Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I was moved to find that more than 800 members of the D.C. community gathered together yesterday to pray for the District's public schools. The Rhema Christian Center Church invited people of all faiths to join them and pray for 25 school improvements which ranged from increased parental involvement to better safety. They call themselves prayer warriors. They were each assigned to one of the District's 146 schools for the ``Jesus Goes to School Day of Prayer.'' As the children of D.C. walked into school--outside the prayer warriors prayed. Many of these children walk through dangerous neighborhoods--where drug deals and violence are common--on their way to school every day. These children begin their school day with negative images. Yesterday, however, was different. Yesterday, the children of D.C. began their school day with a strong, positive message of prayer and support from their community. The prayer warriors said ``We have tried everything else as a nation to save public education. Now, let's try prayer.'' Mr. President, we should recognize and affirm the example these prayer warriors have set in the nation's Capitol.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If the Senator from New Jersey would be willing to yield back his time, I would be willing to yield back at this time and ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could respond to some of the comments of my colleague from New Jersey, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He makes the exact point I am making. Tobacco subsidies aren't cut because North Carolina and Kentucky and a few other States protect those basically. Everybody else says, ``Look, if you cut it, we are really not going to do it. We are not cutting taxes. We are not cutting spending.'' So, all right, I will go along on it. We are trying to create competitors. If somebody comes up with a good idea, a program, and a need, we are going to fund it. We have proven throughout history that we will fund that. That is why actually today there is nothing so permanent as a temporary Government program. That is one of President Reagan's lines. Because we will do it. The problem is we never undo it, or we never stop doing it. We don't have any competing force back the other way. I think it would be a very helpful debate if we would have these regularly on the floor about, Should we actually be spending this money on corporate welfare? What if we gave it back to the taxpayer or used it to preserve and protect Social Security? That would be a good, healthy idea, because instead of the way we do it right now, which is basically we are going to add that spending, we will never look back here at what we previously paid for over the past 60 years because there is no competing force on the other side of it. That is why I am suggesting this would be an excellent change for this body. It would be an excellent force that would be set up in favor of the taxpayer, in favor of good government, in favor of Social Security. How much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to respond to a few of the statements. I think the Senator from New Jersey, whom I appreciate, and I appreciate his service in the U.S. Senate, probably made the exact accurate point. That is, if you are going to cut veterans programs for tax cuts, people will come unglued, and it will not happen, because there will be a number of veterans out there saying, ``What are you doing cutting veterans programs and paying for tax cuts? I am not going to let you do that.'' And that would work. If we went out and said, you know what, we are going to eliminate tobacco subsidies to pay for tax cuts, or we are going to cut the corporate welfare for the wealthiest 50 corporations in America and pay for a tax cut with that, would people come unglued? I sense an applause line in Kansas for something like that. If I go to Kansas and say, ``I am going to cut veterans programs and write tax cuts,'' they will say, ``We are going to give you your head for that one.'' That is the whole point here. The system is currently tilted toward no tax cuts and growing Government, because if you are going to provide for a tax cut, you have to cut Social Security or Medicare basically to pay for that tax cut. That is wrong. We should not be cutting Social Security and Medicare. We should not be cutting them at all, let alone offset them against a tax cut. The system was set up exactly this way to build Government and make it bigger. Why are we at $1.7 trillion and growing? It is because the system is built to build. Why do we still subsidize tobacco? This makes absolutely no sense. So what we are trying to do here is make a little change. The Senator from New Jersey raises another very important point about permanent savings paying for permanent tax cuts. I think that is a valuable issue to raise. That is why, in the measure, we state that you have to eliminate the program--not just cut it back, but eliminate the program to pay for tax cuts. So let's take my example again. If we go to tobacco subsidies and say we are going to eliminate tobacco subsidies and pay for this tax cut, it will be a small tax cut. What about the next two then? Do you think they are going to be able to add back in tobacco subsidies once you get it finally pulled out by its roots? I don't think so. What if you are able to pull out corporate welfare by its roots to pay for that tax cut? Are we going to be able, the next year, to add back in that corporate welfare? I don't think so, once it is pulled out. There is such a system of inertia to build the bill that I think we are going to be able to get at this with this little change in the budget rules. This is exactly the time to be doing this, as we will be looking forward to the future as to how we are going to protect, preserve, and save Social Security. We need to do that. What are we going to do to further tax cuts on this burdensome level of taxation that we have for the American people? This little budgetary change will actually help us make some sense and sanity out of this place to a lot of the American public. So that is why I am putting this forward. Suggestions can be put forward by Members of Congress and by the Finance Committee on how you do it. That is the same way we do tax cuts right now--from Members, from people from the Finance Committee. This is a good provision. If you asked the American people about this, they will say that is the way the place ought to work, instead of this arcane way that we have set it up that actually hurts the American public and maintains wasteful programs. That is why I am going to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure. Mr. President, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the floor manager of the bill, what order of amendments do we have now? I have an amendment that I am certainly prepared to take up at this time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The Brownback amendment is a simple amendment that calls for a change in the budget law, the pay-go rules of the budget law, to allow for discretionary spending program eliminations, all those key words, to be used for tax cuts or to save Social Security. It allows for that usage to be able to do those things. Now, according to current budget law--and I realize some of this can be arcane to a number of people--we cannot make cuts in discretionary spending programs in order to finance tax cuts. You have to make cuts in mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare to pay for tax cuts. That is just not fair and it is not right and it is wrong. That is why we put forward this amendment. At this time I will read the amendment because it is short, sweet, and to the point and it is important. It is the sense-of-the-Senate that the functional tools underlying this resolution assume that-- (I) the elimination of a discretionary spending program may [with emphasis on the ``may''] be used for either tax cuts or to reform the Social Security system. There is some other language under that. That is the extent, basically, of the amendment. Now, I want to ask people, I know a number of folks watching this have concerns about what is taking place in waste in Government spending. We have a $1.7 trillion Government on an annual basis. We have things in that Government--like tobacco subsidies, like corporate welfare--that when I go home and talk to people in Kansas, they say, why in the world are you still spending money on tobacco subsidies? Why are you spending money on corporate welfare? Why don't you cut those programs? I don't think most people recognize the system works to protect those programs like tobacco subsidies. For instance, what you get is a system in place where there are a few people protecting tobacco subsidies, or corporate welfare, and a lot of people who want to eliminate it, but the few people can offset the greater number because if you eliminated tobacco subsidies today, what happens to the money? It just gets spent somewhere else. So people argue strongly in favor of their program no matter how wasteful it might be and say, even if you cut this, it will not reduce the budget, it will not cut taxes, it will just be spent somewhere else. That is the system. The system works against our getting rid of Government waste. Now, what if we created a competitive force back the other way? What if you said, OK, if we eliminate tobacco subsidies, we can use that to pay for a tax cut. Or, if we eliminate corporate welfare, we can use that to save Social Security. So they create a competing force of people who want tax cuts or save Social Security against the domestic discretionary spending programs that in many cases are very wasteful of precious taxpayer dollars. So that all this amendment attempts to do is to create that competing force to knock out some of this wasteful Government spending that everybody knows is here but nobody can ever seem to get at. We are at the point of record high levels of taxation. The average American family pays nearly 40 percent of their income for taxes at all levels. It is the highest level since World War II. People are starting to ask why. Why are we paying such a high level of taxation? You add to that we are also broke, $5.4 trillion worth of debt, we have unfunded obligations more than double that amount, and yet we waste money on tobacco subsidies or we waste money on corporate welfare, and people don't get it. The problem of it is the set of rules that we are operating under that create a system where the few, who protect a portion of waste that may be good for their constituents but is not good for the rest of the country as a whole, have a far greater stake in the system than the people who want to eliminate it, who, if they eliminated it, it just goes to be spent somewhere else and nothing happens to the debt or level of taxation or Social Security. This amendment is very simple and straightforward on that. You eliminate--and it is not just cutting; it is eliminating programs. A lot of times people might cut back on a discretionary spending program. Say we cut tobacco subsidies $100 million and use that for offsetting tax cuts somewhere--corporate welfare is a better example in that area--the next year we just add it back. We still have the tax cut that is pulling and draining resources from the Federal Treasury, which frankly I don't mind because it goes back to taxpayers' pockets, but on the other side you haven't paid for that tax cut. What we say is eliminate--not just shave, not reduce, but eliminate --a program so that this one doesn't come back and you can have an actual true offset. So, Mr. President, it is past the time for us to start changing the system that has yielded to us a $1.7 trillion Government, that maintains tobacco subsidies at a time when everybody in the world knows this contributes to the causes of cancer. We are trying to stop young people from starting to smoke, and yet we are still subsidizing tobacco subsidies. We still have corporate welfare all over the place, and we can't seem to get at it. This change in rule, this little change in rules would help us get at these issues. That is why I put this amendment forward. At the appropriate time I will ask for the yeas and nays. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I don't know that I will take that amount of time. If the Chair will advise when I have used 10 minutes, I will appreciate that. I ask, as well, that Phil Gramm be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. As I understand, I have 15 minutes to make the presentation under the unanimous consent.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2177 to be the pending business.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for including this provision in the budget and for being a cosponsor, along with 37 other Members of the U.S. Senate, of this provision. I have a quiz, if I can, for the Members who are still watching. Just a simple question; a series of facts and then a question. Let me ask people to, if they will, go through this quiz with me of, what is 10 million words long, cost over $150 billion annually just to comply with, is unintelligible by almost every American, including those with advanced degrees, advanced law degrees, advanced tax degrees, and is the lead way Washington mismanages and micromanages our lives? What one thing is that? It is the Tax Code. The Tax Code is over 10 million words, costs over $150 billion just to comply with before anybody pays a thin dime on this Tax Code. It is unintelligible to people who are tax law experts, and is the lead way that Washington micromanages individual lives across this country. It is no wonder this is an applause line. It is because people despise this code. It has been amended and added to and jiggered with over the years and years to where it just does not make any sense. All the resolution says is that we should sunset the code at the end of the year 2001. We sunset many Federal programs when many Federal programs are required for reauthorization. I heard the arguments on the other side from my colleagues from North Dakota and Arkansas--very good men, with a great deal of integrity and honor. But we disagree on this. I have to say their arguments sound very familiar. They sound very familiar to the time when we had the debate about balancing the budget by a date certain. The President then was saying, ``If we balance the budget by a date certain, by 7 years, it's going to throw the economy into a tailspin, it's going to do all these terrible things. You don't know how you're going to balance the budget, do you?'' We said, ``We know a number of ways to balance this budget. And if we don't set a date by which we're going to accomplish it, it'll never get done.'' That is the same theory with this bill. There are a number of ways to redo the Tax Code. I am glad to hear Senator Dorgan has a proposal himself. There is a flat tax proposal, there is a consumption tax proposal, there is a VAT tax proposal. Congressman Gephardt has proposals. There are a number of them. And we will be phasing in transitions the same as phasing in on different programs we have gone to. But the point of it here is, if we do not start, we will never get there. If we do not start, we are going to enter the next century for long periods of time with this same Tax Code in place. Let me say to the people here who are listening, we cannot have another American century built on this Tax Code. It is so big and so intrusive that people live in fear of it. Small businesses live in fear of this Tax Code because they use so many resources to comply with it. And when they comply with it, they still do not know what they have actually done to comply with the law. So all we are saying by this little provision that is in the budget accord is, let us deal with this Tax Code by the end of the year 2001. It leaves alone Social Security and Medicare. Those are not touched in this. So in case people are saying that they are worried about Social Security and Medicare, it is not touched in the bill. We are saying, if we are ever going to get rid of this that has haunted us for so long, we have to set a date certain by which we will do it. I think it is a good provision in the budget resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment so we can have another American century with a different taxation system. I yield to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the Senator yield 1 minute?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I guess the rationale of the Senator from North Dakota is we are stuck with this Tax Code forever and that is the way it will be. Frankly, there are a lot of different ideas floating around. I heard the Senator from North Dakota has a tax proposal, as well. I simply ask people looking at this, could we do any worse than this current Tax Code? If I had a stack of books here now, it would be this tall. I am a lawyer. I confess that sin. I looked at this Tax Code and it is unintelligible. We couldn't do any worse with something different.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, in listening to the debate brought forward through questions on the floor, I would like to put some factual statements into the Record. First, the budget resolution puts Social Security and Medicare first. I think people recall that the President was saying we should use any surplus to save Social Security, that this is an important program and we need to invest and protect Social Security and, therefore, we should take any surpluses and put it into Social Security. We agree, but we also believe that we should go one step further and say that any extra funds and resources here should be used to preserve and protect Medicare as well. Medicare is an enormously important program to the American public. I don't know how many people remember last year when we debated how to save, preserve, and protect Medicare. What is being talked about in the budget agreement is using the resources to save Medicare. Now, you can go a couple of ways here. You can say, OK, I am going to use these resources to save Medicare, this enormous program that provides health care for over 35 million Americans that have had a very difficult financial time, or you can say we are going to start a whole bunch of other programs to do this-- which, by the way, we are taking care of in other parts of the agreement. The Budget Committee decided to save and use these resources to preserve and protect Medicare. Let's take care of first things first, and Medicare is one of those programs. Instead of promising to spend billions of dollars on new programs, we propose to dedicate any tobacco receipts, if there are any, to Medicare solvency. Let's protect what we have first. I think that is an important point that needs to be brought into this debate. Madam President, I have an amendment to offer, but before I do that I will yield to the Senator from Wyoming for a statement that he has. He has been on the floor waiting for a longer period of time than I.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this amendment to the budget resolution being considered before us today would make it a priority for this Congress to cut taxes and to begin shoring up our teetering Social Security system. Madam President, before I begin I wish to commend Chairman Domenici and other Members for their excellent work on the budget committee. While I would prefer a budget that cut government spending more as well as cut taxes more; I appreciate the enormity of the task before the chairman and would like to compliment him for his leadership in this area. As well, I look forward to working with the chairman to both ensure a more fiscally responsible government as well as lower taxes for all Americans. Madam President, I would like to begin by making a few remarks on the size and scope of our federal government and the importance of keeping our promise with the American people by living up to the spending parameters outlined in the bipartisan budget deal reached last year between the Congress and the administration and with the American people; and also to speak on the importance of honestly addressing the need to begin reforming our Social Security system. It is absolutely paramount and fundamental and something we must give our attention to. Although many of us agree that the Federal government is too large, and too intrusive most of us seldom seem to be able to make the necessary cuts to the federal government that will actually curtail its size and curb its consumptive desires. In fact, the Administration which once declared that ``the era of big government is over,'' has now proposed an expansion of government programs that will have the effect of busting the bipartisan budget deal that was so difficult to get to in the first place. This is not only inconsistent but bad policy. In contrast, I believe that it is imperative that we live within the constraints agreed to last year during negotiations with the administration. We had a deal. We had a deal with the administration that set the limits on the size and scope of the federal government. And, we had a deal with the American people. Now is not the time to walk away from the principles that we outlined in our bipartisan agreement just a few months ago simply because the budget--thanks mostly to the entrepreneurial spirit of main street America--is now near balance. The fact of the matter is that our books aren't really balanced at all because we are continuing to allow the federal government to raid the social security trust fund in order to finance its day to day operations. If a company in the private sector tried to do that they would be shut down--and rightfully so. If the President is serious about saving social security then he would not continue raiding the Social Security trust fund to prop up his government programs and he would not be proposing $140 billion in new spending (which is coincidentally just a little more than expected surplus receipts to the OASDI trust fund this year), rather he would be cutting government spending and paying down the debt in anticipation of unfunded future social security obligations. But he is doing just the opposite. Because this administration doesn't want to lead, the Congress must. And my amendment takes the lead by prioritizing Social Security solvency and tax cuts over more government spending and budget games. Let's stop the nonsense. Americans don't want more glib talk about big government programs solving all of their problems. They don't want more empty promises. They want a less intrusive government, they want lower taxes and they deserve retirement security. In order to help in our efforts to cut the size of the government I am offering an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that we should destroy the firewall between spending reductions and tax cuts; by allowing for government spending reductions to be used for either tax cuts or Social Security solvency. Heretofore we have had a firewall between cutting domestic discretionary programs and paying for tax cuts, saying we can't cut this to pay for tax cuts. I am saying let's have a provision such that you can eliminate discretionary spending in certain categories and that money to be used to pay for tax cuts or Social Security solvency. Currently, according to budget law Congress cannot make cuts in discretionary spending programs in order to finance tax cuts. Rather, Congress has to make cuts in mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for its tax cuts. It is wrong to pit Social Security against tax cuts. My amendment flips the table on this false tradeoff by pitting Social Security and tax cuts against big Government spending on the other side. Let's use the cuts in big Government spending to support Social Security and tax cuts. According to the current budget law every time someone wants to cut taxes they are essentially forced to propose cuts in either social security or Medicare. That just isn't right. Our federal government is too large, and this arcane law is part of the reason. We need to focus our efforts on cutting government spending--not increasing it. And I believe one way to help accelerate the downsizing of our massive federal bureaucracy is by allowing cuts in discretionary spending to be used for tax cuts and Social Security accounts. My amendment would call for a change in budget law that would allow for tax cuts to be implemented in the amount of program eliminations and for saving Social Security. So, when we eliminate a program during consideration of an appropriations measure that money would be credited to the PAYGO scorecard and reserved for tax cuts and Social Security. Therefore, should my amendment pass and budget law be changed, we can eliminate programs like the Advanced Technology Program, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Department of Commerce, and a whole host of other government programs while at the same time giving the taxpayers the tax relief they deserve and the retirement security they need--and we can do it without making draconian cuts to mandatory spending programs that ultimately do little to save the programs and much to simply prolong the crisis. With my amendment we can eliminate wasteful programs and at the same time provide the American taxpayers with a solvent Social Security System along with the tax relief that they deserve. That is why I am offering this amendment. We can begin to cut taxes and to reform our Social Security system by transforming the debate about Social Security from rhetoric into reality. We have a unique opportunity to substantively begin to reform our social security system in order to ensure long-run solvency. We have this opportunity in large part because for the first time in over a generation we will have a balanced budget this fiscal year. This presents Congress with a chance to begin making changes to the Social Security system that will both protect current benefits for retirees, and those about to retire, as well as to help preserve benefits for future generations. We must make use of this historic opportunity to cut more government spending and to use those cuts along with the unified budget surplus to help shore up the Social Security trust fund. My amendment begins the process of reforming our government by making it a priority for this Congress to cut taxes and to begin shoring up our teetering Social Security system. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to introduce to the Senate and to the United States the formation of the Religious Prisoners Congressional Task Force, which will advocate for religious prisoners suffering persecution from foreign governments. This bicameral, bipartisan task force was founded by Representative Joe Pitts, from Pennsylvania, who has been the leading force on this, and myself. We are also joined by Senator Joe Lieberman, from Connecticut, and Representative Tony Hall, from Ohio, on this joint task force. I would also note at the very outset that many Members are active in this work and have been for a number of years, such Members as Frank Wolf, from Virginia, who for years has advocated for those who have no voice, who are prisoners of conscience in dirty cells and jails around the world; people like Senator Lugar in this body, who has done so quietly and effectively with many leaders of Government as have other leaders as well. And there are many ongoing efforts along with this task force we are announcing here today. As leaders in a nation which ardently values religious freedom-- indeed, our Nation was founded upon the principle of religious freedom--we take this opportunity to intervene at the highest levels for those whose greatest crime is to express a belief in the divine, in God. It is my personal conviction that what one does with one's own soul is the most fundamental of human rights. I believe this is a fundamental liberty with which people throughout the world are endowed, the inherent right to do this, to freely express their faith. Yet national governments routinely breach this right and wrongfully silence peaceful minority faith communities and jail their leaders. The statistics are striking. Fully one-half of the world's religious believers are restrained by oppressive governments from freely expressing their religious convictions. One-third to one-half of the world's believers are forced to meet clandestinely in underground cell groups or home churches, such as occurs frequently in China and Iran and many other places around the world. Religious persecution is waged internationally from the highest levels of government, particularly Communist and ultranationalist countries. One successful strategy is to intimidate and control believing communities by incarcerating respected religious leaders, bringing the full weight of a national government against key individuals. These prisoners suffer abuses including beatings, torture, extended incarceration and even death unless intervention is made. Such violations strike at the heart of the religious communities while blatantly breaching international treaties and fundamental human rights standards. We have the legal mandate for this action. Through this task force, we will appeal to heads of state, both to obtain release of key religious prisoners and to help change antagonistic policies. Individual prisoners will be assigned to individual task force members through this advocacy adoption program. When congressional Members petition Government leaders, the lives of religious prisoners change. Experienced human rights groups confirm this as well as some of our task force members such as Tony Hall and Joe Pitts, who confirm that such intervention improves prison conditions, stops torture and, most importantly, results in prisoner releases. Ultimately, the joint effort of several Members can influence hostile national policies for the good. Moreover, task force members will engage in joint protests with members from the British Parliament who have implemented a similar prisoner adoption program, providing further weight to this advocacy. As I speak to you today, thousands are sitting in cramped and dirty cells, for no other reason than that they peacefully expressed their religious beliefs. Most are nameless and lack advocates, yet they are the Sakharovs and the Solzhenitsyns of our day, and they deserve our help. The national cases that we will advocate involve advocacy for embattled religious leaders in the Sudan, Pakistan, China, Iran, and Tibet and include persecuted Christians, Tibetan Buddhists and Bahais. The following case profiles of incarcerated believers worldwide illustrate the extremities faced by these communities. In China, one of the people we will initially be advocating for is Bishop Su. He is a 65-year-old Catholic bishop who has already spent 20 years--20 years--in jails and work camps. His crime is that he believed in papal authority, which is prohibited by the Government, and refuses to join the state-authorized Catholic Church, which rejects the Vatican. Previously he was severely tortured but continues to refuse to recant his faith. Also in China, Pastor Peter Xu, the Protestant leader of a 3- to 4- million member Christian movement, has been sentenced to 3 years in a forced labor camp for his peaceful but unofficial religious activities. His case highlights the plight of unregistered Christian groups which are forced to meet clandestinely to avoid arrest and harassment. Such house churches remain unregistered so that they can freely practice their faith without Government control and censorship. These underground movements constitute a majority of practicing Christians in China, and their leaders constantly face arrest and incarceration. In Iran, the task force has targeted four Bahais leaders who have been sentenced to death for the simple reason of their religious associations. They are presently incarcerated and awaiting execution. The death sentence is no idle threat. Over 200 Bahais have been executed, including women and teenage girls. And this just since 1979. In Pakistan, four Christians have been falsely charged with blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammed. If convicted, they will be executed. Blasphemy charges are potent weapons of intimidation and control of minority Christian communities in Pakistan. Sometimes violence erupts against entire towns. For example, last year in Shantinagar, a Christian town--we have a picture of this that I would like to show the body--20,000 were rendered homeless after a mob looted and ravaged for 2 days as police stood by and watched. This is a picture here that we have of a family in that community that was dislocated when the mob violence came and the police stood idly by. In Tibet, the 11th Panchen Lama of Tibet, a 6-year old boy, has ``disappeared'' and most likely is being held by the Chinese Government along with his family, in an attempt to control the Tibetan Buddhists. This is a deep assault on the Buddhist faith which honors this figure as second only to the Dalai Lama, who is now also outlawed. Tibetan Buddhists are suffering a systematic policy of eradication with monasteries being razed and monks and nuns incarcerated. One prison alone boasts over 100 monks and nuns who are presently jailed just for their faith. This does not include the unknown numbers incarcerated in the other six prisons. I want to show some pictures to the body of people who have been incarcerated, penalized, and attacked by governments for simply practicing their faith. We remember those people pictured in various places throughout the world that you can see, pictures of individuals who are being persecuted for their faith. This is another picture of people who are practicing their faith clandestinely at a place in the world where they cannot practice their faith in the open. The gentleman's picture over here to the far right is also a true case of an individual blindfolded and being attacked for his own faith. Even though he is blindfolded and you cannot see his eyes, you can sense in his face that here is a man of faith who knows what he is facing, knowing that death is potential, and still standing for his faith, for that simple right to do with his own soul what he sees fit. Isn't it right for us to advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves? Isn't it up to this body and many others to say that this is a fundamental human right, that this man should have an advocate, that we should be standing with him as he stands there for the simple reason of his own faith, whatever that faith might be? This is a foundational human right. It is time we stood up, stepped forward and spoke out around the world to the world's governments where half of the people live who cannot practice their faith freely. This is the time for us to do that. I hate to think that we will not step up or we will not be up to the cause of the moment, people such as this gentleman, who stands and faces so much more. Mr. President, in conclusion, we hope that the Religious Prisoners Congressional Task Force, along with many other efforts, will be a voice for religious freedom internationally. Our goal is the release of prisoners who have taken a stand for religious liberty, those who have paid the high price of loss of freedom and threat to life and even death. They deserve our advocacy for this most personal of human rights, this most important of human rights, to freely express a belief in God. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use up to 15 minutes of the time Senator Hagel was allotted this morning.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. On behalf of the majority leader, I announce that this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. At 10:30 a.m, as previously agreed to, the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on or in relation to the McCain amendment regarding demonstration projects to S. 1173, the highway bill. Following that vote, the Senate will attempt to complete action on the remaining amendments to the bill, including final passage. Following disposition of S. 1173, the Senate may begin consideration of S. 414, the international shipping bill, under a short-time agreement. In addition, the Senate may also begin consideration of H.R. 2646, the A+ education bill. Therefore, Members should anticipate a busy voting day with votes occurring into the early evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the McCain amendment to require that demonstration projects be funded from each state's allocation and be subject to annual limitation. The current system for designating large construction projects advantages a few states over the majority. It prioritizes construction needs based more on political seniority that it does an impartial evaluation of transportation needs. It creates pressure for Members of Congress to engage in porkbarrel spending rather than to concentrate on prudent national policy. I believe the McCain amendment would help move us away from this system because it would not give states or members an incentive to seek out demonstration or critical needs projects, as securing these projects would not increase the amount of federal funds flowing to a state. I further support the McCain amendment because it gives states greater say in determining what projects have the highest priority for their locality. It should be up to cities, counties, and the state Departments of Transportation to prioritize what projects need immediate attention in their state--not the federal government. Too often under the current system, a state has to put aside its own priorities because it must use its own limited funds to provide matching funds for the large federally designated construction projects, or risk losing federal funding. This ``Washington knows best'' approach to transportation planning needs to end. Finally, I support this amendment because it would end a system that disadvantages the infrastructure needs of a majority of states to the benefit of a few. In order to maintain a strong, truly national infrastructure system, we must give every state the tools and funding its needs to maintain its share of the system. Ending a system that gives a few states an inordinate amount of construction dollars is one step in the right direction toward that goal. I applaud the Senator from Arizona for proposing this approach to increase fiscal responsibility in transportation spending and to empower the communities in which the infrastructure lies. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.