Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the Lieberman amendment for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It reinstates what U.S. policy has been since 1984. It was repealed under the Clinton administration and then brought back in, and it is simply that the United States would not fund abortions or groups that promote abortions overseas. I wish to make one quick note to individuals. There is a new term that has entered into the lexicon, and it is called ``gendercide.'' It is in countries where abortion is being forced and promoted, where they are now having male-female ratios where the girls are being killed in utero because they are girls. It is called ``gendercide.'' I do not think it is a policy or something we should be any part of. This amendment simply reinstates U.S. policy that we will not be involved in countries promoting abortion policies or promoting abortion with our taxpayer dollars. I ask my colleagues to vote aye on this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this is the Lieberman-Brownback amendment; and several others are on the amendment as well. I have worked on this issue for some period of time. Over the past 4 years, we have been able to get some funding for democracy-building activity inside of Iran. It has been a difficult project. We have not been able to get much money secured, but it follows a long tradition of successful efforts at targeting regimes that do not support democracy, that undermine democracy, indeed, even support terrorism around the world, by building civil society organizations within that country. It is very interesting to me you can get a message into Iran, and there is a good possibility, there is an excellent prospect of building civil society organizations inside Iran. You can look at some of the things that have taken place recently where there has been a bus driver strike and the possibility of a labor union movement forming there or even with some of the teacher strikes or some of the student strikes. You are clearly seeing the people inside Iran are opposed to the regime. We need to work, I believe, with them and with others to form civil society organizations inside Iran to go at the regime itself, and to undermine the regime itself, of saying: If you are not going to support our civil rights here, we are going to oppose you. We saw some of these things taking place with some fruit of success inside the Ukraine, where you had a revolution that took place there, where you had a number of civil society organizations that had built up over a period of years, over time, so that when there was a movement of the people where they decided they didn't like that autocratic dictatorship, that autocratic rule that was taking place, there was an underlying group that said: Yes, here is where we should go as a group and as a society. Plus, I think we have to recognize what Iran is. The Iranian Government is the lead sponsor of terrorism around the world. The Iranian people do not support the Government. They are in direct conflict with the United States now in their support and development and funding of troops, of people being trained in Iran or supplied in Iran to go into Iraq. We can oppose, exterior-wise, the Iranians. We can oppose the regime that way. But one of the key things we can also do is say, internally, there should be a development of a civil society within Iran, an internal support for people there. The Iranian regime not only threatens us, they directly and violently threaten a key ally of ours in the region in Israel. In addition to the well-publicized extremist rhetoric from President Ahmadinejad, Iran directly funds groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran directly funds them, which are designed--these groups--to perpetuate violence and thwart efforts for Middle Eastern peace. Their regime is engaged in a campaign against the United States interests in Iraq, as I have stated. Some in the United States would prefer to ignore Iran's threats to our operations or pretend they do not exist at all. It is increasingly clear Iran's leaders are deliberately and purposely targeting U.S. forces in Iraq. The Iranian regime does not want the United States to succeed in Iraq and is consistently resorting to violence to underscore that threat. I also note we are also learning of the regime's sponsorship of violence inside of Afghanistan as well. In short, it is not enough to contemplate what might happen if the United States and Iran came to blows. Based on the actions of the regime in Tehran, Iran is already in conflict with the United States. On our current course, the future is not bright. Iran is moving ever closer to a nuclear capability that will allow it to threaten the security of anyone who opposes its dreams of dominating the Middle East. This amendment provides for the full $75 million for democracy programs. It would take the first step in this direction. We must call the regime to account for its flagrant human rights abuses committed against the Iranian people. I have worked with a number of Iranian dissidents. I have done talk radio programs that have broadcast into Tehran. The regime is brutal in opposing its own people. It is a huge sponsor of terrorism, the largest in the world. It is one we should oppose, and this is a key method that needs to be adequately funded--and I think hardly funded very much at $75 million. But if you cut that down to $30 million, you are below a target that probably even can be of much effect at all. We clearly need to do this. Madam President, before I yield the floor, I want to add Senator Collins as a cosponsor to this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for working on this issue. It is a gut-check issue about where you stand on life, where you stand on the U.S. role around the world, where you stand on whether we should be using taxpayers' funds for abortion, where you stand on whether we should be using taxpayers' dollars to promote abortion overseas. I think those are important and key issues. They are issues on which people know where they stand, and I hope we will be able to have a positive vote on all of these amendments. I also say to my colleagues that if these particular provisions as currently exist in the bill, as I already stated, pass through this body and are in the ultimate bill, I believe the bill will be vetoed and we will be right back talking about this bill which has a number of very good provisions in it on foreign affairs, foreign operations that are very important, but this is certainly going to hold it up. Continuing my comments, as we all know, many Americans are deeply opposed to abortion. If you poll the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion, a solid majority of Americans is opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion. They do not want a part of it. They may say: I am okay with a woman's right to choose, but I don't want us to pay for that. I don't see why the taxpayers should be paying for it, let alone abortions overseas. Many who support abortion question whether it should be used for family planning purposes, which these funds are designated to be used for. We should not force American taxpayers to subsidize organizations that perform or actively promote abortion. That is a position--if you polled that--that would be supported by 75 percent of the American public, probably. I don't have actual poll data on it, but people don't support doing this, and there is no reason we should do it. If anything, they would like to see us cut foreign operations and foreign aid budgets, and here would be a prime spot. They would be happy to see this cut taking place, and it would support their view of the role of the United States in the world and the moral authority with which the United States leads. These are very difficult moral issues, and then we go and insert ourselves in a moral debate overseas--a moral debate about which we are very divided here--and it doubles the negative view of the United States meddling in a country's domestic issues and one of such key significance as life, human life; that we would meddle with U.S. taxpayer dollars. I would like to argue a few other points. First, some will argue incorrectly that Federal tax dollars would not have to be used for actual abortions but could still be used to support the organization's other activities. This is something you will hear a lot about: We are not actually funding abortion, we are funding an organization that happens to be associated with abortion, but it is not for abortions. Well, I think most people see through that figleaf. It fails to properly understand the fungibility of money. If I represent an organization, and I have money in this pocket and money in this pocket, but the budget all flows together--it supports staff, it supports overhead--it is used to support the full organization, and that is U.S. taxpayer money. Again, we are talking about overseas. It is used to support that organization. Sure, they will show us that, yes, in our bookkeeping and recordkeeping we don't support abortions with U.S. taxpayer money, but it does support the overall organization, and the image of that organization overseas is they support abortion. So you are funding abortion, even if the actual dollars themselves don't go for abortion. People get it. I don't think we should fall for the figleaf they are going to keep a separate set of books. It is one organization, and the money goes to support one organization that has one policy, and that policy is to support and promote abortion overseas. The organization receives funds, and they can simply reallocate private funds or other sources of financial support away from their nonabortion-related activities into their abortion activities. It frees up other money they have that they can get from us and then use the money they have from private sources to fund abortions. So we are still helping out with abortions. Second, the Mexico City policy also prohibits organizations that actively promote abortion from receiving funds. This means our Federal tax dollars should not be used to support the lobbying efforts of pro- abortion organizations that are attempting to change the abortion laws in other countries. These are groups that are trying to push pro- abortion laws, pro-choice laws in many other countries. Why should we be involved in lobbying efforts in other countries on a controversial topic such as abortion? That makes no sense whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion as to why we should do that. These are basic considerations I believe we should take into account with the amendment I have offered today to strike the language in this bill which guts the Mexico City policy. The current bill language guts the Mexico City policy. In effect, my amendment would ensure the Mexico City policy stands as is. It would stand. I wish to recognize, too, that my colleagues, particularly the Senator from California, she and I have had various debates about this. I certainly don't question her ability. I don't question her heart. We view this differently. I don't think we should be anywhere near policies that promote abortion overseas. I see no reason the United States should be involved in policies that promote abortion overseas or the support of organizations that promote abortions overseas. My colleague from California looks at this differently. I respect her and her opinion on this. I would hope our colleagues would look at this and simply ask-- particularly those who are voting on this for the first time--is this something they want the United States to be associated with. A lot of people get mad at the United States for pushing its weight around overseas. A number of people get in our face and mad at the United States for pushing cultural changes overseas. I would think most of my colleagues would be very sensitive to our pushing cultural changes overseas, saying: OK, we have policies about democracy, we have thoughts on that; and people should be allowed to govern themselves. We don't necessarily want to push our views on major moral issues around the world today. Yet here is one of a most offensive nature to many Americans, to many people overseas, and the United States is funding it. Why not take the money and use it to do water well promotion or provide AIDS drugs to help people to be able to live or malaria or tuberculosis, where there is no controversy associated with that. In those situations, people would applaud us helping them out with a problem they have, instead of getting involved in a very divisive moral issue in their country as well as ours. This doesn't make sense that we would do this. Amendment No. 2707 Madam President, in the order of agreement, I would like to call up now the second amendment that I would propose, and I ask unanimous consent that the current one be set aside and the second amendment be called up. I do not have a number. It deals with the Kemp-Kasten language.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this is a provision similar to the last one, as far as the issue. It is more specific. It has been the policy of the United States since 1985, and consistently been the policy of the United States through Republican and Democratic Congresses, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It is commonly referred to as the Kemp-Kasten legislation. It would require the reinsertion of what is known as the Kemp-Kasten law into this legislation. This law helps to ensure that American taxpayers do not subsidize groups and organizations with ties to coercive abortions and forced sterilizations. So this is a narrower subset of the past amendment, the last amendment that I put forward. I would like to read it to my colleagues. It is a short amendment. It is well-known language. I would hope it would get near unanimous support in this body. We would put this language in the bill: That none of the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior appropriations may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President, supports, or participates in the management of, a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Coerced abortion. Involuntary sterilization. It says you cannot support groups or organizations that participate in each of those. Now, I don't know of anybody in the Congress who I have ever run into at all that supports coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization. We have seen involuntary sterilization at times in the past in this country, and it was a bad, dark chapter. This is not something we want to be a part of. What we are saying is you cannot support any organization overseas that is involved in involuntary sterilizations or coerced abortions, commonly referred to, as I said, as the Kemp-Kasten legislation. This has been the law on the books for 20 years, and I think my colleagues can see why. This is something people don't support. It has been in place since 1985 through Republican-led Congresses and Democratically led Congresses, Republican administrations and Democratic administrations. However, year after year the language has been watered down in the Foreign Operations appropriation bill and essentially gutted. That is why in this amendment my colleagues will support it. This is language we would reinsert into this bill. This commonsense provision prohibits funding of these organizations. One important effect of this law has been to prohibit taxpayer funding of the United Nations Population Fund. That is what this narrow piece of the debate will be about, because of that agency's support for and participation in the management of the population control program of the People's Republic of China. This program relies heavily on Government-coerced abortions. This gets a bit personal with me. One of our children is adopted from China. I think often of the woman who had our child, Jenna; that somehow she fought through a system that would have paid for, in places and cases, a coerced abortion. But she fought through this system to have the child who is my daughter, who is 9 years old, and who won her third grade spelling bee contest. She is, I think, a beautiful gift to society. A beautiful gift to the world. Why would we want to be anywhere closely associated with any government or organization that would have forced people, such as my daughter's mother, to have an abortion? I don't know why anybody would want to be associated with that or come anywhere close to that. I read to my colleagues, and we inserted in the Record an AP story about this still going on today. This is not an isolated incident. This happens in many places. We have held Senate hearings with people where the local population control officials in China are very aggressive on pushing a one-child policy, and that you have to get a license for that child. Many women will flee a local community when they are pregnant in order to have their child somewhere else. My daughter was left on the doorsteps of an orphanage by somebody who fought through that system. Maybe she was from a community that was some ways away, but somehow she fought through to have this child. Why would we want to be anywhere close to something like that? The Appropriations Committee-approved bill has inappropriately removed the Kemp-Kasten provision by changing the language in important ways. It requires evidence that the UNFPA directly supports coercive abortion. We, as a civilized society, should reject the brutal practice of forced abortion, whether it is promoted directly or indirectly. If you have local population planning authorities in China who are indirectly supporting coercive abortion, do we want to be anywhere closely associated with that? I don't think so. The bill removes the language giving the President the explicit authority to invoke the provision. We ought to allow the President to enforce this provision, as it is essential, I believe, to a civilized society. A civilized society doesn't do forced abortions, coercive abortions or involuntary sterilization. The Brownback amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten language that has been the law for over 20 years. While we have had a rigorous debate in this country about abortion, we have come to some fundamental agreements, I believe. One of those agreements is we should not use tax dollars to fund coercive abortion. It is a brutal practice and it should be stopped. We should not use this as an occasion for partisan politics. Whatever your thoughts on abortion, we should be able to agree that forced abortion goes too far. It is not worthy of the America we all know is possible. I envision an America where the strong protect the weak. We ought to value each life and every life, everywhere and without exception. That is why I talk often about being pro-life and whole- life. I believe the life in the womb is sacred. I believe the life of a child in Darfur is sacred and a child in China. It is a hopeful message and a unifying message and it is one that should apply in this bill on this language. I urge my colleagues to support the Brownback amendment to prohibit funding for forced abortions and return to the sensible policy of the past 20 years and to advance a culture of life; to not get involved in other countries' internal debates on abortion, particularly ones involving forced abortions and sterilizations. I yield the floor, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleagues from Vermont and New Hampshire for getting this play set. These are well-known policy issues. They have been debated a long time in this country. My guess is that most people in this body know where they stand on these particular issues. A lengthy debate is not necessary. What I want to do is clarify what we are talking about, No. 1, and No. 2, factually these conditions continue to exist in the world and this is not something that is an old policy and not needed any longer. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Corker as a cosponsor to my amendment No. 2708.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I call up amendment No. 2708.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, several years ago, when I was chairing the South Asia Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, we held a hearing on a lady who went undercover in China and filmed and interviewed a number of women who had been forced into abortions. She talked about the brutality. She brought the interviews forward. This continues to go on to today. There is no reason that we as an American Government should be associated with it. Period. The Mexico City language has been a longstanding policy of the United States. It makes sense. It is something we should continue. It is gutted in the bill. I want to make another point on this issue. If this language remains in the bill, if the Mexico City language is not put back in the bill, or if the current language remains in the bill and it goes to the President, it will be vetoed. The President has issued a very clear statement to the Congress to maintain the language of Mexico City and Kemp-Kasten, saying very clearly, if this is in the bill, the bill will be vetoed. I don't know why we would want to overturn a policy that has been in place for a number of years, a policy that makes common sense, to get a veto on a very important Foreign Operations bill. I thank my colleague from Vermont who chairs the committee and my colleague from New Hampshire who is the ranking member for many good provisions in this Foreign Operations bill. I know my colleague from Vermont has a heart for foreign operations issues, for taking care of people overseas and domestically, to do whatever he can in situations that are difficult, that are dire. We have talked about it many times. I am very appreciative of his efforts in this field. This is not the way to go. This is something that will divide us. This is something that is harmful. It is something that will be vetoed. It is something that will bring this bill back in front of us. I believe we will have the votes to sustain the President's veto. We should not go this route on this particular bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be agreeable to that request.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I want to describe the overview of this and go into the specifics. This amendment No. 2708 deals with the Mexico City policy. The second one deals with the Kemp-Kasten legislation. They are both policies the U.S. has in place. Kemp-Kasten has been in place over 20 years. The Mexico City policy has been in place since President Reagan. It was repealed under President Clinton and put back in place under President Bush. These are long, well-known policy issues. They are significant policy issues. There is significant policy debate about it. The centerpiece of this debate is whether the U.S. should use taxpayer funding to fund abortion overseas. That is at the centerpiece of the debate--whether the U.S. Government should use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas. I submit that regardless of your position on abortion, we should not be using taxpayer funds to fund abortions here or overseas. A number of Americans would oppose on moral grounds that their taxpayer dollars are being used to fund abortions here or overseas but particularly overseas. They would object to that. And a number of people would say why are we even doing something like this overseas. People who are pro-choice might say: I am OK with abortion, but why are we using taxpayer dollars to do this overseas? Why not let those countries and governments deal with their own problems rather than us funding these issues? There is a taxpayer angle on this issue and there is an overseas meddling angle on this issue, and there is obviously a major moral issue of our day that is involved with this issue. These amendments raise important issues. Should, as I mentioned, U.S. taxpayers be forced to subsidize international groups involved in abortions? Should U.S. taxpayers support organizations involved with coercive abortion policies? Some people support abortion but not coercive abortion. And should U.S. taxpayers be involved with organizations that are connected to involuntary sterilizations? I hope everybody in this body would be opposed to those last two points. As drafted, the Foreign Operations bill, unfortunately, answers yes to all three questions, and that is what this first amendment, the Mexico City language amendment, seeks to turn around. The bill is a radical departure from both current policy and common sense, and it should make us pause. Do we want to go down this road? The first amendment I offer today addresses what is known as the Mexico City policy. This policy originated with President Ronald Reagan, as I stated previously, in 1984 and has been continued by the current administration. The Mexico City policy prohibits Federal taxpayer funds from going to organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. The Mexico City language is this: prohibits Federal taxpayer funds from going to organizations that ``perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.'' However, the language in the pending bill would gut this policy. In fact, the language in this appropriations bill implies that elective abortion is an acceptable method of family planning. No matter how one feels about the taking of human life through surgically induced abortions, surely we can reach some consensus that abortion is not a legitimate means of family planning. Further, I hope we can agree that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize groups that provide abortion, many of whom object to abortion and find it morally wrong. The Mexico City policy is common sense and aligns with the values of most Americans. The bottom line is, U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize or support organizations that perform or promote abortions for overseas family planning programs. In case my colleagues think, OK, that was the language in 1984, that was the world situation in 1984, let me read from a newspaper article, an AP story that was filed on August 30, 2007. The article is ``Chinese victims of forced late-term abortion fight back.'' The article is dated August 30, 2007. It reads as follows: Yang Zhongchen, a small-town businessman, wined and dined three government officials for permission to become a father. Yes, permission to become a father. It didn't work. Even though he wined and dined, his wife was taken out of town and her baby was killed by injection while still inside her. This is her quote. I want to read this for my colleagues: ``Several people held me down, they ripped my clothes aside and the doctor pushed a large syringe into my stomach,'' says Jin Yani, a shy, petite woman with a long ponytail. ``It was very painful. . . . It was all very rough.'' The article goes on to say: Some 30 years after China decreed a general limit of one child per family, resentment still brews over the state's regular and sometimes brutal intrusion into intimate family matters. Not only are many second pregnancies aborted, but even to have one's first child requires a license. Why would we want to be associated with any sort of family planning that is coercive of an abortion, regardless of where you are on the choice issue? Whether you are pro-choice or not, you wouldn't want to be associated with a government, with a group that does forced abortions, coercive abortions such as I am reading about in an AP story written at the end of August of this year. Why would we want to be a part of that? Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article on ``Chinese victims of forced late-term abortion fight back.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to recognize Debra Brown Steinberg for receiving an Ellis Island Medal of Honor from the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations. This award acknowledges her work representing immigrants whose family members died in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. As a recipient of the award, Debra joins an elite group of distinguished Medal of Honor recipients such as Lee Iacocca, former Chrysler CEO and author of ``Where Have all the Leaders Gone?'', as well as several former U.S. Presidents including Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Ms. Steinberg, moved with compassion, responded to the attacks by playing a vital leadership role in creating the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest 9/11 Project in early October 2001. She also played an important role in the creation of the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, which awarded a total $7 billion to family members of individuals killed in the 9/11 attacks, by drafting the New York City Bar Association's comments on the interim and final regulations for the fund. Since that time, she has worked selflessly to ensure that the family members of victims of 9/11 are cared for. Nearly 6 years after the 9/11 attacks, Debra Brown Steinberg is still fighting for the families of victims of the terrorist attacks-- specifically immigrants without legal status in the United States who, after facing the traumatic loss of a family member on 9/11, now face potential deportation. As our Nation continues to mourn the loss of friends and family members who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Ms. Steinberg has set an example for all of us by helping families that have suffered greatly. Her selfless and persistent efforts have given these immigrant families hope that one day they will be able to grieve freely. In addition to her work representing these immigrant families through the 9/11 Compensation Fund process, she has helped to draft the September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and Patriotism Act, S. 615, which I introduced with Senator Lautenberg on February 15, 2007. This legislation would help immigrants whose family members were killed in the attacks heal from the tragedy as our Nation continues to do the same. Our tradition teaches us to have compassion for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger among us. Ms. Steinberg's action representing the families of immigrant victims of 9/11 exemplifies such compassion. We have much to learn from Debra Steinberg, and I am proud to honor her achievements before my colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments. I appreciate the Chair staying here and facilitating this and allowing us to speak about a very important issue--the key issue of our time--the war in Iraq and what is taking place there. I want to focus my brief comments on what we need to do on a political solution. I think we are caught up with the idea that we need to be on a military solution. A military solution is not going to ultimately solve the situation in Iraq. You have to have a political, durable solution. Unless we are willing to sit there for an indefinite number of years with troops engaged in a very active military setting, we have to get a political, durable situation in Iraq and on the ground if we are going to be realistic about what we are going to do. I have worked with Senator Biden on this proposal. I will talk about a resolution that we have worked together on for a political solution. He chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. I have been on that committee for a number of years. I think we have to realize the population we are dealing with. The situation is not dissimilar, in some respects, to when we saw what took place in the former Yugoslavia. We had a number of different populations where history had washed over that place with different waves of different individuals' thoughts and philosophies. After Tito leaves and you take off this big military apparatus and intelligence apparatus that was willing to kill people to enforce power, you are left with sectarian groups that don't get along. Now Yugoslav has six countries in two autonomous regions after hundreds of thousands of people were killed and multiple sets of civil wars that took place. I think that is instructive from the standpoint of that is what takes place when you take a big military apparatus off of areas where you have nonuniform or a homogenous region. We are seeing this in Sudan. You have in Sudan a north dominated by Arab and Muslim and a south that is Black and Christian, by and large. They don't get along. There were 2 million killed in the south. The south is going to secede. You have genocide in Darfur by this government--a militant Islamic regime in Khartoum. The world is growing in awareness of what is taking place in Darfur. I think we have to recognize the situation in Iraq and that you have several different populations. The Kurdish population is separate and distinct and operating in its own area and doing a nice job. There is growth taking place there--not everyplace, but it is doing pretty well. You have a mixed Sunni and Shia population in the rest of the country-- dominant Sunni in some areas and dominant Shia in others, and Baghdad is a mixed federal city. I think we have to look at that situation and recognize the mixture and the combustibility of that mixture and get to a more durable political solution. You are seeing now an ongoing migration of Iraqis inside their own country, which I think suggests Iraq will eventually do what would be called a soft partition. That is the logical thing that would take place, and it is taking place today. There is an outcome of many historical precedents--most notably in Bosnia in the 1990s. Senator Biden and I introduced a resolution calling on Iraqis to reach an agreement that would formalize a federal system in Iraq consistent with their Constitution that would allow for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia to manage their own affairs, with Baghdad remaining a federal capital city. It is increasingly clear to me that we should start taking interim steps now to facilitate a three-state, one-country solution in Iraq. We should begin by acknowledging that many Iraqis whose lives are threatened because of their sectarian affiliation are on the move. More Iraqis are facing sectarian violence and are considering moving. As tragic as these movements seem now, they are preferable to the mass migration that would occur if Iraq were to implode. There are steps we can take now to ease the process of internal migration. We can start by authorizing our commanders on the ground to help families who express a desire to relocate to areas where they would join a sectarian majority. Relocating families will require secure passage to safer areas and reliance probably on economic assistance to reestablish them. Those who wish to relocate should be assisted in this fashion. I don't expect that the Iraqi people will create three completely homogeneous regions. In fact, the level of Sunni and Shia marriage would preclude such an outcome. We should be attentive to those who believe security is enhanced by moving out of mixed neighborhoods, where they do not face the danger of sectarian violence. Indeed, there was reporting of people swapping houses who were Sunni in a dominant Shia area, and Shia in a dominant Sunni area, so they would feel more secure after one of their families had been killed or kidnapped. I think that makes sense. As populations continue to move, we also need to take steps to avert other aspects of an implosion. We need to ensure that the Kurdish region, which has been a bedrock of stability to this point, remains a stable area. Turkey is rightly concerned about the threat of terrorism coming from across the Iraqi border. We need to reassure them, and we should bolster counterterrorism capabilities of Iraqi forces deployed in that region-- much as we have done in Georgia and in other nations where terrorists tried to establish a safe haven and destabilize their region. Our military strategy certainly depends on a stable Kurdish region. Our political vision of Iraq also requires the Kurdish area to remain strong, and I hope we can move quickly to address terrorism issues there. There are other steps we should take to prepare Iraq for a federal political settlement. We must take additional steps to secure the Iraq- Iranian border, which would be of great benefit to the troops executing the surge, as well as mitigate any attempt Iran might make or thinks that it has to exploit a future three-state, federal version of Iraq. Last, we should place new emphasis on local and provincial elections in Iraq. I raise these issues because I do not believe we can precipitously pull out of Iraq, nor should we. But I think we have to recognize the situation on the ground for what it is and facilitate it before we see more mass sectarian violence taking place. We can do this and, in a civil fashion, save lives. That is what this is about. It is about saving lives. We have seen this play before. We have seen it recently in Yugoslavia. We are seeing it today in Sudan. Why can't we see this and say we are going to save lives by facilitating this rather than creating a combustible situation that blows up on us later. This is consistent with the Iraqi Constitution. It is a more robust political solution which matches our need militarily on the ground. I finally, say, Mr. President, I have traveled the country a lot. I hear a number of people out there. They don't want to lose in Iraq, but they don't see us on a track to win. What they are after is us coming together here to provide that solution of how we can win. What I am talking about is a political solution that is as aggressive as our military solution. The military gives us space for the political side to act. But we have to get it moving, and that is a situation where we can win and we can go to the American people and say we are on track to win and be able to pull our forces from the frontlines and reduce the death loss we are experiencing as a country, that my State is experiencing, that the Big Red One stationed at Fort Riley, KS, is experiencing. We can do this. We need to show some foresight and bipartisanship to get it done. That is why I call, along with my colleague, Senator Biden, for this proposal, and I urge other colleagues to join us as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time is left in total?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I object on behalf of another Senator.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is acceptable to me.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I wish to address the nomination of Janet Neff, who is the second nominee to come up. I can do so now or wait until after the first vote. I would defer to my colleague from Pennsylvania, if he wants to do it that way, or if there an order established on the vote or for debate on the second nomination.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy, if I could, Madam President, to take that time now. It won't be the full 10 minutes, but I wish to be able to discuss this. This is a matter of some concern. It has been pending for over a year, and I think it is meritorious of the nominee that it be brought forward.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could ask for a minute at that time, I would have no problem for 3 minutes for my colleague from Michigan. I think it is fair when our colleagues are present to hear some of this discussion.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Between the votes. That is when your time would occur.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for accommodating me. Also, we wish to accommodate the other Members who will come in and I think will want to vote in a series of votes. I think that is perfectly fine. I wish to address the second nominee who will be up today, Janet T. Neff, for the District Court of the Western District of Michigan. The Presiding Officer has had an interest in this matter, as well as many others. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78, said this about judges: The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it proves anything, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body. As we consider judicial nominees, we must consider whether they have the temperament, disposition, and ideology to interpret the law without regard to their own personal will. Because I am not convinced Judge Neff can do that, I cannot support her nomination. I wish to give the body some background on this matter. On June 28, 2006, Judge Janet Neff was nominated by President Bush for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. I wish to point out that she was part of an overall package of judges that was put forward and that the Michigan Senators were part of this discussion of her nomination. I do not know if she would have been the top pick of the President, but this is where we work together in this body, trying to get district judges the Senators from that State would support. These were supported by my two distinguished colleagues from Michigan. They were for Judge Neff. In September of 2006, following her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I became aware of Judge Neff's participation in a same-sex commitment or marriage ceremony in Massachusetts in 2002. This was reported in the New York Times. This concerned me. I placed a hold on Judge Neff's nomination in order to ascertain her role in the ceremony and her position on the constitutional validity of State bans on same-sex marriage. That is the core issue. No. 1, factually, what is it that took place that she participated in and, No. 2, what is her view of the constitutionality of same sex marriages? She would be going on to the Federal bench and this issue is likely to come in front of her. With regard to her involvement in the 2002 Massachusetts commitment ceremony, Judge Neff first responded to my concerns in a letter. She described the context of the ceremony itself but declined to answer questions regarding the legality of traditional marriage laws and initiatives. For that reason, I requested a second hearing with Judge Neff, which was held on May 10, 2007. My distinguished colleague from Vermont, the chairman of the committee, accommodated that hearing, and I appreciate that he did. At that hearing, Judge Neff testified she attended the commitment ceremony in Massachusetts as a close friend of one of the women involved. She stated she did not ``lead'' the proceeding, as the New York Times reported but, rather, participated as the homilist in the formal ceremony itself. Judge Neff testified that when she was asked to deliver the homily, she was pleased to do that. I spent much time considering whether her role as a homilist can fairly be described as leading the ceremony. It is my belief, whether she led the ceremony, she was an active participant and not a mere bystander. I wish to make clear my decision to oppose Judge Neff's nomination is not based merely on her involvement in this ceremony. Rather, her participation in this ceremony was simply the means I became aware of her approach to interpreting same-sex marriage laws, which are likely to come in front of her or have a good possibility of coming in front of her were she to be placed on the Federal bench. After discussing her role in the ceremony, I asked about her understanding of the law regarding same-sex marriage. When asked whether she feels the Constitution creates a right to same-sex marriage, Judge Neff said that is a ``continuing legal controversy.'' When asked what her understanding is regarding Michigan statutory defense of marriage law, she said, ``I really don't have an understanding of it.'' I would note for the record the State of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment by a vote of the people in 2004, 59 percent to 41 percent, defining marriage as a union of a man and woman. But prior to that, in 1996, prior to this commitment ceremony in 2002, the legislature passed a State law defining marriage as between a man and a woman--clearly the law of Michigan. When asked her understanding regarding the law in Michigan, she said, ``It's not entirely settled,'' even though the legislature had passed this in 1996 and by 2004 the people of Michigan had passed a definition of marriage. These answers of hers give me pause. Michigan's defense of marriage law, which has been on the books since 1996, says: Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this State has a special interest in encouraging, supporting and protecting that unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this State. In addition to this statute, in 2004, the voters of Michigan passed a similar constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. In my opinion, the law of Michigan could not be more settled. The fact that Judge Neff feels the court has to weigh in before this issue is settled suggests a misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary. The people of Michigan have spoken, similar to those of 27 other States. The amendment was a direct statement by the people of Michigan. Never is it more important to respect the will of the people than with issues of fundamental family values. Those issues must be decided by the people and not by Federal judges. Because I am not persuaded that Judge Neff will fairly uphold the law of the State of Michigan, I cannot support her nomination for a lifetime appointment to the bench. This has been a long and arduous journey and I recognize that for Judge Neff and I recognize that for the State of Michigan. I appreciate her willingness to come in front of us in the confirmation process. But I believe one of the most important aspects of my job as a Senator is the consideration of judges for the Federal bench. I take the Senate's role in the judicial nomination process very seriously. Individuals who are put in these positions assume lifetime appointments. We have a responsibility to ensure they understand their role and are firmly rooted in the principles of law and justice and what they will do in interpreting the law, not writing the law. They must be committed to following the letter of the law without imposing their own ideologies. Because I am not satisfied that Judge Neff can do this, on a very important, very controversial issue of our day, I cannot support her nomination. I have reached out. I met personally with Judge Neff. I met with the Senators from the State of Michigan. This has been a long ordeal. It is my considered judgment that she is not well-set on her role as a judge and more willing to consider her role as an activist in this particular issue. With that, I ask my colleagues and urge my colleagues to consider it and consider opposing and voting against Judge Neff's nomination. I thank my colleagues for accommodating me. I urge a ``no'' vote on Judge Neff, the second nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against Judge Neff going onto the bench for a lifetime appointment. I have met directly with her. I have been present for two hearings where she has spoken on the controversial issue of same-sex marriage, which we all agree should be decided by legislative bodies and by the people, not by the courts. She has an activist view on this issue. She participated in a ceremony herself. Then, when asked about her view toward same-sex unions, she said she considers it a continuing legal controversy. Her words: I really don't have an understanding of it, concerning the Michigan law. In Michigan, the State has defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, both by the legislature and the people. She says it is not entirely settled. Here is an activist on a core issue, a difficult issue, one I think we all believe should be decided by legislative bodies and not by the courts. She would be one who would have a tendency to rule from the bench. I urge my colleagues to vote against Judge Neff.