to be addressed now. The definition of marriage must be addressed, and it must be addressed now. Activist lawyers and judges are working quickly through the courts to force same-sex marriage on our country.

In June of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled its possible support for same-sex marriage when it struck down a sodomy ban in Texas. That was Lawrence v. Texas. I am sure the junior Senator from Texas is very familiar with that.

Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same- sex couples could marry, and that ruling went into effect on May 17. The State's high court's ruling clearly ignored tradition--even its own State legislature.

In response to the courts ruling, the Massachusetts Senate drafted a ``civil

union'' bill specifically designed to satisfy the court's edict while preserving traditional marriage.

Despite the fact that all legal rights and benefits were provided in the civil unions legislation, the court rejected this alternative legislation, insisting on redefining marriage.

In his dissenting statement, Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Sosman said:

It is surely pertinent . . . to recognize that this

proffered change affects not just a load-bearing wall of our

social structure but the very cornerstone of that structure.

The majority stripped the elected representatives of their

right to evaluate ``the consequences of that alteration, to

make sure that it can be done safely, without either

temporary or lasting damage to the structural integrity of

the entire edifice.''

Even Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, in his testimony on June 22, 2004, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated:

Marriage is not an evolving paradigm, as the court said,

but it is a fundamental and universal social institution that

bears a real and substantial relation to the public health,

safety, morals, and general welfare of all the people of

Massachusetts.

We need an amendment that restores and protects our

societal definition of marriage, [and] blocks judges from

changing that definition . . . at this point, the only way to

reestablish the status quo . . . is to preserve the

definition of marriage in the federal Constitution before

courts redefine it out of existence.

Not only has the Massachusetts court ruling affected that State, it has and will continue to open the floodgate of similar decisions by other State courts across the country.

Lawsuits are already pending in 11 States to ask the courts to declare that traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional. Same-sex couples from at least 46 States have received marriage licenses in Massachusetts, California, and Oregon and have returned to their home States. Many of these couples will now sue to overturn their home State's marriage laws. There is already a lawsuit in Seattle to force the State to recognize same-sex marriage in Oregon.

Unfortunately, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, does not protect States from lawsuits such as these. State and Federal courts are poised to strike DOMA down under the equal protection and due process clauses in the Constitution. This would essentially force recognition of same-sex marriages.

Why protecting traditional marriage matters: Marriage is about much more than romantic love. I know from my experience. My wife Kay and I have been married for 45 years. We understand these things. For the purpose of society and our legal system, marriage is the ideal environment for raising children and thriving communities.

Our laws protect marriage between a man and a woman, not because of love or romance, but because marriage provides a good, strong, stable environment for raising children and is good for society as a whole. The evidence of the benefits to children being raised by a mother and father is overwhelming.

In societies where marriage has been redefined, potential parents become less likely to marry and out-of-wedlock births increase. This is because marriage loses its unique status in society as the institution where childbearing and parenting is centered. It becomes little more than an optional arrangement, not the presumptive locus of family life.

According to a February article in the Weekly Standard by Stanley Kurtz:

A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of

wedlock.

A majority, that is more than half of the children are born out of wedlock.

He goes on to say:

Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have

unmarried parents--not coincidentally, these countries have

had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or

more.

In 1989, Denmark had legalized de facto gay marriage, and

Norway and Sweden followed in 1993 and 1994, respectively.

Additionally, according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, codirector of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, in her testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on April 28 of this year, marriage has many benefits. She is speaking clinically when she gives these evaluations.

It can be a source of ``economic, educational, and social advantage for most children. Children from intact families are far less likely to be poor or to experience persistent economic insecurity. Estimates suggest that children experience a 70-percent drop in their household income in the immediate aftermath of divorce and, unless there is a remarriage, the income is still 40-45 percent lower 6 years later than for children from intact families.''

Ms. Whitehead goes on to say:

Children from intact married parent families are more

likely to stay in [and do better in] school.

In fact, according to Patrick Fagan, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, in his testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space on May 13 of this year:

U.S. children from intact families that worship God

frequently have an average GPA of 2.94 while children from

fragmented families that worship little or not at all have an

average GPA of--

Some 30 percent or less.

Ms. Whitehead also says:

Marriage provides economies of scale, encourages

specialization and cooperation, provides access to work-

related benefits such as retirement savings, pensions, and

life insurance, promotes saving, and generates help and

support from kin and community.

On the verge of retirement, one study found married

couples' net worth is more than twice that in other

households.

A study of retirement data from 1992 by Purdue University

sociologists found that individuals who are not continuously

married have significantly lower wealth than those who remain

married throughout the life course.

That is significant because we have been talking about the emotional side. We have been talking about the things that I think are no- brainers, that most of the American people, in spite of the arguments to the contrary, talk about. But there are economic reasons. There are reasons of prosperity and happiness that are being dealt with in this resolution.

I have quotes from a number of Senators and conservatives. They have done such a good job, those who are in this Chamber. In listening, I have found a few points they said that are worth repeating.

My colleague, Senator Allard from Colorado, believes our Founding Fathers never envisioned that we would be changing the very structure of marriage, that we would be changing this core structure of society. We are in danger of losing a several-thousand-year-old tradition, one that has been vital to the survival of civilization itself.

This small group of activists and judicial elite, as my colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, said, ``do not have a right to redefine marriage and impose a radical social experiment on our entire society.''

``This is not a battle over civil rights, it is a battle over whether marriage will be emptied of its meaning in contradiction to the will of the people and their duly elected representatives.''

This is an ``assault on the American family,'' as my colleague, Senator Cornyn, the junior Senator from Texas, said.

And my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, said:

If there are not families to raise . . . children, who will

raise them? Who will do that responsibility? It will fall on

the State.

This, to me, is one of the most troubling outcomes of the whole gay marriage issue. As my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, said, we have ``misplaced priorities'' in addressing this issue right now. I say to my colleague, I do not think our priorities are misplaced when we are looking at creating a whole new class of children from these gay marriages who could end up completely dependent on the State, on the taxpayers--the American people.

I do not think our priorities are misplaced when we are concerned about following in the footsteps of countries where out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed. And I do not think our priorities are misled when some activist, rogue judges and others are undermining the legislative process in taking away the voice of our elected officials.

Additionally, several prominent, respected conservative voices in our country have spoken out against the idea of gay marriage and in support of the traditional definition.

According to ``Focus on the Family,'' headed by Dr. James Dobson--I was just on his program a little while ago:

Family is the fundamental building block of all human

civilizations.

Marriage is the glue that holds it together. The health of

our culture, its citizens, and their children is intimately

linked to the health and well-being of marriage.

Chuck Colson, a man who most people in this body know quite well, was the founder of Prison Fellowship. He has this to say about the prospect of gay marriage:

The redefiners of marriage are working tirelessly. Their

agenda is to tear down traditional marriage and make it

meaningless by removing its distinctives.

He goes on to say:

Marriage, as an institution between a man and a woman, is

basically for procreation.

Homosexual marriage, therefore, is an oxymoron. There is no

such thing. It is something else.

It is two people coming together for recreation, not for

procreation. Procreation can only happen between a man and a

woman.

Every society has recognized this, going back to the

beginning of recorded history. Societies recognize that it is

in their self-interest to preserve this institution and to

give it a distinct status under the law.

Marriage is the institution that civilizes and propagates

the human race. It is where children are raised and learn the

ways of right and wrong. Their consciences are formed in the

family.

Finally, the Reverend Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham, was in my hometown of Tulsa a couple of weeks ago. He said:

There is a real movement for same-sex marriage. We could

lose marriage in this country the way that we know it.

That is really what this is all about. We can dance around it and try to cater to certain groups, but I find something that has served me well for a number of years when something like this comes up, and that is to go back to the law, go back to the Scriptures. In Genesis 2:18, 21-24, God said:

It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a

helper comparable to him . . . and the Lord God caused a deep

sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his

ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib

which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman,

and He brought her to the man. And Adam said, ``This is now

bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called

woman, because she was taken out of man.'' Therefore a man

shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,

and they shall become one flesh.

In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus said:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning

made them male and female, and for this reason a man shall

leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and

the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer

two but one flesh . . .

The reason I read these two Scriptures is because they were quoted at a very significant event that took place 45 years ago. It was when my wife and I were married.

I yield the floor.