Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

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. 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. 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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that on June 11, I was unable to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 14, a joint resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people. I wish to address this vote, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 207, I would not have voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 14. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for this recognition. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and he is the lead sponsor of the drive electric amendment. This is an exciting bipartisan proposal. It has 26 cosponsors. It does one narrow issue, but it is a big one, and that is this: It gives consumers another option in the marketplace. Right now, we are 97 percent dependent on oil for our transportation fuel. We are trying to expand that into ethanol, having more ethanol in the marketplace, and I think that is key. What this amendment focuses on is getting another option out there, a great one--it is an electric option--and to put it forward so we can have more transportation running off electricity. I think one of the key things for us to do in our future is to be able to reduce our consumption of oil, particularly foreign oil, and one of the key ways for us to do that is to have our transportation fleet become more electric--a plug-in technology where you plug the car in at night in the garage and you drive the next day. About half of the Nation doesn't drive over 30 miles a day. Having plug-in cars that can go that first 30 miles off electricity and then switch over, I would hope, to ethanol, E85 ethanol at that point, in fact, could reduce aggressively, substantially, and quickly our dependence on foreign oil. This amendment is a part of an overall strategy that a number of us have put forward. One of the amendments of this strategy was passed on Monday, where an oil savings plan was put forward and accepted by this body in the overall bill. Let me go to the specifics of this particular bill, if I could, and I know the Senator from Colorado will get to these more in depth, but the DRIVE electric amendment would expand the advanced transportation technology program in H.R. 6 and augment the energy storage competitiveness program in section 244 of the bill. The funding of $125 million would be authorized for the near-term deployment, market assessment, and the electricity usage provisions of the amendment. The point of this is, if we are to rapidly expand plug-in technology, where the car is driven initially, or the pickup is driven initially off of electricity and then on to gasoline or ethanol, we need to get storage technology in the batteries. We need to get drive train technology to be able to do this, and it is within reach. I talked to a representative of General Motors yesterday about having the first wave of plug-in cars in the marketplace as soon as possibly 2008 or 2009. These are exciting prospects, but you have clear hurdles that we have to overcome in the process. Those are identified in this bill, and we provide funding for the research in those areas to go forward. We also urge the Federal Government in fleet acquisition programs to establish under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 an assurance that fleet operators subject to that law can choose electric drive transportation technology, including hybrid electric vehicles, for compliance. This amendment is endorsed by a large group, certainly electric companies, as you might suspect, but also others interested in stretching our fuel usage, our oil usage in this country, and getting it from other sources. I might point out, too, one of the things people ask about: OK, if you are going to switch to electric, you are going to have to build more power-generating units, and that may happen in the future. But initially we can handle this by using the power grid we have now in offpeak hours. Most of the plug-ins will happen at night. Most of the recharging will happen at night. So you don't have to build additional capacity to be able to do this. It is good for the environment, reducing our CO2 emissions overall into the atmosphere, and it is good for the economy. It develops a new way of moving forward on personal transportation on a mass quantity basis for us to be able to do it in this society and then sell that technology globally. So it helps our car manufacturers to be able to compete. I think this is a win all the way around, and I am delighted to be a cosponsor of the amendment with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, and many others. I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment as a key provision to how we become energy secure in the next 15 years, while at the same time growing our economy and helping the environment. All together it is an exciting and excellent amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, on June 8, 1917, the U.S. Army officially organized the First Expeditionary Division. That means tomorrow is the 90th anniversary of what is now known as the 1st Infantry Division or the ``Big Red One,'' headquartered at Fort Riley, KS. The Big Red One has an unsurpassed history of answering the call to duty, and it is vital to our Nation's fight against determined enemies. We are fortunate to have these fine soldiers defending our freedom. As the oldest, continuously serving division in the history of the U.S. Army, the Big Red One enjoys a long and proud tradition of defending America. It also has a tradition of being the first. During World War II, Big Red One was the first to reach England, the first to capture a German city, the first to fight in North Africa, and the first on the beaches of Normandy on D-day. It was the first division to deploy to Vietnam and spearheaded the armored attack into Iraq at the start of Desert Storm. The Big Red One has a long and proud heritage that we should honor and celebrate. On August 1, 2006, I was proud to welcome the Big Red One's headquarters back to Fort Riley, KS. The division has a vital, new mission of training military transition teams for both Iraq and Afghanistan. This intense training is meant to prepare our finest military members to train their counterparts in the Iraqi and Afghani militaries. We honor those soldiers who have committed to this mission. I also want to recognize the 1st Division soldiers operating today in some of Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods. They too take their place in the Big Red One's proud history. On this 90th anniversary, June 8, 2007, I salute the men and women of the U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division, the Big Red One. The enormous sacrifice and dedication of these heroic men and women should make all Americans proud. As they say in the 1st Division: ``No mission too difficult, no sacrifice too great. Duty first.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that on May 24 I was unable to vote on the motion to concur in House amendment to Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. Regarding vote No. 181, I would have voted in favor of the motion to concur in House amendment to Senate amendment to H.R. 2206. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Mr. President, I also regret that on May 24 I was unable to vote on certain provisions of S. 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. I wish to address these votes so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 176, on amendment No. 1186, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 177, on amendment No. 1158, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 178, on amendment No. 1181, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 179, on amendment No. 1223, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 180, on amendment No. 1157, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the immigration bill, the underlying amendment. I am delighted we are taking up this issue dealing with immigration. I am glad we are debating this important issue in the Senate and that the majority leader has dedicated 2 weeks to do this bill. I think we need at least that period of time to delve into this issue. I have worked on it before. I have served on the Judiciary Committee. It is a tough topic, and it needs a lot of debate. Immigration is an issue which has seized Americans across the Nation. People are torn trying to balance two fundamental American principles: one, of being a rule of law nation; and, second, trying to be a compassionate society. Here I think we do not need to mitigate either of these desires, that we can do both of them. But it is difficult and the details matter. America is a nation of both justice and compassion. The two are not mutually exclusive. But reconciling the two is sometimes difficult, as we find in this debate. Currently, we have, we think, somewhere around 12 million illegal immigrants in our country. The number is growing. In 1987, there were roughly 4 million undocumented immigrants in our country; in 1997, there were roughly 7 million; and today, in 2007, there are somewhere around 12 million. In addition, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, annual arrivals of illegal immigrants have exceeded the arrival of legal immigrants since 1985. That is not the trend we want. The reality is our immigration system is seriously broken and needs to be fixed. Some people think the solution is to grant undocumented immigrants amnesty as we did in 1986, but that won't work. Others think the solution to the problem is to simply enforce the laws we have and kick everyone out. We have taken a serious look at this option, and although our enforcement efforts over the last year have dramatically increased, I do not believe this answer alone will work either. The office responsible for detaining and removing illegal immigrants is the Office of Detention and Removal, DRO. It is a division of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the largest investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security. You may be surprised to know that the DRO is actually quite large, despite the relatively small impact they are able to have. DRO includes 6,700 authorized employees, including nearly 5,300 law enforcement officers and 1,400 support personnel. To put this in perspective, the number of DRO law enforcement officers is just under half as large as the number of FBI special agents. With these resources in 2006, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, removed 187,513 illegal aliens from the country--a record for the agency and a 10-percent increase over the number of removals during the prior fiscal year. If you do the math, though, that works out to roughly 28 illegal aliens deported per DRO employee per year or 35 deportations per law enforcement officer per year. At that pace, if we shut down the border to a point at which no one crosses illegally, and successfully end 100 percent of the visa overstays and double the number of DRO agents, then it will take us 25 to 30 years to deport the estimated 11 million to 13 million illegal aliens who are currently in the United States. As a matter of national security, we can't afford to wait 30 years to know who is in our country illegally. For the sake of our national security and our Nation's future, we need to solve the immigration problems facing our Nation now. The comprehensive bill before the Senate goes a long way toward enabling us to fix our immigration system and the problem of illegal immigration. I might point out that people are not opposed to immigration, they are opposed to illegal immigration, and we need to get the legal system to work and fix the problems in it. I believe we need a multifaceted approach to the complex immigration problem we are facing, and the compromise bill before the Senate now will enable us to take significant strides toward fixing the problem. That said, there are certain aspects of the bill I wish to change. I look forward to the opportunity to do so through the amendment process and to see whether I can support the final product. With respect to solving the immigration problem, we must first and foremost secure the border, and this bill appears to do that. Section 1 of the bill ensures that we don't repeat one of the biggest mistakes of the 1986 amnesty of implementing immigration reforms without increasing border and worksite enforcement. The triggers in section 1 require the DHS Secretary to certify in writing the following border and worksite enforcement measures are funded, in place, and in operation before-- before--initiating a guest worker program or issuing Z visas to current undocumented immigrants. These are the triggers: 18,000 Border Patrol hired; construction of 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing; 70 ground-based radar and camera towers along the southern border; the deployment of 4 unmanned aerial vehicles and supporting systems; ending catch and release; resources to detain up to 27,500 aliens per day on an annual basis; the use of secure and effective identification tools to prevent unauthorized work; and the receiving, processing, and adjudication of applications for Z status. I go through the details because the details really matter in this bill. In addition, the bill authorizes enhanced border enforcement, including a national strategy for border security, 14,000 new Border Patrol agents by 2012, doubling the current force; 2,500 new Customs and Border Protection officers by 2012; 3,000 new DHS investigators by 2010; 24,000 new detention beds by 2010; enhanced surveillance, using unmanned aerial vehicles, as I mentioned; cameras, sensors, satellites, and other technologies. That is not enough for just taking care of the border. We also have to go to the workplace. Most people are attempting to enter the United States illegally to work. I think we have to focus on what we do at the workplace. I think we need to implement a smart worksite enforcement system, smart and tough. The primary reason for illegal immigration, as I stated, is employment. If we eliminate a person's ability to unlawfully gain employment, then we will dramatically reduce the incentive for illegal immigration. This bill includes several measures that enhance our ability to enforce immigration laws at the workplace: increasing penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants; requiring DHS to issue a tamper-resistant work authorization document with biometric information; allowing the Commissioner of Social Security to share information with DHS so they can go after those who use fraudulent Social Security cards to gain employment; creating an employment eligibility and verification system that requires employers to electronically verify a prospective employee's work authorization. The robust worksite enforcement system included in this bill fixes a huge hole in our current system and should curtail the use of false documents to fraudulently obtain employment. Now let's look at the immigration system reforms. The most significant immigration reform this bill makes is the implementation of a merit-based immigration system--and this is a big shift--to choose the best and the brightest of those coming into our country. This doesn't mean we should only allow rocket scientists or brain surgeons, but education is and should be a factor. The merit-based system under the bill does that. It sets up a system in which immigrants can earn points in four categories: education, employment, English proficiency, and family. In addition to the merit-based system, this bill ends chain migration for extended family, while preserving family unification for the immediate family. I think that is an important distinction, that we want family reunification for immediate, nuclear family, but we don't want the chain migration system for extended family members. This is an important change. I am one of the staunchest supporters of family in the Senate. I don't think our immigration system should blindly favor, though, non- nuclear families such as siblings and adult children over skilled workers who are coming to apply their trade and contribute to our economy. It seems to me this is an appropriate balance. Throughout this bill, what we are trying to accomplish is an appropriate, workable balance for the good and the future of this Nation. On the temporary guest worker program, once we are able to secure the border and implement worksite enforcement enhancements, we need to reform our immigration system to create sufficient legal means for well-meaning workers to come to our country and to work. The temporary guest worker program in this bill does that, while at the same time protecting American workers and wages by: requiring employers to advertise jobs to U.S. workers first; requiring employers to advertise pay, a wage equal to that of an average wage for the particular job or industry, particular in that region of the country; and prohibiting a temporary guest worker from working in a county that has 7 percent unemployment or higher. I think there are some important changes that need to be made in the bill. As I have said, the compromise bill before us does a lot of good, but I think it is far from perfect and needs improvement. To give some examples, section 601(h) of the bill gives certain immigration benefits to undocumented immigrants who seek ``probationary'' status, and states that an undocumented immigrant can obtain no probationary benefits until the alien has passed all appropriate background checks, or until the next business day, whichever is sooner. So you have a 24-hour check period. That is insufficient, if they want to look into the background of an individual seeking this probationary status. I will seek to change that particular provision. The impact of this provision is that 12 million or more undocumented immigrants could receive lawful status, the right to work, and other such benefits even if a background check cannot be completed in time. I think the problems with this provision are significant and obvious. First, in a post-9/11 world, it is misguided at best and dangerous at worst to grant millions of people unlawfully present in the United States lawful status, even if a background check has not been completed. That is not wise. Second, there is no evidence that the Department of Homeland Security is capable of conducting cross- departmental and cross-governmental background checks, let alone a million of them, or millions of them, in a 24-hour time period. Third, many records relevant to a background check are not electronic and/or are not in possession of or otherwise accessible to the Federal Government, suggesting that more than one business day may be required for a thorough check, and a thorough check we must do. This is an important issue with potentially grave consequences for our national security. I have filed an amendment to change this provision so no one would receive any immigration benefits without passing a background check. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In addition, I think the bill should require followup background checks when Z visa holders apply to extend their visa beyond the initial 4 years. As the bill is drafted, it leaves that decision to perform a background check up to the Secretary of Homeland Security. I think we need to be able to have removal proceedings for ineligible Z visa applicants. Section 601(d) of the bill lays out certain grounds of ineligibility for a Z visa, which include multiple criminal convictions, controlled substance trafficking, trafficking in persons, and even terrorist activity. The very same section also states: Nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary to commence removal proceedings against an alien. The obvious question is: Why not? Why should DHS not be required to immediately begin removal proceedings against someone who is ineligible for a Z visa because they are a criminal or a terrorist? I think DHS should be required to begin removal proceedings or at the very least take steps toward removing such people from the country. The two main reasons for providing undocumented immigrants the ability to obtain a Z visa are to separate those who are here with good intentions to work and support their families from those who intend to do us harm; and second, to create a system where people have a legal status. In order to successfully do this, this provision needs to be changed so when an individual is found to be ineligible to remain in the country legally under this program, they are removed. In conclusion, I look forward to continuing this debate on this bill on these issues I have identified and others to strengthen this bill. As many Members have said, this bill is not perfect and can certainly be improved in ways I have noted and in others. But we can't use the bill's imperfections as an excuse for doing nothing for a system that is clearly broken. I look forward to offering these amendments to improve the bill, and I look forward to hearing some of the ideas my colleagues in the Senate have as well. At the end of the day, I hope we can pass a bill the President can sign, so we can say we did something to improve America by enacting immigration legislation that secures our borders, restores respect for our laws, and creates an immigration system that works. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote the afternoon of May 9 on the confirmation of the nomination of Debra Ann Livingston, of New York, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Second Circuit of New York. I wish to address this confirmation so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 158, I support the confirmation of Debra Ann Livingston. My vote would not have altered the outcome of this confirmation.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that on May 2, 3, 7, and 9 I was unable to vote on certain provisions and passage of S. 1082, the prescription drug user fee amendments of 2007. I wish to address these votes, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 148, on amendment No. 982, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 149, on amendment No. 1022, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 150, on amendment No. 990, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 151, on amendment No. 1010, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 152, on the motion to invoke cloture on the committee substitute as modified and amended to S. 1082, I would have voted in favor of this motion. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Regarding vote No. 154, on amendment No. 1039, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 155 on amendment No. 998, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 156 on amendment No. 1034, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 157, on passage of S. 1082, the prescription drug user fee amendments of 2007, I would have voted in favor of passage of this bill. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that on May 15 I was unable to vote on certain provisions of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I wish to address these votes, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 163, on amendment No. 1090, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 164, on amendment No. 1089, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 165, on amendment No. 1086, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 166, on amendment No. 1094, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a special group of Americans--the members of Company B, 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment. The dedication and patriotism of this Army Reserve unit from Olathe, KS, truly makes all Kansans and Americans proud. In October 2005, Pakistan suffered a severe disaster when a 7.6- magnitude earthquake devastated the country. This unit, known as the Spartans, was in the midst of training at Fort Sill, OK, to prepare for its deployment to Afghanistan when they received orders to assist in the humanitarian relief efforts. The unit immediately responded by disassembling their entire fleet of Chinook helicopters, flying to Afghanistan where they reassembled their aircraft, and then deploying to Islamabad to participate in relief efforts. All this was accomplished in a mere 4 days--a phenomenal feat. During the 5 months of this operation, the Spartans flew 2,633 missions where they delivered more than 18 million pounds of supplies, transported almost 7,000 refugees, and medically evacuated 311 casualties. This mission proved to be the longest and largest helicopter relief mission in the history of the United States. Following their relief mission, the unit deployed to Afghanistan to provide heavy-lift support for combat operations at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan. During their 7-month deployment, the unit contributed to three major offensive operations by transporting troops and supplies in some of the most difficult conditions for aviation operations. In early October 2006, the unit returned to Pakistan for Operation Promise Keeping, a mission to commemorate the 1-year anniversary of the earthquake. The unit delivered more than 87 tons of steel sheets, cement, and construction materials to help with rebuilding efforts in Pakistan. This weekend, at the Army Aviation Association of America's annual convention, the unit is being recognized as the Army Reserve Aviation Unit of the Year. The Pakistani people will forever remember the servant hearts of these military members. It is with an overwhelming sense of gratitude that I wish to recognize these fine service members and their families for their dedication to the cause of freedom and congratulate them on their much deserved award.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I just returned from Greensburg, KS, yesterday, where we had a horrific tornado hit late Friday evening. I want to share with my colleagues some of the damage assessments, some of the pictures of what has taken place, and some of the needs we have for this community. It is a community I have been to a number of times while serving in different positions in Kansas. It is a wonderful community, full of community spirit, with people who have been there for a number of years. They have a celebration around a hand-dug well that is kind of an unusual event. It is the world's largest hand-dug well. You can go to the bottom of it, and I have done that. Greensburg is a community with a lot of spirit in the middle of the State and in the middle of our country. Now it is experiencing this tremendous devastation. The tornado covered 40 miles in 90 minutes. It was first spotted at 8:24 p.m. last Friday 3 miles south of Sitka, KS, in Clark County. The tornado tracked through six counties: Comanche, Kiowa, Edwards, Stafford, Pratt, and Barton. At 9:45 p.m., the tornado demolished Greensburg before wrapping north and dissipating before 10 p.m. Fortunately, the National Weather Service and a weather man out of Dodge City spotted it and warned the community, and the community had about a 20-minute warning that a tornado was coming and that it was a big one. When Greensburg was struck, the tornado's wind forces exceeded 205 miles per hour, falling into the highest category on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, EF-5. The size of the tornado was 1.7 miles in diameter, which, if you know anything about tornadoes, is enormous. Twelve people have died as a result of this storm cell. They found another two individuals yesterday. When a tornado hits--and you will see pictures here--often the houses will blow up in the process because of the air pressure outside of the house that is much reduced from the air pressure in the house, and there will be a blowing up of the house, or the wind comes in and hits it. It can be destroyed by the wind. Thirteen people are still in the hospital, with four of them in critical condition today. There was some good news on Sunday. We found a person still alive underneath the rubble. Ninety percent of the town has been destroyed, from Greensburg to the Northeast, which was hit by multiple tornadoes that were spawned by the same supercell thunderstorm. It is an older community. More than 50 percent of the population is 45 years of age or older, and 25 percent of the population is 65 years of age or older. Primarily, the economic drivers of the community are farming and oil and gas production. We will need substantial assistance. I want to show pictures from the wreckage I toured yesterday. I am pleased to note that the President is coming tomorrow. I was there yesterday with the Governor and several members of the congressional delegation. Senator Roberts was there on Saturday. It is devastating to see. Here you see a structure left standing there, which is a grain elevator. That is really the only structure left standing in the town. The courthouse is standing, but its roof has been ripped off. It is amazing people can actually survive something like this. Most people have storm shelters or basements they can go into, and they did with the warning, and some called other people in the community. All of these trees were denuded in the area, and the whole place was ripped and torn into shreds in the county and in this particular community. This is one of the main structures in the downtown area of Greensburg. All of the brick around it is damaged. They were able to keep the Greensburg sign still posted in this picture. These were taken when the storm system was still in the area. There was a tornado the next day within a mile of Greensburg, from the same supercell system. It dumped 10, 12 inches of rain in northeast Kansas. You can still see ominous-looking clouds in this photo. It was very dicey over the entire weekend. This was one of the more stable houses that remains standing in the area. I went into a house that was somewhat like this, which was built almost 100 years ago. I talked with the owner. They were going to celebrate the 100-year anniversary for the house, which was built in 1908. He said, ``We didn't quite make it.'' The house is going to be demolished now. It will not survive. This is a view of some of the damage to vehicles. This is a blank landscape in the backdrop. I wanted to give some views of what has taken place in the community. It has been completely and utterly destroyed. I would like to note that FEMA has been questioned by me and by a number of my colleagues. Prior to Katrina, it had done a lot of good work that people had respected and appreciated. They felt there was a good group on the job. But then Katrina happened and you looked and said: Where is the FEMA that I knew that would go in and respond in these situations? We are watching carefully to see how FEMA responds to our situation, to our devastation. I am pleased to state--and I talked with a number of individuals in the community--they are meeting the needs. The needs of the community are being met. They are there on the grounds, being aggressive in dealing with it. The people appreciate they are there. We are going to watch and make sure all of their needs are met. I will ask my colleagues for assistance as well. This is a small, older community. It lacks much in the way of resources. We need help in this particular situation. We are going to be pushing--Senator Roberts and I--for 100-percent coverage on public assistance and on matters such as debris removal and repair and rebuilding public facilities: city hall, fire stations, hospitals, water/wastewater, city powerplant, and gas and diesel generators. The community lacks the resources to meet these needs. We will look to remove the 25-percent local match for FEMA funds. The entire town and their economy was destroyed. There is no way Greensburg can come up with the match of funds that is necessary in this community. I also want to try something innovative. This is a community in the High Plains. The New Homestead Act is a bill that Senator Dorgan from North Dakota and I have been pushing for some time. I have been a lead cosponsor. As I said, it is a bill called the New Homestead Act. We have had many communities drained in the High Plains, particularly in the Midwest, because of a consolidation in agriculture primarily, but also other features, to where we have had out-migration in huge areas. This is a county that has experienced a lot of out-migration. I would like to see us use Kiowa County--Greensburg is the county seat--as a pilot project for the New Homestead Act. The biggest concern, once we complete cleanup, is getting the people and their businesses back up and going. Here is a chance for us, given the level of public commitment in place and the desire to rebuild this community, to try this New Homestead Act that can work as a magnet to attract people back into these communities that have had difficulty transitioning from an agricultural economy to something else. This bill is to encourage people to move to rural areas that have depopulated. This bill will help repay college tuition loans for people who move back into the community, help folks buy their first home and set up individual homestead accounts to help people save for the future. Also, this bill will help pump capital to Main Street America through a rural venture capital fund. I think these are things we can look at and say let's try this here and let's see it work. Let's see what we can model off of to help many places in the High Plains that have experienced this depopulation. We will be pushing also for an enhanced USDA rural development package. There has been a controversy coming up that I think is unfortunate. That has been the question about whether there has been enough equipment from the National Guard--the Kansas National Guard, on the ground in Greensburg to take care of this atrocity, this disaster, or has too much been diverted to the war on terrorism and in Iraq. Yesterday, I asked specifically the Kansas adjutant general--the head of the Kansas National Guard: Do you have enough equipment on the ground to take care of Greensburg? He said: Yes, we have enough equipment. I made the point: If you don't, we are going to push Fort Riley and other places to come up with this equipment. He said: No, we have enough equipment. Unfortunately, this has grown into a bit of a controversy as to whether there is sufficient equipment or if too much has been diverted to Iraq. The specific statement by Kansas' head of the National Guard-- the adjutant general--says there is sufficient equipment on the ground to meet this need. I think it is important that be stated and that be clear because these needs are existing, but they are being met and the equipment is there. I want to make sure that we can respond. I want to note, finally, to anybody who is interested, fortunately, because of the nature of the country and generous people in the United States, they want to help. They want to know what they can do for the people of Greensburg. There are three places that I suggest they look to contribute: the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and the United Way of the Plains in Wichita, KS. Those three groups are ones that are receiving and funneling funds into Greensburg. Being a small community, it didn't have these sorts of organizations there. But these groups do work. Cash donations are being accepted. There is no current need for donations in-kind, but I hope people will look back and come back in the future and consider that on in-kind items. Those groups would be helpful. The United Way of the Plains established a Greensburg disaster fund to which people can contribute. I hope people will consider contributing to those three entities. We have a number of different groups that are stepping up, including Pizza Huts through Kansas, which are donating 20 percent of their profits on Thursday, May 10, to go to this United Way of the Plains-- the Greensburg disaster fund. I hope other groups will also do that so Greensburg can rebuild and renew itself and grow into the future. These are tough times for this community, but it is a resilient community. It impresses me when you see horrific disasters such as this, just a complete devastation, and you talk to the people and they want to rebuild and dig out and they want to go on. That is the resilience of the human spirit in the face of a horrendous disaster, loss of life and property, and a loss of almost an entire community. The people there were talking about how to rebuild. It is beautiful to see that. We mourn their losses. The people of Greensburg and Kansas are thankful for all the prayers people have given for that community, in all of their tragedy and difficulty. They will be back and they will rebuild and they will go forward and raise the next generation of families in Greensburg and Kiowa County. The country is going to help out, and I think the country will help in a powerful, positive way, and we will celebrate as Greensburg comes back. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that on April 25, I was unable to vote on certain provisions and passage of S. 761, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act. I wish to address these votes, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 142, on amendment No. 930, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 143, on amendment No. 918, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 144, on amendment No. 921, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 145, on amendment No. 922, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote. Regarding vote No. 146, on passage of S. 761, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, I would have voted in favor of passage of this act. My vote would not have altered the final result of this vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Iraqi supplemental. I want to discuss this briefly with my colleagues. I will vote against the conference report with a deadline in it. A conference report with a deadline in it, if it passes, and sending it to the President to sign--he is not going to sign it, but if he does sign it, if he would sign it--would be the day al-Qaida would declare victory. The day the deadline is set would be the day they would declare victory. I think it is the wrong way for us to go, and that is why I will be voting against the supplemental. I am very pleased to support the President in his efforts not to set a deadline. I want to take the brief time I have to talk about a way forward because I think there is a bipartisan way forward. Once we get through this, and once this is forced upon the President, once he vetoes it, and once the veto is upheld--and I think these are motions we should not be going through because they take away precious time from focusing on a way forward, on a political solution that involves both sides of the aisle--we should focus on federalism in Iraq. It is something Senator Biden has spoken often about on the Democratic side, and I have spoke about on this side: federalism that will require a longtime presence by the United States in Iraq. I have spoken several times on this floor about how Iraq is more than three groups in one country: a Kurdish group, a Sunni group, and a Shia group. It has been held together for much of its history--not altogether but in much of its history--by exterior forces that have not wanted it to fly apart, who still don't want it to fly apart. I think we should recognize these realities as we did in the former Yugoslavia, as we are today in Sudan where the south is going to vote to secede, and recognize these political forces and put in place a federated system: one country, three states, Baghdad as a Federal city where powers devolve to the states, and recognize that it will require a long-term U.S. military presence to ensure that it will work. It is a route forward, and it is a route forward that we can agree upon as a body. It is a route forward that has allowed for the Iraqi Constitution, with a distribution of oil revenues equally distributed throughout the country, to be able to help hold things together. It is a route forward that can get us to a political equilibrium, that can get the violence down, that can give each of the groups their area, their region, and allow us to move forward. It requires a long-term U.S. military presence such as what happened in Bosnia and the Dayton Accords, where 15 years later we are still there and we are going to be there for some period of time because if we are not, they are going to go back to the violent ways they have had, and they have done previously. This is a realistic route that both sides of the aisle, that both parties, and the executive and legislative branches, could embrace. I met last week with the Vice President about it. I talked with the National Security Adviser about it. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying: What is the plan? What is the exit plan? How do we get out? Here is a route to be able to deal with this. But they have to admit, as well, on their side that a timeline, a deadline will not work. We cannot do that. We cannot hoist it upon the President, and it will not work in that region. As soon as you set that deadline, as I said, al-Qaida will declare victory and people in the region will start looking for security in other places. They will be going to militias and different groups, and it will further fragment the country. If we would just set our partisanship aside for a little while and think about this, we would recognize that this is the situation we are in and this is the only viable solution forward. We don't want to bring back a dictator or allow one back into Iraq. We don't want Iraq to devolve into a full-scale civil war with a terrorist state taking place in that country. We don't want to turn it over and just have the Shia run the whole place and run over the Kurds and run over the Sunni in the region. That is not realistic. The other options are not viable and will not work. This is a route forward. I urge my colleagues that this prospect, this federalism that is enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution--the Iraqi Parliament passed a federalism law last year--the Kurdish regions in northern Iraq show that it is possible for Iraq and deepens its commitment to a Federal system. I urge my colleagues to embrace this after this is vetoed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today with great hope in my heart that a step was taken forward on human dignity today. Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban passed by Congress in 2003, and I applaud the Court for this decision. As many of my colleagues know, partial-birth abortion is one of the most heinous and grotesque forms of abortion. Science has shown that after 20 weeks, unborn children do indeed feel pain. Imagine the pain a prenatal baby feels as it is so savagely destroyed in the latter part of the pregnancy. It is incomprehensible that we should allow such a procedure to continue in our Nation, and I am thankful--I am thankful-- the Congress passed this important ban, that President Bush signed it into law, and now the Supreme Court has upheld this in the face of a challenge. I think this is an important day for human dignity, that we are starting to recognize the dignity of everybody at all stages. We had a big debate on the Senate floor last week about stem cells and whether we should destroy the youngest of human lives for research purposes. I don't think we should. We should extend dignity. But certainly we should extend dignity to a child who is very well developed in the womb and who is being aborted feeling great pain, the child itself. We should show dignity for that life. The Court is starting to express the fundamental right to life and the dignity of each life in the country, and what a great message to our Nation, what a great message to our world for us to have that. The majority decision of the Court, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, recognizes that partial-birth abortion is not medically necessary. Far from it. Both mother and child deserve far better than abortion, particularly such an invasive, barbaric procedure as partial- birth abortion. I am pleased that the Court states in its opinion: It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. Citing Casey, the father of the Presiding Officer, supra, at 873, it states: States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning. The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull-- Of a child, her child-- and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child . . . The child is human and in her womb. I repeat, today's decision by the Supreme Court puts hope in our hearts. Americans understand that life is a precious gift and worthy of respect and protection. Indeed, this deep belief is at the very root of our Nation's founding--of our Constitution. I believe our laws and the precedents of our courts ought to reflect this culture of respect for human life and human dignity at all stages, in all places; that every human life is precious, it is unique, it is sacred, and it is a child of a loving God. It applies to the child in the womb at whatever stage its development. It applies to a child in poverty. It applies to a child in Darfur. It is pro-life and it is whole-life, beginning to end, and that is as it should be. I am delighted that the Supreme Court is moving forward to see the expression of life in the Constitution. I hope that someday we will see all life respected at all stages and protected in this land and around the world. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that on April 16, I was unable to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 372, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. I wish to address this vote, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 130, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 372, I would not have voted to invoke cloture. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Mr. President, I regret that on April 17, I was unable to vote, upon reconsideration, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 372, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. I wish to address this vote, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 131, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 372, I would not have voted to invoke cloture. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Mr. President, I regret that on April 18, I was unable to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007. I wish to address this vote, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 132, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 3, I would not have voted to invoke cloture. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Mr. President, I regret that on April 18, I was unable to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 378, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I wish to address this vote, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 133, on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 378, I would have voted to invoke cloture. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. This first one is the list of 72 current clinical applications using adult stem cell therapy. No ethical problems on these. Actually, the list now is 73. I will cover that in just a minute, but I want to get that in. I want to back this letter up, or this statement up, with a letter that appeared in the magazine Science, January 19, 2007, that was refuting the article--that was a letter put forward by other individuals questioning this level of adult stem cell therapy and treatment. Then this letter which was in the Journal of Science was backed up by the third document we have here, which is a list of 14 pages of the peer-reviewed scientific articles on adult stem cell therapies and the benefits those have produced. Then the final document we have here in this stack that I will be putting forward is the article that just appeared out even today from JAMA, the Journal of American Medical Association, on Type 1 juvenile diabetes being treated with the use of adult stem cells. The results--I am just going to read these, because they are just so phenomenal, from this JAMA article: During a 7- to 36-month followup, 14 patients became insulin free; one for up to 35 months with this treatment. This was an adult human stem cell treatment. One patient was not able to become insulin-independent. The reason I cite that is it is such an exciting set of results. People have been talking on the floor a great deal about curing diabetes. Here we have a JAMA article, as I have noted to my colleagues earlier. The unfortunate thing is the actual test took place in Brazil instead of the United States even though it was designed and much of it was done by U.S. scientists at Northwestern University and other places. The work should be being done in the United States. Point one being, we don't have to go there with the taxpayer funding destroying this young human life. I would hope my colleagues would say that in and of itself is enough information for me to say we do not need to cross this ethical boundary. The ethical boundary we are talking about yet again is using taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of human life so we can research on these entities. Some would refer to it as potential for human life; that is human life, so we can research on it. Do we want to cross that ethical boundary that has everybody in somewhat of a question of whether they want to do this or not? I would submit, No. 1, we do not need to; we have routes to go that work. No. 2, we should not do that in researching on human life because of the respect we have and the dignity afforded to each and every human life at all stages, at all places, for the human existence this individuals has. Proverbs tell us this: There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. That would seem to really highlight this debate--the way that seems right to a man. Let's just research on these embryos; they are going to be disposed of anyway. Why not do it instead of throwing them away? Why not do it instead of having them being adopted? Why not do it? Why not research on someone who is on death row? Why not? There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. Well, we shouldn't because it does continue that continuation of us breaching human dignity--at a very early stage, granted, but nonetheless human by all definition of what a human species and an individual is. It does breach that, and we should not go there with taxpayer dollars. As I have noted to my colleagues, it is legal to do in the United States. States can fund it, private individuals can fund it. I have noted to my colleagues that private individuals are not funding it. They are not funding it because it is speculative, it is not producing results, and it is producing tumors. I have entered into the Record previously a large set of different studies in various areas done by various groups. These embryonic stem cells are producing tumors. That is what is taking place. There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is death. Do we want to put tumors in individuals? Is that the route we are going forward with? I don't think so. I don't think we should. I emphasize as well to my colleagues that we have another route to go on this that we can work on together. I would hope we could work on the amniotic fluid and banking of amniotic fluid. I think that would be an important key route for us to work together. I am disturbed that at this point in time in the legislative session, the first half of the year after an election, we are spending this amount of time on a topic that is going to be vetoed--S. 5 is going to be vetoed; unlikely that the veto override is going to occur; maybe it is going to be able to happen but unlikely--when we have other routes we can work on that will work and will produce results. Are we going to continue this effort for division? It is all about dividing. It is all about causing a fight and somebody scoring some political points, when we have a hopeful route that is producing results that we can work on together, that we can get more funding for, and everybody wants cures and we can get more funding for this route which is working, and we can start a new area in amniotic fluid and placenta or we can go along with my colleagues from Georgia and Minnesota on a route upon which we can agree.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I think we can do those things. Yet we continue down this route of division. Why would we do that when in the balance sit patients in this country and around the world who seek our help? I have shown you many pictures of those who have gotten help but need more and are having to travel overseas for these treatments. Let's not force them to do that. Let's stop the politics of division. Let's start working together and have a culture that respects human dignity. We can do that. Reject S. 5. Exhibit 1 72 Current Human Clinical Applications Using Adult Stem Cells (List Updated March 2007) anemias & other blood conditions Sickle cell anemia Sideroblastic anemia Aplastic anemia Red cell aplasia (failure of red blood cell development) Amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia Thalassemia (genetic [inherited] disorders all of which involve underproduction of hemoglogin) Primary amyloidosis (A disorder of plasma cells) Diamond blackfan anemia Fanconi's anemia Chronic Epstein-Barr infection (similar to Mono)