Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to talk about some of these economic issues, and I join my colleagues from Minnesota and Pennsylvania in a discussion of these items. I note from the discussion of my colleague from Pennsylvania that he focuses on human capital, which I absolutely agree with. I have a few charts I will cover in a few minutes about an investment in human capital I hope we can all agree on, and that is trying to encourage and rebuild the family structure in the country. This is something I have worked on across the aisle with my colleagues, particularly in the District of Columbia when last year I was chairman of the DC Appropriations Subcommittee. We were deeply concerned about the lack of family formation in the District of Columbia, so it became the key area and the initial place to begin to develop human capital being within the family structure. We are finding in the District of Columbia and in many urban areas in particular, and all across the country, but in the District of Columbia in total we had 63 percent of our children born out of wedlock. This puts a child in a situation where it is more difficult to develop human capital. You can develop a child and a child can be raised well in that setting, but it becomes much more difficult. I worked with the Mayor at that time, Mayor Williams, and I worked with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and we put together a program called the Marriage Development Account. If you were at 85 percent of poverty or below and got married, we would put in a Federal dollar, raise two private sector dollars, and you as a couple would put in a dollar. We would match this 3 to 1 to encourage the formation of married units--a family--around which to build a family. This has broad bipartisan support, left and right support this, and I am hopeful we can look at ways in reforming welfare programs in particular to encourage the formation of families as one of the key and vital steps for human capital development and growth. This is something we ought to be able to agree on across the aisle. We have agreed previously, and I hope we can do that now, because we have to develop human capital. We particularly have to do it now, and the best place to start is the family and developing the human capital there. Clearly, one of the best ways we can break the poverty cycle is forming more family units. That shows up in all of the data. It is broadly supported in a bipartisan fashion and it is something where we need to change the welfare policies. I wish to also look at this idea that tax policies since 2003 have been more beneficial to upper income households and less beneficial to lower income households in the United States. Here again, I have a series of charts. I will first start with conditions under the Clinton administration and look at impacts of Federal policies as far as a share of the overall economy. This is an instructive chart when you look at income, after-tax income, distribution data during the Clinton years. Let's consider the distribution. The data for all of these charts comes from CBO's December 2006 historical effective Federal tax rates. The data are from 1979 to 2004. First, it is interesting to look at what happened to after-tax income between 1992 and 2000. These would be the Clinton administration years. The only group of households that saw a share of the Nation's after-tax income increase was the top 20 percent. Their share during the 1992 to the 2000 time period--you see these arrows all going down: the lowest 20 percent, the second lowest 20 percent, middle, second highest, everyone is down, down, down; up is the top 20 percent. Their share of after-tax income went up during the Clinton administration years and their tax policy. Now let's postulate the same question--because the charge is often made that the tax cuts have only benefitted--the wealthy in this country. I have seen the charts repeatedly, and it is important to discuss what the data have shown. What happened for 2000 through 2004 is the opposite of what happened during the Clinton years as far as who grew what share of after-tax income that happened during 1992 to 2004. It went the opposite. The only group that didn't see a share of after- tax income increase was the top 20 percent. Everybody else saw their share of the after-tax income grow: the lowest 20 percent, the second lowest 20 percent, middle, the second highest. The only people who went down were the top 20 percent. It is important to point out, when we have talked about these things in generic numbers and phrases--about only the upper income households having benefitted--but we ought to look at the actual data we have available to us. Again, I will go back to what happened in 1992 and remind people these are the Clinton years. The lower income all saw their share of after-tax income decrease; the upper income group saw theirs go up. In 2000 to 2004, we saw a reversal of those arrows under these tax policies that are being so castigated as being against lower income. The share of after-tax income received by the top 1 percent of households grew 42 percent, from 10.9 percent in 1992 to a peak of 15.5 percent at the end of the Clinton years. Again, we are talking about the Clinton years, the share of after-tax income, the top 1 percent of all households, up 42 percent during the Clinton era and the Clinton years. That is what took place. What happened from 2000 to 2004 is after-tax income received in the top 1 percent of households actually declined. This declined at the end of the first Bush term. They do not support the assertion that there has been a massive shift of income to the highest income households since 2000. The data don't support it. The critics of the pro-growth tax policies enacted after 2000 assert that the highest income households have disproportionately benefitted. That simply is not supported by the data. Let's look at the top 10 percent of households paying their share of income taxes. Since 1984, the top 10 percent of households have paid an increasing majority of all Federal income taxes. In 2004, the final year of data available in CBO's report, the share of Federal income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of households reached a high of 70.8 percent--70.8 percent. So you can see it was continuing to grow. It is worth noting that in 2004, the bottom 40 percent of households paid a negative share of Federal income taxes. I want to show that chart. That is, they received resources from the income tax system. In other words, they were paid by the income tax system--not paid into. They received from the income tax system. Since 2000, the ``relative Federal income tax burden,'' or the share of all Federal income taxes paid compared to the group's share of all income, has declined for all income groups except the top 20 percent--except the top 20 percent. So again we have these tax lines going in a different direction. Striking is the fact that the relative Federal income tax burden of the top 1 percent of households declined for 1992 to 2000 during the Clinton administration. So again we have this comparison of Clinton policies to Bush policies. This is the relative Federal income tax burden of the top 1 percent of family households income. That declined, the percentage, their share that they paid of the overall tax burden, and it went up in 2000 and 2004 in the Bush years. In 2004 it not only increased but it was higher than in 1992 when President Clinton took office. The CBO's report also reveals that for the time period from 2000 to 2004, the effective total Federal tax rate reduction has been the highest on a percentage basis for the lowest income groups. In other words, you have the most decline as far as the Federal tax rates for the lowest income groups. I think that is as it should be. We shouldn't be critical of the tax policy saying it is harming low income and benefitting disproportionately high income when the data don't support that. The same is true if you look at the income tax rate reductions. Again, the lowest 40 percent of households have a negative effective income tax rate and a negative income tax share. In other words, they were paid back by the Federal income tax system. Clearly the tax policies enacted since 2000 have benefitted all income groups and have not resulted in a shift in income shares in favor of high-income households or in tax burdens toward lower income households. Indeed, the data say the opposite. The top 10 percent of households are paying a bigger share of total Federal taxes and total Federal income taxes than in any prior time covered by the report. I appreciate my colleagues' indulgence, but the falsehoods about tax cuts and a bigger share of the pie for the wealthy need to be addressed. I think it is important that we do address these. I also note in yesterday morning's Wall Street Journal in discussing this budget, it says the Senate Budget Committee chairman is pulling off a neat magic trick--and here I am quoting the Wall Street Journal: . . . of claiming his budget includes ``no tax increase,'' even as it anticipates repeal of the Bush tax cuts after 2010. These are the same tax cuts I have been discussing, the tax cuts that have helped stimulate growth, that have helped stimulate employment, that have helped reduce the tax burden on the lower income people in the United States. The Wall Street Journal goes on to say: How does he pull that rabbit out of his hat? By positing what amounts to a giant asterisk where the tax increase is supposed to go and hoping no one will notice. In other words, the taxes go up after 2010, since the tax reductions put into place in the Bush tax cuts are not continued. The article continues that the chairman has: . . . no intention of extending the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against and whose repeal would slap the economy in 2011 with the largest tax increase in U.S. history. But Senate Democrats don't want anyone to know this, at least not before the 2008 election. . . . All of this is really sleight-of- hand to disguise that Democrats are intent on repealing the Bush tax cuts. What would the impact of that be? People talk about it in generic terms, but let's unpack it a little bit. The Wall Street Journal reports that: This would raise the tax on capital gains to 20 percent from 15 percent, more than double the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent from 15 percent, and sharply increase marginal tax rates at all levels of income. This will hurt growth, this will hurt investment, this will hurt job creation, and this will hurt wages. This backdoor tax increase sends a bad signal to the economy. That bad news, if allowed to stand, will be bad news for the economy throughout for the working men and women of this country. This isn't fiscal responsibility; it is bad tax policy that hurts people. This budget will only increase the burden on families. We need to step back and be willing to get control of entitlement spending and across-the-board spending. We need policies that encourage the formation of families, and support the preservation of traditional families, as a way of developing human capital. We need to help those who need a hand, but we are quickly reaching a point where we are asking too few people to carry too much of a burden on the tax rates. We are on the verge of killing incentive and initiative. We need to get serious about reforming a tax system that even the most educated Americans cannot comprehend. We need to put in place an alternative flat tax and let people choose a tax system. This current tax system is unintelligible, burdensome, manipulative, and it needs to be changed. We are in desperate need of a tax system that is simple, efficient, and globally competitive. We need to just have a fair system. Our tax system needs to treat everyone the same, not heap dizzying layers of regulation on top of regulation or carve out loopholes for the privileged who have the ability to hire lobbyists. Despite the chairman's call for simplifying the Tax Code, there is nothing in his budget that promotes greater simplicity. Despite the chairman and his colleagues in the majority being fully aware of the need for entitlement reform, they choose to totally ignore our looming fiscal problem. They choose, in this budget, to completely ignore the urgent need to address entitlement reform, especially as the first baby boomers begin retiring next year. This budget does not contain any proposals that, on net, would reduce mandatory spending or the debt. The majority, evidently, wishes to simply wait for a fiscal train wreck to happen. If we sit on our hands and let this budget and its ``magic act'' budget enforcement provisions take effect, all we will do is impose the largest tax increase in American history at the worst possible time-- when the fiscal train wreck begins as the baby boomers enter their golden years of retirement. That is not a budget; that is recipe for disaster. I look forward to further debate on this budget, and I really hope we can start working together on it in a bipartisan fashion to address the clear problems we have. We can do that, and we need to do it. Now is the time. The sooner we act, the more options we have. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for having this discussion on the budget. I am ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee. I wish to discuss some of the things Senator Schumer was talking about on economic performance. What I would like to do in making this presentation--I will speak for 10 minutes now and 20 minutes later--is to talk first about what has taken place in the economy recently and then to talk about human capital development that is important for us to develop more and into the future. I think we have a bit of a different presentation on the factual setting of what has happened as a result of the tax cuts. I believe there would be agreement that if the economy has not substantially performed as well as some may suggest, as the Senator from New York suggested, then the answer is certainly not a big tax increase. That would clearly not be the case if what we want to do is stimulate economic growth. I believe there would be a broad basis of support and a realization of that from economists and people around the world. If your economy is not performing well, the answer is certainly not to put on a trillion-dollar tax increase to try to stimulate that economy to perform better. That would be clearly the wrong answer. Yet we are finding that in this budget. I am here to discuss what has taken place in the economy. One of the key questions the Senate will address during this debate is what procedural rules to put in place to help instill budgetary discipline on this institution. Unfortunately, those proposed fiscal discipline measures which appear in this budget amount to a little more than a guaranteed tax increase for the American public on the magnitude of $900 billion to $1 trillion. As my colleague from New Hampshire has noted, it is the largest tax hike ever on American workers and their families--the largest ever. That certainly would not be the prescription I would hear from most economists as to how to get the economy performing better, to put on a $1 trillion tax hike. As part of the majority's rhetoric, we will hear much talk about how the fiscal policies--most notably the pro-growth tax policies--of the past 6 years have not benefitted everybody in this society. To substantiate that assertion, one can only rely on bits and pieces of data and not the full view and the big picture of what has happened in the economy, which is what I would like to cover, and cover now, and cover with charts, to let people see what the facts are and draw their own conclusions. It is undeniable our Nation was heading into recession during the year 2000, the last year of President Clinton's administration. I was in the Senate, and one could certainly see that in the economic data. The dot-com bubble was bursting; economic growth turned negative in the third quarter of 2000. The unemployment rate bottomed out in April of 2000 and began its rise. In the period from January 2001 to August 2001--the first year of the Bush administration--only 1 month registered positive job growth. In that period, 700,000 jobs--nearly three-quarters of a million--were lost. Then came the horrors of 9/11, and the Nation's economy tumbled further. It was like hitting a brick wall and falling. From September to December more than a million jobs were lost. We all remember the trauma to us as a country, and the trauma to the economy at that time. I have a number of charts I will present today, and I hope they will put some perspective on our debate. We can argue about the degree to which pro-growth and pro-job tax relief enacted in 2003 caused the economic turnaround. I think that is a legitimate debate. I would note, however, that recent economic conditions display a striking contrast to the conditions that prevailed prior to enactment of pro-growth tax relief under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 that was passed in May of 2003. Consider these charts and the data behind them, and then draw your own conclusion. Let's look at this chart on economic growth since 2000: inflation- adjusted annualized GDP growth. You can see where we were prior to and then in 2000 and 2001 with negative economic growth rates taking place. You can see anemic growth rates taking place afterwards. You can see what took place: tax relief enacted in May of 2003 and the strong spike, continuous spike in growth that took place. Since the enactment of tax relief in 2003, annualized growth in the inflation-adjusted GDP, our gross domestic product--that is, the size of the pie, the size of the economy in the country--has averaged a robust 3.5 percent growth rate. That compares with the relatively tepid average of 1.3 percent from the first quarter of 2001 to the second quarter of 2003. So you look at this period before tax relief: 1.3 percent; you look at the period since the tax cut enactment: a 3.5-percent average growth rate. I would much rather have a 3.5-percent growth rate than a 1.3- percent growth rate. What about investment? That is a key part of our growth, to make productivity grow, to make wages grow. Business investment is a key component of economic growth. Since the enactment of tax relief in 2003, growth in real business fixed investment has averaged 5.7 percent. With tax relief enacted. You can see where we were beforehand, negative investment; afterwards, positive investment at a nice rate, 5.7 percent. Prior to the enactment of tax relief, from the first quarter of 2001 through the second quarter of 2003, business investment declined at an average rate of 5.6 percent; but it increased 5.7 percent on average afterwards--a direct mirror opposite with the investment and tax cuts that took place. Let's talk about unemployment rates. That is certainly a key. We want to have people employed in this economy, and employed at an aggressive growth rate. The unemployment rate has declined from a peak of 6.3 percent in June of 2003, when tax relief was implemented, to 4.5 percent in February of 2007. So you can see again, with tax relief enacted, a decline in the unemployment rate takes place. At 4.5 percent, the unemployment rate stands below the average rate of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Where we sit today stands below those average unemployment rates. Again, tax relief was enacted. We can argue about, did that cause it or not, but I think you have to clearly say we have had a nice improvement that has taken place in the time period following enactment of tax relief. What about payroll employment changes since 2000? There have been 42 months of consecutive gains in payroll employment. Close to 7.6 million new payroll jobs have been created during the period since September 2003--again, that period when we did the tax relief. From June of 2003 through February 2007, payroll employment gains have averaged a healthy 169,000 per month. In contrast, 91,000 jobs were lost on average in the period between January of 2001 and May of 2003. Again, you get this mirror situation where you were losing jobs prior to this time period, and you are growing them at a nice, strong, clip and engagement rate which is taking place after the enactment of tax relief. Good, positive rates have taken place. With that, Mr. President, I believe in our time agreement I had until 12:50, and then I have 20 minutes at a later point. I will go through a series of additional charts later, but my colleague from Pennsylvania, I believe, was going to speak. I do not know if the manager would like to take the time of Senator Casey at this point in time. Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill if her side desires to have the floor at this point in time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I urge for political purposes of stabilizing Iraq, as Senator Biden talked about, this resolution be rejected. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for the time for debate. I thank my colleague from Delaware, whom I enjoyed listening to and with whom I enjoyed serving on the Foreign Relations Committee. I say at the outset, I have been endorsing and speaking often around the country about this notion of a federated system in Iraq, of the need for a three-state, one-country solution, with Baghdad as a federal city, where we have a Sunni area, a Shia area, and a Kurdish region. I have been in Irbil as well. In the middle of January, I was there. I agree with his analysis of history. When you look at these situations, and you take a big military apparatus off the top of a place such as the former Yugoslavia, or now in Iraq, and then you have these old, ancient hatreds that sit there, how do you deal with them? That is why I think this is a political solution that is right. I agree with my colleague from Delaware about that. I wish he had not left the floor yet so we could have some discussion on that point because I think, though, that issue would then bode to voting against this resolution because what we are going to need to have is a period of time to get that political machination in place. We are going to need some time and space for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias to be able to talk together, to be able to talk in an environment where there are not these mass car bombs and assaults and attacks taking place on a sectarian basis--such as took place in Bosnia--so that you can be able to allow the political system to work. These are not mutually exclusive objectives of having a military apparatus in operation and in place in Iraq while you are pushing forward a very sensible and probably the only political solution that can take place, having an area for Sunnis, Shias, and a Kurdish region--which already exists. I might add this is in the Iraqi Constitution now. This sort of sectarian division of areas is allowed in the Iraqi Constitution. They have even taken the first steps of implementation. The Kurdish area is being operated by the Kurds. The oil revenues, which are being equally--by the last agreement--divided up around the country, are the glue to hold this system together. This can and should take place. I urge the administration to push this, and even to bring these leaders together in-country or outside of the country to push this form of political solution. But I would add on top of that, that form of political solution would then say: Do not vote for this resolution that sets a timetable under which this must happen because these are things that are going to take some period of time. As my colleague from Delaware noted, we have been in Bosnia for the last 15 years putting this in place and holding this in place. That is the requirement of this, then, so the passions can calm down, the sectarian passions can cool. You are going to need a force in place to see this political solution on through. That is the long-term objective I think we need to look at, this form he is on track to, but that would be in opposition to this resolution that sets a timetable. I respect his discourse and I respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who may look at it differently, but I think we have to look at recent history to tell us this is a logical way that would take place. Iraq is more three groups held together by exterior forces at the present time--with pressure from Turkey, with pressure from the Gulf States, with pressure--that is not constructive--from a couple of other neighbors, particularly Iran and Syria. I think we need to recognize that political solution that is there, the exterior forces, and push this political solution in the environment of a more stable military apparatus and military operation. This resolution, it seems to me, is clearly not a call for victory. Therefore, it must be seen as a call for retreat. Even its supporters do not contend it is a plan for victory. We need to win. They talk about the problems we face, not the solutions we need. But yet there is a middle road here, even, of engaging the Senator from Delaware, his political solution with this military rationale, the military needs that are going to be there that is still in place in Bosnia and is going to be in place for some time in Iraq. We will need a military presence in Iraq for some time to come even to get to that political solution. We cannot predict how long that presence will be necessary or exactly what type of presence will be required. At the Dayton Accords, did we predict at that point in time it would be for a period of 5 years and no more? No. We said: We are going to help provide the stability so the political solution can take place. We did not put a set date: OK, in 1 year, we will have this few troops; and in 2 years, we will not have any of these types of troops; and in 3 years we will be out. We did not say that. We said: OK, here is a political solution, and we are going to help stabilize this militarily for whatever time necessary to be able to do that. These solutions need to be brought together, not to be argued separately. I am not calling for an open-ended commitment to Iraq. I am suggesting that our commitment be driven by the mission. We must complete it. We must get this done. We can express opposition to the surge, which I have certainly done. But after doing so, I think we should oversee the implementation of it, not to try to undercut it, nor should we attempt to interrupt a mission just getting underway. We are looking at this right now. I cannot vote for a plan that would begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops before the surge forces are even fully deployed at this point in time. The 4th Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, KS, recently arrived in Baghdad. I do not think it would be wise for us to tell those soldiers they should prepare to leave Iraq even before they get their gear unpacked. Not only do I believe it is inappropriate for us to legislate a timetable for withdrawal, I also believe it is bad policy for us to do this in Iraq. First, supporters claim the resolution continues the fight against the terrorists by leaving a minimal force in place for counterterrorism operations. But apparently the terrorists are not getting that message. Two days ago, one of the al-Qaida leaders in Iraq used a jihadist Web site to discuss the very resolution we are now debating in the Senate. He said: The democratic majority in the American Congress announced that the security plan must produce its fruits in the middle of this summer or else they would expedite the departure of the forces at the end of this year. Can there be any clearer evidence that al-Qaida is ready to wait us out? In fact, al-Qaida not only approves of a timetable for withdrawal, it is working feverishly to expedite our departure. In the last few weeks, al-Qaida bombings have stood out as obstacles to stemming the cycle of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad. Sunni leaders have become so tired of al-Qaida violence against their own communities that they are turning to U.S. forces for protection. A timetable for withdrawal serves al-Qaida's interests. For many years now, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rejected the idea that Iraq is a part--a central part--of the war on terrorism. I believe the statement I just read and others by al-Qaida leaders, the recent al-Qaida-inspired violence, and the Sunnis rejection of that violence should end this discussion. Iraq is unquestionably a key front in the war on terror, and it is essential we prevail against the terrorists in Iraq. If my colleagues are serious about fighting the war on terror, they should frustrate al-Qaida by voting against--against--this resolution.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that on March 9, I was unable to vote on certain provisions of S. 4, the Improving America's Security 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 United States Senator may know my position. Regarding vote No. 68, on the motion to invoke cloture on the Cornyn amendment No. 312, as modified, I would have voted to invoke cloture on this amendment. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Regarding vote No. 69, on the motion to invoke cloture on the Reid amendment No. 275, as amended, I would not have voted to invoke cloture on this amendment. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I wish to join my colleagues from the Helsinki Commission in commemorating the founding of the Charter 77 movement 30 years ago, and praising Vaclav Havel, one of Charter 77's first spokesmen and the first post-Communist President of Czechoslovakia. Many aspects of Vaclav Havel's biography are well known. His advanced formal education was limited by the Communist regime because of his family's pre-World War II cultural and economic status. By the 1960s, he was working in theater and writing plays. But by 1969, the Communist regime had deemed him ``subversive,'' and his passport was confiscated. In 1977, he took the daring step of joining two others--Jan Patocka and Jiri Hajek--in becoming the first spokesmen for the newly established ``Charter 77'' movement. This group sought to compel the Czechoslovak Government to abide by the international human rights commitments it had freely undertaken, including the Helsinki Final Act. In the 1970s and 1980s, Vaclav Havel was repeatedly imprisoned because of his human rights work. His longest period of imprisonment was 4\1/2\ years, 1979-1983, for subversion. After this, Havel was given the opportunity to emigrate but, courageously, he chose to stay in Czechoslovakia. By February 1989, Havel had come to symbolize a growing human rights and democratic movement in Czechoslovakia and, that year, the Helsinki Commission nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Remarkably, in November 1989, the repressive machinery of the Communist regime--a regime that for five decades had persecuted and even murdered its own citizens--collapsed in what has come to be known as the ``Velvet Revolution.'' To understand just how repressive the former regime was--and therefore how stunning its seemingly sudden demise was--it may be instructive to recall the first measures of the post-Communist leadership, introduced in the heady days of late 1989 and early 1990. First and foremost, all known political prisoners were released. Marxism-Leninism was removed as a required course from all school curricula. Borders were opened for thousands of people who had previously been prohibited from traveling freely. Control over the People's Militia was transferred from the party to the Government. The Federal Assembly passed a resolution condemning the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia. Approximately 40 Ambassadors representing the Czechoslovak Communist regime were recalled. Newly appointed Foreign Minister Jiri Dienstbier announced that the ``temporary'' 1968 agreement allowing Soviet troops to remain in Czechoslovakia was invalid because it was agreed to under duress and that Soviet troops would withdraw from the country. The Politburo announced it would end the nomenklatura system of reserving certain jobs for party functionaries. The secret police was abolished. Alexander Dubcek, leader of the 1968 Prague Spring, was elected Chairman of the Federal Assembly on December 28 and, a day later, Vaclav Havel was voted to replace Gustav Husak. In February 1990, Vaclav Havel addressed a joint session of Congress. Charter 77 paved the way for all of these things, and more: for Czechoslovakia's first free and fair elections since 1946, for the normalization of trade relations between our two countries, and for the Czech Republic's accession to NATO. Not surprisingly, the work of Charter 77 continues to inspire, as is evidenced by the adoption of the name ``Charter 97'' by human rights activists in Belarus, who are still working to bring to their own country a measure of democracy and respect for human rights that Czechs have now enjoyed for some years. I am therefore pleased to recognize the 30th anniversary of the Charter 77 movement and to join others in honoring Vaclav Havel who remains, to this day, the conscience of the global community.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote the evening of March 5 on the confirmation of the nomination of Carl J. Artman, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior. 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. 59, on the confirmation of the nomination of Carl J. Artman, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior, I would have supported the confirmation of Mr. Artman. My vote would not have altered the outcome of this confirmation.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that on February 28, I was unable to vote on certain provisions of S.4, the Improving America's Security 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. 54, on the Inouye amendment No. 285, I would not have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the result of the final vote. Regarding vote No. 55, on the DeMint amendment No. 279 as modified, I would have voted in favor of this amendment. My vote would not have altered the result of the final vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue that is presently before this body--whether it will be here formally or not we will see--the issue of Iraq. I think it is critically important we discuss it. I am glad to see we are having private discussions about it, but I think it is time to engage. I want to say, as one who does not support the troop surge, I think it is important we have a full process. I think it is important we have a full process where amendments are allowed and where people are allowed to bring forward different ideas and thoughts. It is the key issue of our day. It is an important issue of our day. It is something that shouldn't be drug out, but I don't think asking for three, or four even, amendments to this resolution is something that would drag it out because that is what allows full discussion, and we certainly need a full discussion on the record on the ways forward. I think it is also appropriate for us to do that in light of the division of powers between the executive and legislative branches. The President is the Commander in Chief, and he or she must move forward in that capacity. We are the funding arm, the legislative body. We are entitled to put forward our ideas, but there is one Commander in Chief. I think it is important we have this discussion to put forward our ideas, but it needs to be a full discussion of the ideas. I would urge the Democratic leader, the majority leader, to bring this issue forward in a way that we could debate various options. I have been in this body certainly during debate on contentious issues wherein we are given different viewpoints to allow people to vote, and on one that is so important and so critical, I think it is important for us to have multiple viewpoints put forward. So even as one who does not support the troop surge, which I don't believe is the wise route to go, I believe this body should have options. I would not support a cloture motion that says we will only have one option to vote on. I don't think that is a fair or an appropriate process for this body to follow. I think it is important that we have a full debate on the full range of issues. My goodness, for us to take a couple of weeks to discuss this would not be inappropriate, given the importance and the magnitude and the seriousness of the moment. I support the troops. We all support the troops, and we need to support the troops in the field. That doesn't mean we can't have a debate, but it also doesn't mean we should be limited to just one thought that we can have to vote on. We should have a multiple set of ideas, fully vetted and fully discussed. As I have traveled across this country and in my home State, this is one subject about which people have a lot of different viewpoints and a lot of different ideas. Everybody supports the troops, but they may not agree with how the war is proceeding. They think there ought to be other tactics employed, and they want viewpoints expressed. I think that is fully appropriate. I think the President invites us to, in responsible ways, bring these ideas and viewpoints forward. But you don't do that with having just one viewpoint and that is it; one vote and you can't have an option; one proposal without amendments, when there is a full debate and discussion that is needed on this topic. So I want to voice my opinion on this issue; that is, I think the way forward is for us to engage in the full process that the Senate is fully capable of doing and desirous of doing. I think it would be important as well to our troops in the field to have a full debate on this topic. I hope that we do that, and we could start engaging in it now rather than putting it off and delaying it further.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on one other issue aside from the war effort, as that is the one that really needs to, and does, occupy our time. But a good friend of mine has just recently passed away, Congressman Charlie Norwood. Charlie and I came in together in the House of Representatives in the 1994 election cycle. He recently passed away due to complications in his liver from a long battle that he had with pulmonary fibrosis and the difficulties that he had. His legislative accomplishments are significant, and those are in the Record and well known. What I want to talk about is the person because he was a beautiful man. He served in Vietnam as a dentist. He had this beautiful, folksy way of presenting a tough topic. He would boil down the essence of a difficult topic in a folksy sentence or two, and you would listen to it and you would say: You know, I think that is about accurate. He could take difficult things and boil them down. He cared a lot about health care issues, and he worked a lot on health care issues. What I remember is a kindly gentleman who was very active and involved in the issues of the day and who cared about other people. He taught adult Sunday school classes. He worked as a small businessman. He was a dedicated public servant, even as he felt that the Government had grown too big and was taking over too much authority. It reminds me that, as we leave these places--and we all will--when you look back on it, there is a legislative career, and there are a number of legislative items that each of us are associated with, and the cares and concerns and the passions that we have of the day, but there is also a person who is there, and the soul and the character of that individual. In this case, Dr. Charlie Norwood had a beautiful soul. He was someone who touched people in a positive way. I am not sure you can say a lot more at the end of our days than that. Congressman Norwood is survived by his wife Gloria, sons Charles and Carlton Norwood, and grandchildren, all of Augusta. During his life, Norwood has served as a Member of Congress, longtime patients' and individual rights champion, dentist, Vietnam veteran, and small businessman. Norwood, a seven-term Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2007, served most of east Georgia at some point during his congressional career due to redistricting in 1996, 2002, and 2006. He won re-election every year since 1998 by landslide margins, and was elected to the 110th Congress in November by a 68 percent margin. His 10th District seat will be filled in a special election to be scheduled by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. Norwood achieved national recognition after introducing the first comprehensive managed health care reform legislation to Congress in 1995, which subsequently passed the House of Representatives in both 1999 and 2001. Norwood's Patient's Bill of Rights legislation became a key issue in the 2000 presidential election, and will likely be revived in the 110th Congress. Norwood was instrumental in health care reform for military retirees and veterans as well as patients-at-large. The former Army dentist was co-author of the Keep Our Promises to Military Retirees Act in 1999, which provided fully funded health care for life for the Nation's military retirees. The majority of the bill was enacted as part of the Defense Authorization Act of 2000. In addition to his longtime national advocacy for patients, Norwood succeeded in passing reforms across a broad range of public policy areas, spanning education, private property rights, telecommunications, and environmental regulations. Norwood is further recognized as the father of the Nation's current Class A broadcast television service, by authoring and passing into law the Community Broadcasting Protection Act in 1998. In congressional oversight action, Norwood played a key role in the 1996-1998 Teamster's investigation, the 1998-2002 investigations of theft and fraud at the U.S. Department of Education, and the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton in 1998. Norwood received a bachelor's degree from Georgia Southern University in Statesboro in 1964, and a doctorate in dental surgery from Georgetown University Dental School in Washington, DC, in 1967, where he was elected president of the Dental School Student Body in his senior year. He married the former Gloria Wilkinson of Valdosta in 1962 while attending Georgia Southern. After dental school, he volunteered for the U. S. Army and served as a captain in the Dental Corps from 1967 to 1969, beginning with an assignment to the U.S. Army Dental Corps at Sandia Army Base in Albuquerque, NM. In 1968 he was transferred to the Medical Battalion of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam, and served a combat tour at Quin Yon, An Khe, and LZ English at Bon Son. In recognition of his service under combat conditions, he was awarded the Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars. After Vietnam, he was assigned to the Dental Corps at Fort Gordon, GA, where he served until his discharge in 1969. Norwood was awarded the Association of the United States Army Cocklin Award in 1998, and was inducted into the Association's Audie Murphy Society in 1999. He remained a lifelong member of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Military Order of the World Wars. Dr. Norwood began private practice dentistry in Augusta immediately after his discharge. During his dental career, he served as president of the Georgia Dental Association and was a delegate to the American Dental Association. In addition to his dental practice, Norwood also founded Northwoods Nursery in Evans, providing trees and shrubs to wholesale outlets throughout the Central Savannah River Area, and Augusta Dental Laboratory, which manufactured dental devices for patients. He became a stalwart supporter of small business and property rights interests in Congress, receiving the 1995 Fighting Frosh award of the United States Business and Industrial Council, the Guardian of Senior's Rights Award of the 60 Plus Association, the Friend of the Family Award of the Christian Coalition, the Friend of the Taxpayer Award of Americans for Tax Reform, the Guardian of Small Business Award of the National Federation of Independent Business, the Spirit of Enterprise Award of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Thomas Jefferson Award of the U.S. Food Service Council, the Champion of Property Rights Award of the League of Private Property Owners, the Taxpayer's Hero Award of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the Taxpayer's Friend Award of National Taxpayers Union. Dr. Norwood and his wife Gloria were longtime members of and taught adult Sunday school at Trinity-on-the-Hill United Methodist Church in Augusta. He was also a past board member of the Augusta Opera Society and a member of the Augusta Symphony Guild.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Kansas Air National Guard, specifically the 190th Air Refueling Wing which celebrates its 50th anniversary on February 23, 2007. The enormous sacrifice and dedication of these heroic men and women reflects well on themselves, the 190th Air Refueling Wing, and the Kansas Air National Guard. They truly make all Kansans proud. This outstanding military organization began as the 117th Fighter- Interceptor Squadron located at the Hutchinson Naval Air Station in Hutchinson, KS. The unit was federally recognized on February 23, 1957. Over the course of its 50-year history, the 190th has flown the F-80, B-57A, B-57G, RB-57, EB-57, KC-135A, KC-135D, KC-135E and currently the KC-135R. The unit was stationed at Hutchinson Naval Air Station--later the Hutchinson Air National Guard Base--until 1967 when the unit was transferred to Forbes Air Force Base in Topeka, KS. The 190th Air Refueling Wing at Forbes Field continues to be a leader in the Air National Guard. The unit recently received two prestigious awards--the Spaatz trophy--awarded to the overall outstanding Air National Guard Flying Wing--and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award. We owe these brave servicemen, servicewomen, and their families a debt of gratitude. I thank them for their 50 years of service and extend my best wishes to them for the next 50 years and beyond.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, due to inclement weather resulting in flight delays around the country on February 13, I was regrettably unable to arrive in Washington before the Senate voted on the motion to invoke closure on H.J. Res. 20. Regarding vote No. 46, I would not have voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on H.J. Res. 20. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am very concerned that the continuing resolution does not adequately support our Armed Forces at this critical time. Our military commanders tell me that the resolution passed by the House of Representatives could deprive our bases of $3.1 billion of crucial Federal funding. I am particularly concerned about the nearly $375 million of BRAC funding that is supposed to go to Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley. As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, I support the Hutchinson-Inhofe amendment to reinstate the $3.1 billion for BRAC that will be lost in the current version of the continuing resolution. Several of Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth's projects are in jeopardy unless full funding is restored, including: the Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, the Battle Command Training Center at Fort Riley, the Child Development Center at Fort Riley, Fort Riley's Consolidated Soldier and Family Medical Clinic, Fort Riley runway improvements, phase I of the Combat Aviation Brigade complex, and the increment 2 of the First Division headquarters construction. Unless we correct this problem in the continuing resolution, it will have a domino effect on future BRAC funding, which will be detrimental to our operations around the world. Fort Riley is a good example. First Division soldiers from Fort Riley continue to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fort Riley trains the soldiers who will embed with both Afghan and Iraqi forces. Right now, Fort Riley has enough soldiers deployed overseas that it can manage base operations. But as one Fort Riley official put it a few weeks ago, world peace is Fort Riley's worst nightmare: if all the soldiers come home, there is no place to house them all. We need to fund BRAC priorities to stay on schedule and make sure the appropriations process in the Senate does not adversely affect the ability of our Armed Forces to execute their missions. We cannot afford to play games with military construction funds. We worked hard last year to write good legislation that funded key priorities. That funding should be restored. All of us come to the floor pledging to support the men and women of our Armed Forces. Our promises of support will ring hollow if we fail to turn our words into action. We need to restore full funding to military construction in this continuing resolution. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to address the body and my colleagues about Iraq, the complex situation that exists there today, the resolution we were not able to address on the floor this week. My hope is we will be able to address this resolution in the very near future. Iraq is one of the most important and, certainly, complex subjects we will ever debate on this floor. For example, there are some Members of this body who want to reduce this to an either/or decision: surge into Iraq or withdraw from it. But the issue cannot be discussed in such oversimplified terms, I do not believe. Our decisions, whatever they end up being, carry consequences far beyond the number of troops who are deployed within Iraq's borders. Those who favor a withdrawal or a phased withdrawal from Iraq must wholly appreciate those consequences. We have heard that withdrawal from Iraq would leave a safe haven for terrorists. That is almost certainly assured. We have heard that withdrawal would destabilize the region. That is certainly true as well. But a withdrawal is even worse than that. A cut-and-run strategy would set the stage for a regionwide conflict between gulf states, Arab countries, and Iran and its sphere of influence, and not just a regional war but a bigger one. Such a war would have enormous implications for the war on terrorism and stability around the world. We cannot withdraw from the Middle East and leave behind the kind of chaos in which al-Qaida thrives. If Arabs feel compelled to counter an Iranian threat, the governments are likely to become more radical, not more moderate. We recognized in the aftermath of September 11 that winning the war on terror requires the emergence of moderate governments across the Middle East. Withdrawing from Iraq would amount to pushing the governments of the region toward the arms of Islamist radicals and undermine the core of our counterterrorism strategy since 9/11. This is not the way to go. We must acknowledge that we cannot afford to lose in Iraq because such a loss would reverse the gains we have made in the war on terror and extend the war on terror for years to come. On the other hand, I am not convinced that a troop surge into Iraq will usher in the sort of peace we need to take the place of the consequences I have just discussed. I have no doubt our forces are capable of winning any and every individual battle in which they engage. I have been with the troops. I have been with the troops within the past month. They are strong. They are determined. They are courageous. And they are doing a fabulous job. I believe strongly they are capable of defeating the al-Qaida insurgency in Iraq and, as they have demonstrated recently, they are quite capable of defeating Iranian agents seeking to foment violence and instability inside of Iraq. What they cannot do, what our troops cannot do, is achieve a political solution between Iraq's sectarian groups. That is a political problem which requires a political solution. As I found out during my recent travels to Iraq, the sectarian violence is the overwhelming cause of Iraq's difficulties. Additional troops on the streets simply will not make Sunni and Shia trust each other. I say this with great respect to General Petraeus, who is a friend, whom we have confirmed to be the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. I met with General Petraeus several times during his tenure when he was commander at Fort Leavenworth in my home State of Kansas. He is a bright, articulate, and outstanding officer. I believe he is well qualified to take on this extraordinarily difficult assignment. I voted to confirm him because he is the right man for such a difficult position, and I wish him Godspeed. I understand there are different constitutional roles that must be played in the debate over our strategy in Iraq. The President has the responsibility as Commander in Chief to direct the Armed Forces. As part of that responsibility, he sent us a commander he believes will serve well under his overall direction, and I could not agree more. The Senate has the right, if it chooses, to express its opinion of the President's actions. And we do so. It is entirely possible for the Senate to express its disapproval of the President's strategy without taking steps to undermine the commander or the troops. I have indicated that I do not support the President's surge plan, but I did not attempt to undermine the Commander in Chief or our soldiers in the field by voting against General Petraeus, who is very well qualified for command, nor will I attempt or support efforts to undermine our troops by withdrawing their funding. This is the essence of disagreeing at home while being united overseas. A Senate debate over strategy is consistent with our constitutional roles to voice opinion and oversee the executive branch. Denying promotions of qualified leaders or cutting funding to the troops in the field would not only be inappropriate but irresponsible. Let me now turn to those things which I endorse wholeheartedly. First, I support our troops. They are brave, as I have stated, dedicated, and talented. They deserve not only our admiration and gratitude but our very best efforts to help them achieve their mission. And I support that mission. Our troops are vital to prevent the kind of regional instability I spoke of earlier. They are crucial to denying radical Islamic extremists a safe haven from which they can launch further attacks. They are essential to providing the training necessary for the Iraqi security forces to take charge of their own country's security. As I have said, we cannot afford to lose this fight. Iraq is the key front in the war on terrorism. We must remain in Iraq as long as it takes to ensure that Iraq can fend off external threats in a tough neighborhood as well as take full responsibility for its own internal security and prevent the establishment of terrorist safe havens within its territory. But I fully understand we cannot sustain this kind of long-term commitment in Iraq that will likely be necessary unless we have bipartisan support here at home. We must be united here if we are to achieve victory over there. This principle was at the foundation of the efforts of the Baker- Hamilton commission, which sought to bring people together on a way forward that could have broad support. I supported the commission's report as something we could rally around together. I do not agree with every part of that report. Some recommendations, such as those linking the Arab-Israeli conflict with the problems in Iraq, just do not seem to make sense to me. Neither a peace accord between Israel and Palestinians nor new arrangements in the Golan Heights will convince Iran or al-Qaida to get out of Iraq or end the sectarian violence. But I supported the overall report because it could have been something we could use to build bipartisan support for a new strategy in Iraq. If we cannot rally around that report, perhaps we can rally around a Senate resolution that can gain strong bipartisan support, uniting us here to win over there. Many of us have been working toward this goal. Many of us support a resolution or resolutions that provide responsible opposition to the surge. We do not want to see funds withdrawn from our troops, nor do we believe in withdrawing from Iraq. I hope the party now in the majority in this Chamber will articulate exactly what it can support. There has been a lot of discussion in the last several days about funding for our troops. I am concerned that already there are plans to use the supplemental and the regular appropriations process to restrict funding for operations in Iraq. Our troops face the threat of real casualties daily. They ought not be casualties of our debates on Iraq. I have indicated my support for the Warner resolution because it responsibly articulates an opposition to the surge while guaranteeing our troops in the field have the support they deserve from this body and from the American public. This is a responsible approach. I hope that whatever resolution reaches the floor includes a promise of support for our troops. I will not support proposals that do not include such provisions. We need this debate, and we need to vote on this. I believe there is a way we can come together across the aisle. I think we can be clear about our priorities. The first priority I think we can agree on is getting the Iraqis to work and agree on a political solution to the sectarian violence occurring between Sunnis and Shias. We must encourage the Iraqis to reach a political equilibrium, eliminating the motivation for sectarian strife. We should make sure Iraq's borders are secure. We should chase the foreign fighters out of Iraq and deny the terrorists safe haven. And we should limit the influence of Iran. I believe we can sustain this kind of military strategy for the necessary time to come, preserving our interests while we put pressure on Iraq's various groups to reach a political settlement. For this reason, I have indicated support for the resolution, as I stated, put forward by Senator Warner. I believe it is the most constrictive resolution we will consider. It outlines the importance of winning in Iraq, opposes the surge, offers reasonable political and military goals, and praises the efforts of our men and women in uniform. This resolution moves us toward the kind of consensus needed for success. Other proposals that fail to recognize the consequences of failure, that advocate a precipitous withdrawal, or that provide less than full support for our men and women in uniform, polarize, move us away from consensus and further from victory. Madam President, the Senate needs to express itself on the subject of Iraq. I hope we can get to a vote on a resolution that will have strong bipartisan support that achieves the goals I have outlined and sustains our commitments for as long as it takes to win in Iraq. We need to have an open process. We need to be able to vote on various resolutions. This is the most important issue facing our country. We should have a full, open debate and debate about it a long time and vote on several resolutions that people see as key. We need to address this, and we need to do it now. We can win. We must pull together. Madam President, I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I regret that on January 24, 30, and 31, I was unable to vote on certain provisions of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage 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 Senator, may know my position. Regarding vote No. 22, the motion to invoke cloture on the Gregg amendment (No. 101), I would have supported Senator Gregg's amendment and would have voted to bring debate to a close. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Regarding vote No. 23, the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 2, I would not have voted to invoke cloture on H.R. 2. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Regarding vote No. 34, the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus substitute amendment (No. 100), I would have supported ending the debate on the Baucus substitute amendment. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Regarding vote No. 37, on the motion to table the Kyl amendment (No. 209), I supported Amendment No. 209 from my colleague Senator Kyl and would have voted against the tabling motion. Regarding vote No. 38, I would have supported the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Kyl Amendment (No. 115) to the Baucus substitute amendment (No. 100) to H.R. 2. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Regarding vote No. 39, the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 2, as amended, I would have supported ending the debate on H.R. 2. My vote would not have altered the result of this motion. Madam President, I regret that I was unable to vote the afternoon of January 30 on the confirmation of the nomination of both Judge Lisa Godbey Wood and Judge Philip Gutierrez to be U.S. district judges. In neither case would my vote have altered the outcome of these confirmations; however, I wish to address these confirmations 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. 35, the confirmation vote on the nomination of Lisa Godbey Wood, of Georgia, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, Executive Calendar No. 6): I support the confirmation of Ms. Godbey Wood. Regarding vote No. 36, the confirmation vote on the nomination of Philip S. Gutierrez, of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California, Executive Calendar No. 7: I support the confirmation of Mr. Gutierrez.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote the evening of January 18 on a very significant amendment offered by my colleague from Utah. During consideration of S. 1 last week, I was concerned with section 220 of the bill, which would have severely undermined the ability of Americans to be informed about what is happening here in the Capitol and, thereby, to petition the Congress with their thoughts. I applaud Senator Bennett for offering his amendment to strike these so-called grassroots lobbying provisions from the ethics reform bill, and I thank Senate Republican Leader McConnell and Senator Bennett for their leadership in ensuring this amendment's success. I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted in favor of Senator Bennett's amendment No. 20 last Thursday night. Additionally, I applaud the Senate's careful consideration and passage of S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act. Although I was unable to attend the vote on final passage of S. 1, I support the bill and hope that a conference to resolve differences between the House and Senate passed bills is convened soon. Scandals involving lobbyists and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have shaken the American public's confidence in Congress's ability to do business objectively and judiciously. Although S. 1 fails to address transparency for so-called 527 organizations and fails to provide the President the authority to veto wasteful pork projects, passage of this bill is an important step toward broadening transparency in the legislative process, and I look forward to sending a balanced bill to the President's desk. I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted for the bill, just as I voted for a similar ethics reform bill on March 29, 2006.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. I am joined by 27 original cosponsors. After carefully reviewing the medical and ethical arguments that underpin this Act, I am convinced that my colleagues will agree that this legislation is pro-woman, pro-child, and pro-information. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is about empowering women with information and treating them as adults who are able to participate fully in the medical decision-making process. It is also about respecting and treating the unborn child more humanely. This legislation is, at heart, an informed consent bill which would do two simple things: first, this act would require abortion providers to present women seeking an abortion twenty or more weeks after fertilization with scientific information about what is known regarding the pain capacity of the unborn child inside of her womb. Second, should the woman desire to continue with the abortion after being presented with this information, the legislation calls for her to be given the opportunity to choose anesthesia for the unborn child in order to lessen its pain. No abortion procedures would be prohibited by the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. This is strictly an informed consent bill. I don't believe that anyone in this chamber thinks that any patient should ever be denied her right to all the information that is available on a surgery she or her child is about to undergo simply because the patient is pregnant. Providing a woman with medical and scientific information on the development of her unborn child and the pain the child will experience during an abortion will equip her to make an informed decision about how or if to proceed. Pregnant women must be treated as intelligent, mature human beings who are capable of understanding this information and making difficult choices. Due to amazing advances in medical technology, we have known for some time now that unborn children can and do respond to pain and to human touch in general. This is evidenced by anatomical, functional, physiological and behavioral indicators that are correlated with pain in children and adults. In light of this knowledge, when a child undergoes prenatal surgery in order to alleviate certain types of congenital hernias which can affect the child's liver and lungs or to correct prenatal heart failure, both the child and the mother are offered anesthesia as a matter of course. Certainly everyone would agree that, at the very least, abortion is a surgical procedure performed on the fetus. Why should the medical community be required to offer anesthesia to one 20- week-old unborn baby undergoing any other type of prenatal surgery, but not require it for another 20-week-old unborn baby who is undergoing the life-terminating surgery of an abortion? Are both babies not at the same stage of development with the same capacity for pain? Of course, this new scientific knowledge that unborn babies can experience pain is not news to most women. Any mother can tell you her unborn child can feel and respond to stimuli from outside the womb. Sometimes a voice or a sharp movement by the mother will cause the unborn child to stir. And usually, at some point in the late second trimester, even the father can feel and see the unborn child's movements. And if you push the unborn child's limb, the limb may push back. I have many fond memories of feeling my own children kick and move around inside my wife's womb. It was obvious to both of us that our children were very much alive. In the proposed legislation, we have settled on a 20-week benchmark because there is strong medical and scientific knowledge that unborn children feel and experience pain by 20 weeks after fertilization. Many scientists and anesthesiologists believe that unborn children actually feel pain weeks earlier, but we chose the 20 week benchmark as a point on which the most scientists and doctors can agree. We do know that unborn children at 20 weeks' gestation can not only feel, but that their ability to experience pain is heightened. The highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero from 20 to 30 weeks gestation. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act offers us a rare chance to transcend the traditional political boundaries on the abortion issue. It is a matter of human decency, access to information for women, and patients' rights. It is my hope that this bill will offer us a chance to work across political divides to forge new understandings in this chamber. I think that we can all support giving women more information when they are making life-altering decisions. In fact, according to a Wirthlin Worldwide poll conducted after the 2004 election, 75 percent of respondents favored ``laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion.'' During the 2006 elections, candidates from both sides of the aisle promised to support bipartisan solutions dealing with abortion, such as promoting adoption and passing parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions. Adoption and parental notification for minors are indeed issues on which I hope we can work together. Perhaps we can begin with this measure. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would provide a wonderful opportunity for us to affirm that the 110th Congress is pro-woman, pro-child, and pro-patient access to information.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. I am joined by 27 original cosponsors. After carefully reviewing the medical and ethical arguments that underpin this Act, I am convinced that my colleagues will agree that this legislation is pro-woman, pro-child, and pro-information. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is about empowering women with information and treating them as adults who are able to participate fully in the medical decision-making process. It is also about respecting and treating the unborn child more humanely. This legislation is, at heart, an informed consent bill which would do two simple things: first, this act would require abortion providers to present women seeking an abortion twenty or more weeks after fertilization with scientific information about what is known regarding the pain capacity of the unborn child inside of her womb. Second, should the woman desire to continue with the abortion after being presented with this information, the legislation calls for her to be given the opportunity to choose anesthesia for the unborn child in order to lessen its pain. No abortion procedures would be prohibited by the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. This is strictly an informed consent bill. I don't believe that anyone in this chamber thinks that any patient should ever be denied her right to all the information that is available on a surgery she or her child is about to undergo simply because the patient is pregnant. Providing a woman with medical and scientific information on the development of her unborn child and the pain the child will experience during an abortion will equip her to make an informed decision about how or if to proceed. Pregnant women must be treated as intelligent, mature human beings who are capable of understanding this information and making difficult choices. Due to amazing advances in medical technology, we have known for some time now that unborn children can and do respond to pain and to human touch in general. This is evidenced by anatomical, functional, physiological and behavioral indicators that are correlated with pain in children and adults. In light of this knowledge, when a child undergoes prenatal surgery in order to alleviate certain types of congenital hernias which can affect the child's liver and lungs or to correct prenatal heart failure, both the child and the mother are offered anesthesia as a matter of course. Certainly everyone would agree that, at the very least, abortion is a surgical procedure performed on the fetus. Why should the medical community be required to offer anesthesia to one 20- week-old unborn baby undergoing any other type of prenatal surgery, but not require it for another 20-week-old unborn baby who is undergoing the life-terminating surgery of an abortion? Are both babies not at the same stage of development with the same capacity for pain? Of course, this new scientific knowledge that unborn babies can experience pain is not news to most women. Any mother can tell you her unborn child can feel and respond to stimuli from outside the womb. Sometimes a voice or a sharp movement by the mother will cause the unborn child to stir. And usually, at some point in the late second trimester, even the father can feel and see the unborn child's movements. And if you push the unborn child's limb, the limb may push back. I have many fond memories of feeling my own children kick and move around inside my wife's womb. It was obvious to both of us that our children were very much alive. In the proposed legislation, we have settled on a 20-week benchmark because there is strong medical and scientific knowledge that unborn children feel and experience pain by 20 weeks after fertilization. Many scientists and anesthesiologists believe that unborn children actually feel pain weeks earlier, but we chose the 20 week benchmark as a point on which the most scientists and doctors can agree. We do know that unborn children at 20 weeks' gestation can not only feel, but that their ability to experience pain is heightened. The highest density of pain receptors per square inch of skin in human development occurs in utero from 20 to 30 weeks gestation. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act offers us a rare chance to transcend the traditional political boundaries on the abortion issue. It is a matter of human decency, access to information for women, and patients' rights. It is my hope that this bill will offer us a chance to work across political divides to forge new understandings in this chamber. I think that we can all support giving women more information when they are making life-altering decisions. In fact, according to a Wirthlin Worldwide poll conducted after the 2004 election, 75 percent of respondents favored ``laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion.'' During the 2006 elections, candidates from both sides of the aisle promised to support bipartisan solutions dealing with abortion, such as promoting adoption and passing parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions. Adoption and parental notification for minors are indeed issues on which I hope we can work together. Perhaps we can begin with this measure. The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would provide a wonderful opportunity for us to affirm that the 110th Congress is pro-woman, pro-child, and pro-patient access to information.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the leaders for the time this morning. I recently returned from a trip looking into what is taking place in the war on terrorism. I was in Afghanistan in Kabul and also went to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, had a brief meeting in Pakistan with our Ambassador and military leadership in Pakistan and also in Kuwait. I then went from there to Iraq. I was in Baghdad for a period of 24 hours plus. I went to Irbil in northern Iraq in the Kurdish region, met with Barzani, head of the Kurdish region, and traveled to Ethiopia to the current front, the expanded front in the war on terrorism, saw what the Ethiopians are doing in Somalia. I met with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, about what he is doing in Somalia. I had a very good meeting with him and also with our military commanders in that region, with the recent strikes we have done against terrorism in southern Somalia and work we have done with the Ethiopians. All of this was very informative. There is a mixture of news to report as to what is taking place in the war on terrorism. There are some very positive things happening, particularly the recent events in Somalia, what the Ethiopians are pushing for, and some very positive things happening in Afghanistan, some difficulties we are still having with Pakistani leadership going after some of the threats on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Northern Iraq is booming, the Kurdish area. Investment is flowing. There are cranes and people are building. Baghdad is in great difficulty. I, also, wish to talk about my suggestions for the route forward. I think the President, in his address, was saying he is proposing a route forward, and if others might oppose or have a different view, all I ask is that you put forward a proposal yourself. That is fair. That is what we ought to do. We are all in this, and we need to see the route forward. There is good news in Iraq, certainly. We have 140,000 of America's best and brightest working hard every day. I flew on troop transport planes in and out of various places with the troops and met and visited with them along the way. They are impressive. Their dedication and courage and commitment is impressive to feel. It is inspiring. It is inspiring to see. I have a niece and nephew who have signed up to join the Marines. So they are going into this as well. I am proud of them, as is the whole family. The irrepressible spirit of our soldiers--from new recruits to veterans of multiple--is inspiring. I even saw a father-son team from Kansas in Kuwait. They are enthusiastic, determined, and we depend on them for the success we will achieve in Iraq. I know firsthand it is not just a good sound bite to say we have the best Armed Forces in the world. There is simply no other place in the world that can boast of so many courageous, committed, and talented volunteers so willing to make sacrifices, whenever the country calls upon them. They continue to deserve our great respect and admiration for performing so ably under such difficult circumstances. And the circumstances are that. Baghdad still feels similar to an occupation zone. I was physically present in Baghdad for about 24 hours. It is hard to say that I saw the city. I left with an enduring image of concrete barriers and convoys of SUVs. I last visited Baghdad in March 2005. The environment is no better than it was at that period of time. Three mortar rounds exploded in the green zone while I was there meeting with the Iraqi Vice President. No one was harmed. They were launched from somewhere way out, but still they hit. It shows how insecure the city remains. We all wish the situation would get better, but I am particularly disappointed. I have had a long-term interest in Iraq. When I first came to the Senate in 1996, I served on the Foreign Relations Committee and chaired the Middle East Subcommittee that held some of the first hearings on what to do about Saddam Hussein's regime. I carried the Iraq Liberation Act on the floor of the Senate that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. I helped get the initial $100 million for the Iraqi National Congress. I, also, attended the first INC meeting with Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. We both went to New York City to meet with the opposition about what to do about Saddam Hussein. I, also, attended the first Iraqi National Congress meeting in London. I have been committed to a free, safe, and secure Iraq from the very beginning. During my meetings last week, I found less reason for optimism. Sunni leaders blame everything on the Shia, and the Shia leaders likewise blame everything on the Sunnis. The Kurdish leadership pointed out that the Sunnis and Shia only meet when the Kurds call the meeting. All of this suggests that, at the present time, the United States seems to care more about a peaceful Iraq than the Iraqis do. If that is the case, it is difficult to understand why more U.S. troops would make a difference. One other bright spot was my visit to the northern part of the country, the Kurdish region. The security situation is stable and business is booming, as some number of people moving out of Iraq are moving into northern Iraq into the Kurdish region. The Kurds are demonstrating what is possible for the rest of Iraq when violence recedes. The Kurds are pragmatic. They are worried about committing Kurdish forces to Baghdad. I asked Brazani, would he commit Kurdish forces for the peace in Baghdad? He declined to do so. They don't want to get caught in the middle of a sectarian fight. If Iraqi Kurds feel this way, why should we feel any differently? Simply put, the Iraqis have to resolve these sectarian differences. We cannot do it for them. This does not mean we should pull out of Iraq and leave behind a security vacuum or safe haven for terrorists. I do not support that alternative. It does mean that there must be a bipartisan agreement on our military commitment to Iraq. We cannot fight a war with the support of only one political party, and it does mean that the parties in Iraq--Sunni, Shia, and Kurds--must get to a political equilibrium. I think most people agree that a cut-and-run strategy does not serve our interests, nor those of the world, nor those of the region, nor those of the Iraqi people. So I invite my colleagues all around, particularly on the other side of the aisle, to indicate what level of commitment they can support. We need to come together in Congress, and as a nation, on a strategy that will make real progress in Iraq and gain as much support as possible from the American people. Only a broadly supported, bipartisan strategy will allow us to remain in Iraq for the length of time necessary to ensure regional stability and to defeat the terrorists. That is our objective. Make no mistake, we may need to be in Iraq for some period of time, as we are in Bosnia, as we were in Europe, as we still remain in Korea. Iraqis should patrol their own streets, but we must continue to hunt down the terrorists. We must balance the aggressive moves by Iran, operating inside of Iraq, which seeks to exploit Iraq for its own gain. These missions will take time to achieve on our part. It is vital we get a bipartisan way forward on Iraq as soon as possible. I invite people on the other side of the aisle to put forward their proposals. As we refine our military posture, we should also enlist the support of Iraq's neighbors, through a diplomatic initiative similar to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Although I don't support all of those initiatives, I thought they had some good ideas, particularly engaging Iraq's neighbors. Each of Iraq's neighbors can benefit from a peaceful Iraq, and they can assist us in reaching a political equilibrium among Iraq's various groups. These include Iran and Syria, which are clearly meddling in Iraq but whose cooperation will be necessary for any political solution in Iraq to be relevant for the long term. To be successful, such a diplomatic initiative will require a great amount of attention and hard work. Thus, I recommend Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney go to Iraq and practice shuttle diplomacy. They should lay the groundwork for a meeting of leaders from all three major Iraqi groups to take place outside of Iraq. This kind of a meeting could be similar to the Dayton Accords that helped resolve the conflict in Bosnia. It would allow for intense, sustained discussions aimed at a durable, long-term political settlement amongst the Iraqis. One potential political settlement could involve a three-State, one-country formula. Each of Iraq's major groups would have its own autonomous region with Baghdad as a federal city. Each group can manage its own affairs while preserving Iraq's territorial integrity. This is something the Iraqi Constitution allows, that the Kurdish people are practicing, and that the Iraqi leaders, I believe, should pursue to get to a political equilibrium. We have made our share of mistakes in Iraq. Still, we have invested the lives of more than 3,000 of our best and brightest for our Nation's future. The mission for which they died is not yet complete. We still need political equilibrium if we are to achieve a stable, united Iraq that can be an ally in the war on terrorism. We must win in Iraq, and we will. We must win for the future of the region and for the future of the world and for the future of Iraq. We must win for the future of America. That victory will require more than bullets; it will require political arrangements inside Iraq and around Iraq to end the sectarian violence and move toward a peaceful future for the Iraqi people and stability for the region. We are in a tough time, but I believe we have solutions that can work. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the contributions that the DC Commission for Women has made to the lives of the disenfranchised in our Nation's Capital. Of particular note has been the commission's focus on homeless women and children who are often forgotten and neglected in the District of Columbia. I am particularly pleased that the commission will serve as a partner in the ``big read'' program, sponsored by the national endowment for the arts. This program provides books for low-income ``at-risk'' children. The DC Commission for Women is also a national model for educating the public on domestic violence prevention and women's health and safety issues. My remarks are coming on the eve of Mayor Anthony Williams' transition from pubic service into private life. It is befitting that the commission is paying tribute to Mayor Williams' mother, Virginia E. Hayes Williams, a member of the commission and a strong advocate for children and women. It is not coincidental that the tribute will be held at the Saint Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church for Mrs. Williams, like Constantine the Great's mother, Helen, advised her son on religion and affairs of the state. I would also like to acknowledge the commission's chair, Dr. Christine M. Warnke, whose leadership has brought international resources and visibility to the commission. She has expanded the commission's programs and forged global partnerships which promote religious and cultural tolerance. As we move into the 110th Congress, I look forward to working with the Commission for Women on these important issues.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Indiana, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He has done an outstanding job. He has been a leader and a foreign policy voice on Capitol Hill. His leadership is measured, and he is very knowledgeable and quite good. I appreciate his wisdom, counsel, and leadership--and his leadership on this bill as well. I recognize my colleague from Virginia who has done an outstanding job for many years in many capacities on foreign relations. I know that he knows the issues on the United States-India relationship. Many people I have worked with on India have worked with the Senator from Virginia. I deeply appreciated his work, knowledge, interest, and passion on pushing these issues. It takes people such as that to build relationships. You have to always be pushing people together. I appreciate his willingness to do that. I rise in support of this bill. I rise, as my colleague from Virginia has done, in support of the bill but without debilitating killer amendments associated with it. I rise as someone who has chaired the South Asia subcommittee for a period of time and worked in building relationships with India. I rise as the Senator who carried the initial bill to allow the administration to lift sanctions against India when it tested nuclear weapons during the Clinton administration. It was a big brawl of discussion we had at that point in time. Let me take my colleagues back a little bit. That was the point in time when India was starting to shift away from its former focus on the Soviet Union, then Russia, and whether it was going to join the West and work with us. There was a big debate going on within Indian society as to whether they were going to pull along alongside the United States. It was a very heated debate, a very important discussion. It became the signature moment as to whether the United States would be a partner with India. You will recall that for many years the United States and India had what was best described as a prickly relationship. There was not an easy, favorable one even though the fundamentals underneath seemed like they were something that would be very good. India is equal. It has the largest democracy and we the oldest. We are the two largest democracies in the world. It would seem to be that this would be a very easy and logical relationship. Yet they had gone into the Soviet sphere. We had built more of a relationship with China than with India even though the fundamentals under India were much better for us than they were with China. There has been this separation and division for some period of time. India decided they needed to have a nuclear basis. They tested. Pakistan tested in response to that. We had a series of sanctions that immediately kicked in with that testing. Then our entire relationship with India was viewed through the nuclear nonproliferation issue. We had all these other issues that we needed to discuss--economics, spread of terrorism, a series of issues, human rights items. Everything went through the nonproliferation portal. If you couldn't clear it through, we wouldn't be able to develop the rest. Finally, we were able to provide the relationship, the administration, and the capacity to waive this series of sanctions. It was a difficult discussion and decision within the Congress. We were able to pass it through. Then let us get into a broader range--and the relationship flourished. It expanded enormously. Now I think we are at another step. This is another one of those key junctures in the relationship as to whether this was going be a true and budding and future-oriented relationship. That is whether we can enter into this agreement that we are discussing here today. This is being watched very carefully in India as being a key view as to what the United States is going to do in its ongoing relationship with India. I urge passage and strong support in building the fundamentals and strengthening a United States-India relationship. This agreement is not about sacrificing the nonproliferation regime on the altar of strategic cooperation. I want to emphasize that point. I think as people look at it, the initial question they would come up with is, I am fine with the strategic relationship; I will not sacrifice the nonproliferation issue. It is not about sacrificing that. It is about recognizing the reality of India's 30-year nuclear program. Engaged in peaceful civilian--as the chairman has said many times--nuclear cooperation with the world's largest democracy, securing commitments from India to implement the IAEA standard and safeguard and affirming India's longstanding commitment to democracy and its constructive role in shaping the world in decades ahead. There is an environmental angle on this as we look at India as being a key economy in growth. That growth is consuming much more energy. That energy is generally in the form of fossil fuels which release a lot more CO2. If we are concerned about the release and the impact and the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, one of the key things we should do from an environmental perspective is to engage in this agreement on civilian nuclear power. That is where we will reduce the CO2 loading into the atmosphere. From another nonstrategic, nonproliferation angle, from an environmental angle, this is a very positive agreement, a key agreement we can have with one of the fastest growing economies in the world that will be releasing a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere unless they use a great deal of nuclear capacity in building that energy system. Bringing India to the nonproliferation regime and forging a strategic partnership with the world's largest democracy makes America safer, as well. We have a common enemy in the war on terrorism around the world. India has been a key and strategic partner in their assistance in curbing the nuclear pursuits of Iran, a weaponized nuclear pursuit by Iran. We are getting help from India on that. We continue to work with Pakistan. As a number have pointed out, either implicitly or explicitly, it is a balancing issue, a balance-of-power issue with China. I know everyone in this Senate thinks about that, even if it is not expressed often, but it is key that we build this balance of power in our balance with India in this region of the world as a democracy, as a country that is with us in the fight on terrorism. India shares strategic interests; it also shares values. They have a commitment to democracy, with rules of law, transparency, a multireligious country. America and India, as I mentioned, are the world's two largest democracies, and India has had a functioning democracy for some period of time. Civilian nuclear cooperation is an important step in developing new and alternative energy sources. Comparison with Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs are misleading. There are strict measures taken to ensure our cooperation will only be with India's civilian nuclear program. They have proven to be trustworthy. There is still reason to believe North Korea and Iran are clearly pursuing these for nuclear weapons and for purposes against us, very threatening to us and our interests. We need to look at the nature of the regimes. India is a peaceful, stable democracy versus authoritarian in Iran and North Korea. Finally, this is just one of the key relationships at one of the key times. It is important we take the right steps during those points in time. I hope we have a very positive, robust debate and pass this bill by a very large margin, saying to the people of India and around the world: We are interested in partnering with you, we want to partner with you, we want to expand that partnership, and we see this as a key partnership for our future, for your future, and for global stability. Mr. President, I yield the floor.